OBADIAH, BOOK OF (עֹֽבַדְיָ֑ה, servant of Yah), the shortest OT book, stands fourth among the minor prophets in the MT, but fifth in the LXX. It is directed against the Edomites.
1. Background. The Edomites were descendants of Esau. Until the 5th cent., b.c. they lived S of the Dead Sea in an area approximately 100 m. by 50 m. Their fortified cities included Sela (Petra), Teman and Bozrah. Sela, located on an important caravan route, was almost impregnable. Its buildings were carved out of solid pink rock with cliffs of purple in the background (cf. G. L. Robinson, The Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization).
The Nabateans dislodged the Edomites from Petra before 312 b.c. The Edomites then settled in the Negev, and were driven out by Judas Macabaeus in 164 b.c. John Hyrcanus (134-104 b.c.) forced upon them Judaism, including circumcision and law observance. They became the NT Idumeans, of whom Herod the Great was the most infamous.
Enmity between the Hebrews and the Edomites dates back to the Exodus when the Edomites forbade the Israelites passage through their territory. The Edomites helped the Canaanites resist the Heb. conquest. David and Solomon finally subdued them. During Jehoram’s reign the Edomites won their independence, but were defeated in the days of Amaziah. They revolted again in the time of Ahaz. The deep-seated, persistent enmity between the Hebrews and the Edomites is seen in the fact that Edom is a cryptograph for Rome in the Talmud.
If the book is dated early, the events of the reign of Jehoram are the immediate background. If an exilic or later date is correct, then the events of 586 constitute the background.
2. Unity. Eichhorn first challenged the book’s unity, placing vv. 17-21 in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. Some 19th-cent. critical scholars denied the unity of the book, assigning vv. 1-9, 16a, 18, 19, 20b to a pre-exilic prophet, and vv. 10-14 and other fragments to the postexilic author (so Cornill, Kuenen, Cheyne). Bewer (ICC, p. 4) thinks the book has four sections: vv. 1-4, pre-exilic; 5-14, 15b from c. 450 b.c.; 15a, 16-18 from c. 350 b.c. when Edom occupied the Negev; and vv. 19-21 from the Maccabean period. T. H. Robinson (Introduction to Literature of the OT, p. 370) divides the book into seven oracles from the 6th to the 4th cent., b.c.
The most common division is twofold. This seems to have originated with Wellhausen who regarded vv. 15a, 16-21 as an appendix. Muilenberg makes essentially the same divisions as Wellhausen. He sets forth arguments against the unity of the book (IDB, III, p. 579). However, he does say that three items—the motif of the Day, Esau/Edom as a central concern, and the complete reversal of the situation—occur in both sections, so the book could be a unity. Paterson (Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets, p. 180) and Sandmel (Heb. Scriptures, p. 214), following Eissfeldt, arrive at the same twofold division. The second section often is considered as a later addition. Some contemporary writers as John A. Thompson (IB, IV, p. 859), Rudolph and Weiser hold the unity of the book with some reservations.
3. Authorship. Since the date of the book is disputed, it is impossible to fix its authorship. Obadiah was a common OT name, meaning “worshiper of Yahweh.” If the book is dated in the reign of Jehoram, the author may be the Obadiah of 2 Chronicles 17:7. He was sensitive to injustice done to his people. He flared out in violent indignation. He was willing to wait for God’s just retribution on Edom and the ultimate triumph of right.
4. Date. The date of Obadiah can be determined only when vv. 11-14 are related to a specific occasion in Heb. history. If the event was pre-exilic, then a date shortly after the event is given for the book. If the events are those of 586, then an exilic, or postexilic date is given to the book. The date has been widely debated; most conservative scholars (Caspari, Nagelsbach, Delitzsch, Keil, Orelli, Kirkpatrick, Pusey, et al.) favoring an early date. Beginning with Hitzig most critical scholars (Kuenen, Wellhausen, Nowack, Eichhorn, Ewald, Cornill, G. A. Smith, Cheyne, Emslie, Bewer, S. R. Driver) favored an exilic or postexilic date.
Criteria used in determining the date have included: (a) the book’s position in the canon. From this some argue for an early date, but others think it may be due simply to “word-binding” with Amos 9:12. The three groupings—postexilic Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; late 7th cent. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah; and 8th cent. Hosea, Amos and Micah—lend weight to the argument that Obadiah is early. (b) The identity of the events described in vv. 10-14. (c) The relation of Obadiah 1-9 to Jeremiah 49:7-22.
Of the numerous suggested dates, two are most commonly accepted. The first view identifies the events of vv. 11-14 with the invasion of Jerusalem by Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Jehoram (c. 844 b.c.) (2 Chron 21:16f.; 2 Kings 8:20). Conservative scholars upholding this date are Archer, Laetsch, Unger, E. J. Young. Some arguments in favor of this early date are: (a) the description does not mention a destruction of the Temple which was the grand tragedy of the 586 b.c. catastrophe. Laetsch and Archer say that the description of Obadiah has none of the features that distinguished the fall of Jerusalem in 586. (b) The absence of Aram. expressions is more appropriate to the 9th cent. than the 6th cent. (c) Implication of a recapture of the city. (d) Nations mentioned are not exilic neighbors, but earlier foes (e.g., Philistines). (e) It castigates the same sins as the 8th-cent. prophet Amos. (f) In the reoccupation the hill country of Judah is not mentioned, assuming it already was occupied.
The late date (sometime after 586) is advanced for the following reasons: (a) The events of vv. 11-14 fit most naturally into the destruction of Jerusalem. (b) The bitter hostility to Edom was prevalent at this time (Lam 4:21; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15; Ps 137:7). (c) The Philistine invasion of Jehoram’s day was prob. of minor importance. (d) The reference (v. 19) to possessing Ephraim and Samaria suits a late date better than an early date when Israel was in existence. (e) The possibility is open that both Obadiah and Jeremiah used an older source. Recent critical scholars favoring a late date include J. W. Myers, R. H. Pfeiffer, Bentzen, Harrelson, Weiser. Modern conservative scholars adopting the post-586 date include D. W. B. Robinson (NBC, p. 710), J. A. Thompson (NBD, p. 903), J. Lawrence Eason (New Bible Survey, p. 349).
Other suggested dates in the time of Amaziah; the reign of Ahaz (Raven and Davis); c. 450 b.c., (John A. Thompson, IB, VI, p. 857, also Pfeiffer, Sandmel); and c. 312 b.c. (Hitzig, Bentzen, Intro., II, p. 143, 144) have not found wide acceptance.
5. Occasion. When Jerusalem was plundered and sacked (either by Philistines or Babylonians), the Edomites took delight in its downfall, and shared in its plunder. They caught escaping Judeans, mistreated them, and sold them as slaves.
6. Purpose. The Book of Obadiah has a twofold purpose: (a) to delineate God’s judgment on Edom for its lack of brotherly concern for Judah, (b) to set forth the final triumph of right in the Day of the Lord.
7. Text. While Oesterly and Robinson (Intro...., p. 371) think the text of Obadiah is badly preserved, most scholars agree with Thompson (IB, VI, p. 859) that it is moderately well preserved. There may be difficulties in vv. 7, 19, 21.
8. Relationship to Jeremiah. There are clear evidences of some sort of literary relationship between Obadiah 1-9 and Jeremiah 49:7-16. Three theories have been advanced to explain that relationship. First, that Jeremiah borrowed from Obadiah, assuming an early date for Obadiah. This is supported by the fact that careful analysis of the vv. shows the variations in Jeremiah to contain typical Jeremianic expressions, while the common material does not. This would also suit the third possibility set forth below (cf. Muilenberg, IDB, III, p. 579). Second, that Obadiah borrowed from Jeremiah. This seems to have been advanced for a priori reasons, i.e., the events of Obadiah must refer to 586, and hence Obadiah lived later than Jeremiah. Bewer (ICC, p. 3) believes Obadiah 1-4 quotes Jeremiah plus some interpretations and paraphrase. Third, both used an earlier prophet’s oracle, with Obadiah reproducing it more literally than Jeremiah. J. H. Eaton (Obadiah..., p. 36) says, “It is not a matter of quoting from an older writer but of co-operation within a prophetic body to present the living Word of God in its current application.”
9. Content and outline. The central theme of the book is the utter destruction of Edom. Growing out of that theme is the eschatological message of Judah’s restored fortunes when the Day of the Lord arrives (vv. 15-21). Most students of the book divide it into three major sections:
10. Theology. Two teachings stand out in Obadiah. First, God’s moral judgment brings strict retribution (vv. 10, 15) even if evil is seemingly secure (v. 4). All nations who opposed Yahweh will fall. Second, there is an eschatological hope in the coming Day of the Lord. This includes Israel’s Golden Age (v. 17), and the establishment of Yahweh’s kingdom. The Day of the Lord motif, found in many prophets (Isa 2:6-22; Ezek 7; Joel 1:15-2:11; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph 1:7, 14-18) looks forward to the end of time and the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth. The universal nature of the Day is shown by v. 15. In the realm of ethics, Obadiah condemns ridicule, pride and materialism.
Bibliography J. Bewer, ICC, Obadiah and Joel (1911); C. Francisco, Introducing the OT (1950), 88-91; D. W. B. Robinson, “Obadiah,” NBC (1954), 710-713; J. A. Thompson and N. Langford, “Obadiah,” IB, VI (1956); T. Laetsch, Bible Commentary on the Minor Prophets (1956); D. W. B. Robinson, “Obadiah,” The Biblical Expositor, II (1960), 310-317; J. H. Eaton, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (1961), 35-48; J. Muilenberg, “Obadiah,” IDB, III (1962), 578, 579; G. Archer, SOTI (1964), 287-291.