Structure,Redaction and Significance in the Prophecy of Obadiah

1. Unity or Disparate Prophecies in Obadiah: A Brief Review of Research

The book of Obadiah is the shortest book of the Hebrew Bible, though as Mason noted, citing Jerome, ‘its difficulty is in inverse proportion to its length’. ¹ One of the central questions addressed by scholarly research is that of the book's composition and its development. Opinions on this topic are wide-ranging. Some see the 21 verses of the book as a collection of fragments; others view it as a cohesive work, authored by one hand at one time. In this article I will strive to demonstrate that the various phases of the book of Obadiah's compilation and the objective of its composition are comprehensible only through an approach that integrates historical research with literary-rhetorical analysis.

Robinson's position on the question of the book's composition is the most extreme. He viewed the book of Obadiah as a collection of seven fragments of diversely dated longer poems, defined by a common theme, namely Edom. ² Watts saw the book as an assortment of five oracles. ³ These research directions did not merit scholarly approbation.

Following Wellhausen, a bipartite division of Obadiah is widely endorsed by research, with vv. 1–14 and 15b constituting the first prophecy and vv. 15a and 16–21 the second. The first prophecy manifests a concrete historical background while the second is an eschatological oracle. ⁴ The division between the two segments is supported by the significant disparities between them. While the first prophecy, vv. 1–14 and 15b, generally addresses Edom in the second person, the second prophecy refers to Edom exclusively in the third person—in conjunction with all the nations—reserving the second person for Judah (v. 16). The most important distinction between the two prophecies is that the nations are the executors of God's judgment of Edom in the first, whereas the second includes Edom within ‘all nations’ upon whom ‘the day of the Lord’ shall come, and Israel is the implement though which God's judgment shall be enacted against the nations. Further noteworthy is that the first oracle's portrayal of the retribution against Edom lacks any mention of Judah, while in the second part the redemption of Israel is the ‘flip side of the coin’ of Edom's destruction in the framework of ‘the day of the Lord’. This distinction holds true regarding v. 15 as well: the first part of the verse discusses the judgment against all the nations, as do vv. 16–21, while v. 15's second segment addresses Edom in the second person, as do vv. 1–14. ⁵ These discrepancies brought most scholars who accept this division to the conclusion that these two prophecies were not composed by the same prophetic author. On the other hand, Rudolph and Weiser, who accept this division, contend that it does not preclude the possibility of uniform authorship of both prophecies, though they believe that vv. 19–21 were not written by Obadiah. ⁶

In contradistinction to those who contend that the book of Obadiah constitutes more than one prophetic unit, there are scholars who view the entire chapter as one literary unit. Allen was a proponent of the unitary nature of the book, stressing its theological backdrop. He argued that the author of Obadiah, similar to the author of the book of Lamentations, viewed the destruction as a consequence of God's wrath on the ‘day of the Lord’, but that God allowed the survival of a remnant of Israel in deference to their right to a capital city and a homeland; conversely, the nations who attacked Jerusalem would face retribution. Therefore, Allen asserts a natural progression throughout the book. The prophecy opens with an oracle concerning Edom's downfall and then proceeds to depict the crimes of Edom on the ‘day of the Lord’. Thereafter, the scope widens to portray the destruction of the nations and the rehabilitation of the nation of God. In the prophecy's second part too, Obadiah continues to emphasize Edom over the other nations. To corroborate the book's cohesion, certain scholars discerned structural phenomena that encompass all elements of the book. Allen also elucidated an affinity between the first and final verses (1 and 21) that forms an inclusio. The inversion of Israel's situation that is stressed at the conclusion of the prophecy (v. 21) reflects the manifestation of the mightiness of God's dominion, and this constitutes the concrete articulation of God's declaration at the outset, in v. 1. ⁷ Cogan tended to this view as well. He underscored the affinity between vv. 1 and 21, asserting that one theoretical framework embraces the entire book that opens with a call for war to be waged against Edom (v. 1) and concludes with an illustration of the judgment that will be meted out in Mount Esau. ⁸ Cogan also pointed out the literary device of interconnectedness between many of the chapter's verses. According to this structure, some sequential verses feature a common word. ⁹ Snyman attempted to prove that the book was deliberately redacted to accord with its overall chiastic structure. Though he admits the work's lack of cohesion, he would highlight the calculated outcome of the book. ¹⁰ Renkema too, in his comprehensive commentary on Obadiah, downplayed the importance of the divergences between the segments. ¹¹ Raabe, in his extensive exegesis in the Anchor Bible series, exposited the relationship between the two parts through the use of terms and concepts common to the chapter's various segments. ¹² Recently, Jenson has determined that the book should be read as a unified whole. ¹³

2. The Various Segments of the Book of Obadiah according to their Historical Background

Several of the assertions in support of the book's cohesiveness are unconvincing. The interconnectedness of the book's verses, suggested by Cogan, does not encompass all its components and pertains, at times, to shared words that are overly commonplace. Even the affinity between the first and final verses is quite general. Furthermore, the contention that the book should be read in its current form is not credible in this case. This is a cogent assertion in cases where the text at hand represents an obviously unified coherent unit, for example—a story with a defined, explicit plot whose final form, rather than the process of its formation, can constitute the subject of scholarly scrutiny. In our case, we lack primary information that would allow us to determine whether before us is one or several prophecies or a collection of prophecies; therefore, the very assertion of a final product that moreover should be read sequentially, demands substantiation. Despite the weakness of the various scholarly premises regarding the unity of the book of Obadiah, and notwithstanding the fact that the theoretical development within the book indicated by scholars is to some extent uneven, the movement within the chapter is unmistakably sequential. Evidently, the book, in its present form, was designed to be read consecutively as it lacks opening and concluding formulae. Even if we were to accept some of the claims advocating unity between the disparate segments of the book, the very significant discrepancies between the chapter's two sections reasonably support the assertion of the chapter not as one literary unit but as a composite of two prophetic units. It is difficult to fathom how in one unit of prophecy the nations will be God's emissaries that execute the judgment meted out to Edom, while in the same prophecy Edom stands accused alongside the other nations. Neither does the fact that Israel will take part in the judgment of the nations in the second part comport with its passive role in the first section. Therefore, I concur with the opinion first espoused by Wellhausen, of a distinction between vv. 15a and 16–21 and vv. 1–14 and 15b. ¹⁴ I also agree with Wellhausen's view that v. 15a depicts the ‘day of the Lord’ for all the nations and appertains to vv. 16–21, while v. 15b that addresses Edom in the second person, as do vv. 10–14, appertains to vv. 1–14. ¹⁵

Of the scholars who accepted this division, there were those who believed that the material should be attributed to additional authors. Many view vv. 19–21 in disassociation from vv. 15a and 16–18, due mainly to the fact that vv. 19–21 are written in prose while the rest of the chapter is in poetic form. ¹⁶ Rudolph and Wolff further assert that v. 20 assumes dispersion in the exile, a situation that is, in their view, incompatible with the foregoing verses’ eyewitness account of the destruction. However, Allen is correct in that Obadiah's witnessing of the destruction does not necessarily obviate his observation of the Jews’ dispersal in the exile at the end of the sixth century BCE. ¹⁷ The distinction between prose and poetry is likewise not sufficiently conclusive to establish diverse authorship of the verses. Contrary to this overworked assertion, there is no reason why one author cannot write poetry as well as prose. ¹⁸

While the division of vv. 15a and 16–21 into two oracles is not defensible in my view, I accept Sellin's division of vv. 1–14 and 15b into two separate oracles. He views the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE as the backdrop to vv. 10–14 and 15b, while vv. 1–9, which parallel Jeremiah 49, predate the destruction. ¹⁹ It is improbable that vv. 1–9, which criticize Edom for its pride alone, without relating in any way to the actual damage inflicted by Edom on Judah, were uttered after the destruction. ²⁰ This argument pertains to Jeremiah 49 as well. I therefore concur with scholars who maintain that this prophecy, in Jeremiah 49 as well as in Obadiah 1–9, reflects the pre-destruction period, predating allegations of Edomite complicity in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE. ²¹

In light of the above, it can be surmised that Obadiah, following the superscription ‘the vision of Obadiah’ (v. 1), is divisible into three separate oracles: the first part, vv. 1–9; the second part, vv. 10–14 and 15b; and the third part, vv. 15a and 16–21. ²² The three oracles indicate three time periods that, though proximate, manifest different historical features. Verses 1–9 reflect the pre-destruction period, the end of the sixth century BCE. Verses 10–14 and 15b indicate the events of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Presumably, they were composed during this time or shortly thereafter. Verses 15a and 16–21 reflect a slightly later period, during which neighbor nations of Judah appropriated various territories within Judah, and they articulate Jewish hopes of restoration to those areas. This oracle was apparently recorded in the post-exilic period, following the repatriation of Jews to Judah in the wake of the Edict of Cyrus. These Jews were distraught over the foreign encroachment into lands that were Judean before the destruction. ²³

Beyond the historical assertions underpinning this division, I will strive to provide substantive, thematic grounds for this tripartite division of the prophecies. Obadiah's topic is Edom's sins and its judgment. The three segments reflect three different grievances against Edom.

3. The Three Sins of Edom in the Book of Obadiah

Verses 1–9 elucidate Edom's sin and the consequent allotted judgment that is its due. The judgment according to these verses is the nations’ war against Edom (vv. 5–9)—the sin is more obscure. Many scholars believe that the judgment depicted in these verses is a consequence of the Edomites’ participation in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, elaborated in detail in vv. 10–14. ²⁴ It is more reasonable, however, that the sin of which Edom is accused in these verses is that of pride, and its judgment will be its downfall, according to the principle of lex talionis, ‘measure for measure’. ²⁵ The verses imply that the Edomites took special pride in two things, the first being their strength and fortifications that led them to imagine themselves impregnable to attack (v. 3). Furthermore, Edom is indicted on account of its pride in its wisdom (vv. 7b and 8b). The fact that many of the verses’ elaborations appear additionally in Jer. 49.7–22, serves as a basis for the perception that the indictment against Edom centers exclusively on its pride. The prophecy in Jeremiah defines no other charges against Edom other than its pride in its wisdom and military valor. ²⁶ Since these verses in Obadiah are but a different formulation of the prophecy in Jeremiah, there is room to extrapolate regarding the autonomy of the verses vis-à-vis the rest of the chapter in Obadiah too. ²⁷ In the same way that the prophecy in Jeremiah does not refer to Edomite participation in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and indeed precedes the events of the destruction, so vv. 1–9 in the prophecy of Obadiah depict the pre-destruction reality. Scrutiny of the oracle's contents corroborates this premise. A fundamental theme in these verses is the principle of ‘measure for measure’. Juxtaposed against Edom's pride (v. 3a), the prophet predicts its downfall (v. 2); against its conception of impregnability due to its lofty geographic setting, the prophet avows, in God's name, that it will be brought down low (v. 4). According to the principle that judgment is rendered ‘measure for measure’, we can infer that the sin addressed by the prophet in vv. 1–9 is the sin of pride.

The sin of arrogance, which furnishes grounds for Obadiah's indictment of Edom, is a known theme in biblical prophecy where it is reprised differently in a variety of contexts, vis-à-vis an assortment of nations. First, as already noted, this is the contention of Jer. 49.16 against Edom, in the prophecy analogous to Obadiah. In Isaiah 10, the prophet avows the destruction of Assyria on account of its two sins: its aspirations to destroy Judah and its pride (Isa. 10.12). Criticism of Assyria's pride appears too in Ezek. 31.3, 10. A range of prophets discussed the pride of other nations and their rulers: Moab (Isa. 16.6; 48.29), Babylon (Isa. 47.8), Tyre (Ezek. 28.2), Nineveh (Zeph. 2.15), Belshazzar (Dan. 5.23). At times, the nations’ arrogance concerns their military prowess (e.g. Isa. 10.13); at other times it is directed against the God of Israel (Isa. 10.11; 14.13–14). Wisdom can also be a basis for arrogance as demonstrated in Isa. 10.13 regarding Assyria that confronted the people of Israel and God. The charge of arrogance, directed at various nations, is related to the biblical conception of the absolute supremacy of God over humanity according to which human pride is perceived as opposition to the conception of God's supremacy. ²⁸

Edom's sin in the second part of the book, vv. 10–14 and 15b, is, in contradistinction to the sin of arrogance in vv. 1–9, its participation in the devastation of Jerusalem and Judah in 586 BCE. Ezekiel 25.12–14, Lam. 4.22, Psalm 137 and 1 Esd. 4.45 are all instructive regarding Edom's complicity in the ravaging of the city. ²⁹ Indeed, the second part of Obadiah evinces a second application of the principle of ‘measure for measure’. One of Edom's sins is ‘How could you stand at the passes, to cut down (‭תירכהל‬) its fugitives?’ (v. 14). In similar terms, Obadiah promises Edom: ‘and you shall perish (‭תךכנו‬) forever’. Assuming that v. 15b appertains to vv. 1–14, as proposed by numerous scholars, the conclusion of this segment perfectly encapsulates the ‘measure for measure’ principle: ‘As you did, so shall it be done to you; your conduct shall be requited’. This sentence is irrelevant to the first section of Obadiah, which does not elaborate the acts of the Edomites toward Judah but rather their self-conceit alone. Thus two different applications of the principle of ‘measure for measure’ are herein demonstrated: the humiliation of Edom as comeuppance for their pride in the first part, vv. 1–9, and a second application of this principle in the avowed ‘perishing’ of the Edomites in retaliation to their ‘cutting down’ the fugitives of Judah (v. 10). This sin of the Edomites toward Judah, their abetting of the attack on Judah in 586 BCE, is depicted exclusively in other sources, among them Ezek. 25.12–14.

The third part, vv. 15a and 16–21, continues the threat of retribution against Edom introduced by the second part (vv. 10–14 and 15b), though through a doubly modified perspective: first, the accused in this section are all the nations (vv. 15a, 16, 19b) alongside Edom (vv. 18, 19a, 21). The extension of culpability to all the nations elicits the expectation of treatment of their sin. Indeed, this treatment is reprised in v. 16, where the principle of ‘measure for measure’ is applied for the third time: ‘That same cup that you drank on my Holy Mount shall all nations drink evermore, drink till their speech grows thick, and they become as though they had never been’. The charge in the third part, however, is different. In this section, the main crime for which the prophet indicts Edom and the other nations is the appropriation of lands that belonged to Judah. ³⁰ The prophet describes the settlement of Edomites in the Negev ³¹ and the Philistines in the Shephelah (coastal strip). ³² In addition to the territories previously enumerated, the verse determines that the field of Shomron as well as Gilead will also be restored to Israel. Regarding Gilead, we are told that Benjamin will inherit it, though the verse does not specify from whom it will be repossessed. Does the prophet indicate Ammon or Moab? Neither does the verse inform us from whom the field of Shomron will be reclaimed, though it is apparently indicating, according to 2 Kings 17, the inhabitants exiled by Assyria from Babylon to this region. Indeed, there are attestations to the development and growth of the satrapy of Samaria from the late Iron Age III and the Achaemenid period. ³³ This situation will be reversed and Israel will reoccupy these lands, as proclaimed by v. 17: ‘The House of Jacob shall dispossess those who dispossessed them’. ³⁴ The indictment of the neighboring nations on account of their appropriation of Judean lands following the destruction applies explicitly to Edom and to additional unspecified peoples in Ezek. 36.5 and in Joel 4.2 and possibly in Joel 4.2. In Joel 4.4, the reproof is directed at Philistia, Tyre and Sidon.

This being the case, these verses introduce a third accusation against Edom—the appropriation of Judean lands following the destruction, one that is shared with other nations. As in many cases involving the application of the ‘measure for measure’ principle (e.g. Joel 4.8), here too Israel will be the one to exact retribution from the nations for what they had wrought. This principle, thrice articulated in Obadiah, is manifested here in the double use of the root ‭שדי: םהישדומ תא בקעי ינב ושדיו‬ (‘The House of Jacob shall dispossess those who dispossessed them’). The allegation that the nations appropriated Judah's patriarchal lands is an outcome of the occupation and destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and is dated later than the second prophecy.

Obadiah's message is thus composed of three disparate prophecies, each articulated in a different political reality. The first prophecy, vv. 1–9, conveys the indictment of Edom, prior to the destruction and before it struck at Judah during the events of 586 BCE. In this oracle, the prophet accuses Edom of pride. The second prophecy, vv. 10–14 and 15b, indicates Edom's actions during the destruction itself—its participation in the destruction of Jerusalem. The third prophecy reflects the post-destruction period, during which these nations encroached upon the lands that were Judah's before the destruction, from the south, west, north and east. ³⁵ The prophet formulates three separate accusations, each corresponding to a different time period: arrogance, the destruction and ruin of Jerusalem, and the appropriation of Judean land.

4. The Compilation of Obadiah

From a historical perspective, it should be stressed that the three oracles are not necessarily separated by lengthy periods of time. There is no reason not to assume that the first prophecy was written shortly before the destruction, the second prophecy during the event itself, and the third a few years thereafter. It is thus indeed possible that one author composed all three prophecies or that he wrote the last two, adopting the first from Jeremiah into his piece. The more interesting and important question is that of the literary affinity between the various oracles. Is Obadiah an assortment of oracles concerning Edom from different periods, or is it one work composed of three disparate oracles? As noted, the book contains no indications of opening or concluding passages between the three prophecies. That said, it is clear that the book was conceived in relation to three varying time periods with distinctive historical contexts. How then should the book's composition be explained?

I would hypothesize that the various segments were not written as three separate units but rather each segment was appended to its predecessor. Thus, the first prophecy was written first, before the destruction. Following the destruction, the author updated his work, appending the second prophecy, vv. 10–14 and 15b to vv. 1–9. Now Edom stood accused not only of arrogance but also of active action against Judah. Moreover, now it seems that Edom's arrogance has been articulated in practice, through its antagonistic behavior toward Judah during the destruction. Over time, the Edomites, in conjunction with other nations, gradually encroached upon Judean lands, adding, in the post-destruction era, an extra nuance to the charges against Edom, hitherto implicated in the destruction.

Before us, therefore, are diverse oracles written during several, closely related time periods. It appears to me that what is manifested here is an action of prophetic revision, in light of the diplomatic and political transitions that occurred. The second prophecy does not annul the first, nor does the third annul the second—instead it augments it. Thus, while the final product constitutes one work, this work was written in three different stages, having been twice updated in view of changed circumstances. This, on the one hand, explains the prophecy's cohesion, the shared formal characteristics, and the absence of the standard openings and conclusions that are qualities of prophetic units, while on the other hand, accounting for the explicit unevenness between the segments that reveal it as one work written in the course of three historical situations. The diverse historical backdrops rule in favor of a multi-phased composition, though the unity of the work is conveyed through the consistent use of the principle of ‘measure for measure’ in each of the three oracles. The prophet applies this principle in all three prophecies: in each prophecy, the prophet depicts a different sin of Edom and in each he methodically anticipates its judgment with an additional application of ‘measure for measure’.