The Intertextual Impact of Obadiah On TH

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 114

THE MASTER’S COLLEGE

THE INTERTEXTUAL IMPACT OF OBADIAH


ON THE WRITING PROPHETS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY


IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN THE DIVISION OF BIBLICAL STUDIES

BY DANIEL FORBES

SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA


DECEMBER 2014
Accepted by the Faculty of The Master’s College
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree
Master of Arts

_______________________________________
Adviser
ABSTRACT

Title: THE INTERTEXTUAL IMPACT OF OBADIAH


ON THE WRITING PROPHETS

Author: Daniel Forbes


Degree: Master of Arts
Date: December 1, 2014
Adviser: Dr. Abner Chou

In the last fifty years biblical studies has seen a spate of publications on the issue
of intertextuality, or the linguistic phenomenon whereby one biblical author quotes from,
alludes to, or draws on another biblical author in support of a particular point. I propose
that one of the books not frequently or adequately addressed in this discussion is Obadiah.
Although lacking in length, Obadiah forms a rich, intertextual base on which a number of
the writing prophets draw.
In this thesis, I will examine the intertextual impact Obadiah makes on the other
writing prophets. In my first chapter I will examine Obadiah by itself, providing a basic
introduction, translation, and commentary to the book. In the second chapter I will show
specific linguistic connections or allusions between Obadiah and some of the other
prophets. Finally, in chapter three I will point out the thematic coherence of Obadiah with
the other prophets. My goal for this thesis is that it might contribute to its readers’
appreciation of Obadiah as well as the impact it has on the rest of the prophetic corpus.

iv
DEDICATION

To my Lord Jesus Christ, who has saved me from my sins, lavished His mercies upon me,
and given me the strength and desire to study His Word.

To Abner Chou, my adviser: Thank you for your faithfulness to Christ and His church in
teaching your students the grand story of God, and for getting me excited about
intertextuality.

To my parents and Lydia Pillitiere, my proofreaders: Thank you for your feedback and
critique. This thesis is better for it. My love to you.

To my church, Iglesia Biblica Esperanza (Hope Bible Church): Muchas gracias por
permitirme enseñar el libro de Abdías y los otros profetas en estudios bíblicos y sermones
por el ultimo año (Thank you very much for allowing me to teach you the book of
Obadiah and the other prophets in Bible studies and sermons for the past year).

To my family and others who have supported my studies: I praise the Lord for your
partnership in these formative years.

Finally, to Dr. Steven W. Boyd and Dr. Paul R. Thorsell: My time under your tutelage
was too short. May your future students be as blessed by you as I have been.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... vii

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
The Need for this Thesis ................................................................................................. 1
A Brief Introduction to Intertextuality Research ............................................................ 3
Definitions and Limitations ............................................................................................ 4
Outline of the Study ........................................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY OF OBADIAH ............... 8
Introduction to Obadiah .................................................................................................. 8
Authorship................................................................................................................... 8
Date/Setting............................................................................................................... 12
Purpose...................................................................................................................... 16
Structure .................................................................................................................... 18
Translation and Commentary ........................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER TWO
ALLUSIONS TO OBADIAH IN THE WRITING PROHPETS ..................................... 35
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 35
Allusions in Joel............................................................................................................ 37
Allusions in Amos ........................................................................................................ 41
Allusions in Jeremiah.................................................................................................... 43
Allusions in Ezekiel ...................................................................................................... 47
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER THREE
THEMES OF OBADIAH IN THE WRITING PROPHETS............................................ 50
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 50
Edom in the Writing Prophets....................................................................................... 50
Edom as a Paradigm for the Nations......................................................................... 51
Edom as Israel’s Brother ........................................................................................... 64
The Day of Yhwh in the Writing Prophets ................................................................... 70
The Nearness of the Day of Yhwh ............................................................................ 71
The Cup of Wrath in the Day of Yhwh..................................................................... 75
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 78

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 80

APPENDIX
DATING THE PROPHETS ............................................................................................. 81

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 89

vi
ABBREVIATIONS
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
ABuG Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihre Geschichte
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed.
James B. Pritchard
ASJL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
AYB Anchor Yale Bible
AYBD The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman
b. Sanh. Sanhedrin (Babylonian Talmud)
b. Yoma. Yoma (Babylonian Talmud)
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt, Wilbur Gingrich,
Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer
BDB The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, ed.
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
BN Biblische Notizen
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BW The Biblical World
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CJ Concordia Journal
COS The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal
CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
CurTM Currents in Theology and Mission
DOL Day of Yhwh
EBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. David E. Garland and
Tremper Longman III
GKC Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, by Wilhelm Gesenius, ed. E.
Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley
GTJ Grace Theological Journal
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed.
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner
HMSOT Hearing the Message of Scripture: A Commentary on the Old
Testament
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IBHS Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, by Bruce K. Waltke and
M. O’Connor
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
J-M A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, by Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka

vii
JAAC Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near East Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
K&D Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch
LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott,
and Henry Stuart Jones
LXX Septuagint
MPEEC The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary,
ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey
MSJ The Master’s Seminary Journal
NAC New American Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &
Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren
NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary
OTL Old Testament Library
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series
ResQ Restoration Quarterly
RevExp Review and Expositor
SBJT Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLSymS SBL Symposium Series
SOTBT Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology
Tg. Targum
Them Themelios
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WEC Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
ZLTK Zeitschrift für die Lutherische Theologie und Kirche

viii
INTRODUCTION
The old adage, “dynamite comes in small packages,” is an appropriate remark to

make concerning Obadiah, the topic of this thesis. Obadiah is the smallest book in the

Old Testament; it contains only 291 words in Hebrew, only nineteen words more than

President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Yet like dynamite the shrapnel of his censure

against Edom, and of his encouragement to Judah to wait on Yhwh’s promise fulfillment,

extends to the end of the biblical canon. My goal is to examine the impact of Obadiah on

the writing prophets, or some of those more immediate shrapnel shards, in order to better

understand this contribution Obadiah makes to the Scriptures.

The Need for this Thesis

In one sense, Obadiah does not lack in intertextual studies because many scholars

have published on its relationship to Jeremiah 49 has.1 Others have explored Obadiah’s

relationship to Joel 3–4.2 Commentators consistently point out the connection between

1
Graham S. Ogden, “Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communal
Lament: The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7-22 and Obadiah,” JSOT 24 (1982): 89–97; Paul
R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 24D [New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1996], 22–31; Jörg Jeremias, “Zur Theologie Obadjas: die Auslegung von Jer 49,7-
16 durch Obadja,” in Die Unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien Zur Alttestamentlichen Prophetie;
Festschrift Für Arndt Meinhold, ed. Lux Rüdiger and Ernst-Joachim Waschke, ABuG 23 (Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006), 269–82; James D. Nogalski, “Not Just Another Nation: Obadiah’s
Placement in the Book of the Twelve,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve:
Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes, Historical Insights, BZAW 433, ed. Jakob Wöhrle,
James Nogalski, and Rainer Albertz (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 92–102; Daniel I. Block, Obadiah:
The Kingship Belongs to YHWH, HMSOT 27 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2013), 37–39.
2
Willis J. Beecher, “The Historical Situation in Joel and Obadiah,” JBL 8 (1888): 14–40; Graham
S. Ogden, “Joel 4 and Prophetic Responses to National Laments,” JSOT 26 (1983): 97–106.

1
2

Obadiah and the Jacob-Esau narratives in Genesis, as well as its affinities to passages in

Ezekiel, Psalms and Lamentations concerning Edom’s joy over the fall of Jerusalem.3

Finally, Obadiah and intertextuality are also treated within the broader discussion of “the

Twelve.”4 My thesis thus appears to offer nothing new.

On the other hand, however, I believe scholars have said little on the

intertextuality of Obadiah. Treatments of Obadiah with reference to Jeremiah 49 may be

accused of myopia, focusing on the verbal similarities and dissimilarities without asking

why they are similar or dissimilar, or of assuming the scholarly consensus on the

relationship. Commentary discussions on cross-references in Obadiah to the Jacob-

Esau/Israel-Edom relationship lack detail on Obadiah’s contribution to this theology.5

Obadiah’s correspondence to Ezekiel, Psalms and Lamentations is striking, but does

Obadiah actually address the fall of Jerusalem? And if it does, how does it address it?

Obadiah in “the Twelve” may be of interest to some, but cannot this discussion extend

3
Besides the commentaries, see Robert B. Robinson, “Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah,” JSOT
40 (1988): 83–97; Elie Assis, “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic
Sources,” VT 56, no. 1 (2006): 1–20; J. R. Bartlett, “Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.,” PEQ 114
(1982): 13–24.
4
This theory holds that the Minor Prophets should be read as twelve chapters of one book rather
than as twelve individual books. The theory has claims to support dating back to 200 B.C. (Sir 49:10), as
well as the Qumran evidence that the Minor Prophets together consistently occupied one scroll in antiquity
(on which see Russell Fuller, “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The Evidence from the
Judean Desert,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W.
Watts, ed. Paul R. House and James W. Watts, JSOTSup 235 [Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996], 86–101). One of the most influential contributors to this field is James Nogalski (see his Literary
Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217 [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993]; Redactional
Processes in the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 218 [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993]). Other important
works include Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve, JSOTSup 97 (Sheffield, UK: Almond Press, 1990);
Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve, SBLDS 149 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995);
James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, SBLSymS
15 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, eds., Thematic
Threads in the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 325 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003); Wöhrle, Nogalski, and
Albertz, eds., Perspectives. On intertextuality in the Twelve see James D. Nogalski, “Intertextuality and the
Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature, 102–24.
5
Raabe (Obadiah, 31–47, 56–60) and Block (Obadiah, 105–16) are two recent exceptions.
3

beyond its relationship to Amos 96 or to Malachi 1?7 Even more, can the theory of “the

Twelve” actually hold water? Some recent scholarship has answered this in the negative

(quite conclusively, in my estimation).8 In sum, I suggest that intertextual studies on

Obadiah to date have been too narrow or built upon tenuous theories. Hence, although my

thesis is not novel, it will fill a void in the current state of research.

A Brief Introduction to Intertextuality Research

Julia Kristeva coined the term “intertextuality” in her discussion of the works of

Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin.9 Bakhtin argues that literature is

made up of heteroglossia, various voices that join together in dialogue. According to

Bakhtin, this has the effect of making literature a reflex of culture, the net result of the

dialoguing voices.10 Kristeva extends this perspective to refer to not just voices or words

but texts; hence the term intertextuality: “… any text is constructed as a mosaic of

quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.”11

6
Nogalski, “Obadiah’s Placement,” 89–107.
7
Ruth Scoralick, “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on
Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis,” in Perspectives, 35–52.
8
See especially Ehud Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary
Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature, 125–56. Similarly Block, Obadiah, 21–22.
9
Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, ed. Leon S.
Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980).
10
“Heteroglossia, once incorporated into the novel … is another’s speech in another’s language,
serving to express authorial intentions but in a refracted way. Such speech constitutes a special type of
double-voiced discourse. It serves two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two
different intentions: the direct intention of the character who is speaking, and the refracted intention of the
author” (M. M. Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel,” in The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Michael Holquist,
trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1 [Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1981], 301–31 [quotation from 324]). Cf. Patricia Tull, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew
Scriptures,” CurBS 8 (2000): 68–70.
11
Kristeva, Desire, 66; cf. Tull, “Intertextuality,” 70–73. This notion has often engendered
discussion of whence derives the meaning of the text (author? text? text in dialogue? reader? reader in
dialogue with other texts? etc.). On this broader hermeneutical question, see James W. Voelz, “Multiple
4

The field of biblical studies has been blessed with a spike in publications on

intertextuality from theoretical and pragmatic perspectives in the last forty years. New

Testament scholars attempt to ascertain the meaning of quotations from and allusions to

the Old Testament,12 while Old Testament scholars find and discuss the same phenomena

within the Hebrew Bible itself.13 Hosts of articles are written each year discussing this or

that intertextual relationship.14 This has had the felicitous result of cross-pollination

between New Testament and Old Testament scholars and encouraging “exegetical” Bible

scholars to try their hand at theology.

Definitions and Limitations

However, since Kristeva coined the term there has been little agreement over its

meaning, or the meaning of other terms like quotation, allusion and theme.15 I do not

Signs, Levels of Meaning and Self as Text: Elements of Intertextuality,” Semeia 69/70 (1995): 149–64;
Timothy K. Beal, “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of
Production,” in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell,
LCBI (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 27–39; E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in
Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967).
12
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). One of the major questions in this area of study is
whether or not the New Testament authors interpreted their Old Testament correctly. Cf. G. K. Beale, “Did
Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the
Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method,” Them 14 (1989): 89–96; Richard N.
Longenecker, “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?” TynBul 21 (1970): 3–38.
13
For instance, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1988).
14
For instance, on the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 see Tracy Howard, “The Use of Hosea
11:1 in Matthew 2:14: An Alternative Solution,” BSac 143 (1986): 314–28; John H. Sailhamer, “Hosea
11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” WTJ 63 (2001): 87–96; Dan McCartney and Peter Enns, “Matthew and Hosea: A
Response to John Sailhamer,” WTJ 63 (2001): 97–105; Abner Chou, “Better than They Knew or Better
than We Give Them Credit for? Intertextuality, Prophetic Understanding/Exegesis, and Preaching” (paper
presented at the ETS Far West Regional Meeting, Sun Valley, CA, 2012), 11–16; G. K. Beale, “The Use of
Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: One More Time,” JETS 55, no. 4 (2012): 697–715.
15
Tull, “Intertextuality,” 59–60.
5

wish to argue for one definition or another here, but instead to define the terms as I will

use them here.

Prior to this, however, I wish to explain two limitations assumed in this study.

First of all, I will limit the meaning of “text” to written documents. Some may argue that

this limitation is inappropriate,16 but for our purposes it demarcates a reasonable,

workable data pool. To attempt a study of the influence of Obadiah on the latter prophets

personally is an impossibility given they are survived only by their writings. Furthermore,

to allow our definition of text to evolve into an amorphous category including unwritten

thoughts hinders potential for verification and quantification. In other words, to say that

any and every embodiment of language and communication, voiced or otherwise, is a

“text,” is to play at a zero-sum game. If everything is a text, then nothing is a text.

Second, I will limit my use of intertextual terminology to questions of diachronic

analysis. One of the debates in the field has to do with whether texts should be read

synchronically or diachronically, that is, with an eye toward the chronological

development of the texts’ theologies and ideologies (diachrony) or toward the biblical

text as a monolithic whole (synchrony). Some hold that diachronic analysis, as opposed

to synchronic analysis, is an exercise in futility.17 However it is recommended by three

factors. (1) In support of its possibility, texts are historical phenomena, and are thus

infused with features traceable over time. (2) In support of its profitability, even though

many of the books of the Bible are difficult to date, we may arrive at reasonable certainty

16
Kirsten Nielsen, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume, Oslo 1998, ed.
André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø, VTSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 17–19; Voelz, “Multiple Signs,” 150.
17
Lyle Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category,”
VT 42, no. 1 (1992): 47–58.
6

on most of them through comparisons with extrabiblical records, archaeological remains,

and the internal witness of the texts themselves. From the proposed chronological

schematic, then, we may offer diachronic intertextual comments that may not be 100%

certain but that are rewarding nevertheless. (3) In support of its preferability, it asks the

question of original authorial intent and submits its findings to the answer. Flattening the

biblical text into one singular document with no linear development, a la canonical

criticism,18 does not allow for the original authors to speak as they did, namely as people

in time writing words in time.19

We turn now to definitions for our study. Broadly, intertextuality is a linguistic

phenomenon in which two texts link to one another. It is linguistic because it has to do

with specific words and phrases, and it is a phenomenon because it is quantifiable and

verifiable.20 More specifically, in relation to the Bible, intertextuality has to do with the

use of earlier Scripture with attendant developments in later Scripture.21

Subordinate to intertextuality are the terms allusion and theme, also pertinent to

this thesis. Allusion is related to quotation, but differs slightly in that it does not utilize a

specific introductory formula; it is an “indirect reference” to anther document.22 Theme

has to do with specific ideas or motifs that the author utilizes that help to provide a sense

18
See especially Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979).
19
Against Eslinger and in favor of diachronic intertextuality, see Benjamin D. Sommer,
“Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 46, no. 4
(1996): 479–89.
20
Tull, “Intertextuality,” 59–60.
21
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 5–13; G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of
the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 1–27.
22
William Irwin, “What Is an Allusion?” JAAC 59, no. 3 (2001): 287–89; Gregory Machacek,
“Allusion,” PMLA 122, no. 2 (2007): 522–36.
7

of continuity to his or her writing. Themes may be broad, such as “covenant” in the Old

Testament, or specific, such as “seed” in the book of Genesis. In either case, theme is a

far more subjective category than allusion. It must be submitted to the same verification

processes, but with the acknowledgement that it cannot be held to them as strictly.23

Outline of the Study

In chapter one I will offer an introduction, translation and commentary of

Obadiah. Most importantly, in it I will defend the chronological priority of Obadiah, an

assumption undergirding my research. In chapter two I will detail specific allusions to

Obadiah, showing how the other prophets make utilize Obadiah’s text in specific,

linguistically verifiable ways to meet their current concerns. Lastly, in chapter three I will

outline two of the major themes that the writing prophets draw upon from Obadiah,

namely Edom and the Day of Yhwh.

23
For instance, many have noted the importance of vindication and righteousness in the book of
Job, but this is less so based on the vocabulary used as it is on the question of Job’s suffering and God’s
justice toward him (cf. E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight [London:
Thomas Nelson, 1967], cxxviii–cli). I will detail the verification processes used in this thesis more
specifically in chapters two and three.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY OF OBADIAH
This chapter consists of an introduction, translation and commentary for Obadiah,

the groundwork upon which I build the rest of my thesis. In the introduction I will

address the authorship, date/setting, purpose and structure of the book, and will divide the

subsequent translation and commentary according to the outlined subsections.

Introduction to Obadiah

Authorship

The first verse attributes this vision to one “Obadiah” (‫)ע ֹבַדְ י ָה‬,
ֽ which conjoins the

word “slave” (‫ )עבד‬with a shortened form of the name Yhwh; his name thus means,

“slave of Yhwh.” The name is very general; he could be anyone, so to speak. Several

other individuals are called “slave of Yhwh” in the Old Testament, most notably Moses.1

In 2 Kings 9:7 and (perhaps) 10:23, ‫ ֶעבֶד י ְהוָה‬appears as a technical term for a prophet.

These insights may suggest that from a biblical standpoint, Obadiah’s historical figure is

somewhat irrelevant. His name could be considered synonymous with “prophet”; He

follows in the train of Moses.2 This name supports the view that his writing is

foundational to the latter prophets, as will be argued below.

1
Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:1,13,15; 8:31,33; 11:12; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:4,5; 2 Kings
18:12; 2 Chronicles 1:3; 24:6. It is also a name given to Joshua (Josh 24:29; Judg 2:8), David (Ps 18:1;
36:1), and corporate Israel (Isa 42:19; 54:17; Ps 113:1; 134:1; 135:1).
2
David W. Baker suggests that the name could have been a title (Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, NIVAC
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2006], 146).

8
9

The Old Testament knows of other men named Obadiah, notably the attendant of

Ahab (1 Kgs 18:3–16), one of Jehoshaphat’s officials (2 Chr 17:7), and several

individuals during the post-exilic period (Ezra 8:9; Neh 10:5; 12:25).3 The rabbis and

Jerome held the first of these positions,4 and Franz Delitzsch the second,5 but most

commentators do not attempt any sort of identification due to the lack of conclusive

evidence. Many scholars dismiss the aforementioned opinions out of hand because of

their commitment to an exilic or post-exilic date for the book and to a general distrust in

attestations of authorship in the Talmud.6

I suggest, however, that the rabbinic traditions regarding the identity of Obadiah

might not be far from the truth. Dating from a few hundred years after Christ, and

reflecting traditions that have roots in the exilic period, they provide us with ancient

opinions that must be given a proper hearing. This is not to say that they are always

correct, but to dismiss the rabbis because they err sometimes is to dismiss some of the

oldest evidence—hardly good scholastic practice.7

3
The name also appears in the genealogical lists in 1 Chronicles (3:21; 7:3; 8:38; 9:16, 44; 12:9),
but dating these individuals with any level of certainty would require research beyond the scope of this
thesis. Suffice it to say that “Obadiah” was not an uncommon name, nor a name that appeared only during
certain periods of Israel’s history.
4
b. Sanh. 39b; b. Yoma 38b.
5
F. Delitzsch, “Wann Weissagte Obadja?,” ZLTK 12 (1851): 91–102.
6
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979),
898; Tremper III Longman and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 2006), 436; William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush,
Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 371; Mark F. Rooker, “The Book of Obadiah,” in The World and the Word:
An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti
(Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 439.
7
Then too, commentators widely agree with rabbinic tradition on the authorship of many books in
the Old Testament. A cursory reading of any Old Testament introduction will reveal many favorable
references to the famous tractate Baba Bathra, which records the authorship of Jeremiah, Kings,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Samuel, Chronicles, and others (see folio 15a).
10

Several other factors may also support this identification. For one, Obadiah 1

contains a plural verb (‫שׁ ַמעְנוּ‬


ָ ‫“[ שְׁמוּעָה‬a report we have heard”]), which suggests, barring

evidence to the contrary, that Obadiah was a member of a circle of prophets or at least

part of a larger prophetic community.8 In this light it is interesting to find him interacting

with a group of prophets in 1 Kings 18:3–4, whom he hides in a cave from Queen

Jezebel’s pogrom. This sympathy may be telling of a greater association between

Obadiah and the prophets of Yhwh than the narrator of Kings explicitly unveils.9

Second, the conversation between Obadiah and Elijah prior to “the battle of the

gods” on Mount Carmel likely took place in 857 B.C.10 Though there is nothing specific

in the text to tell us how old he was at this time,11 his position “over the house” of Ahab

(‫ ;עַל ַבּי ִת‬1 Kgs 18:3) was held by some young men, notably Joseph (Gen 39:4). Then too,

his deferential treatment of Elijah suggests he was the prophet’s inferior in age as well as

influence (1 Kgs 18:7). On balance, then, it is not unlikely that he was a young or middle-

aged man at the time of this encounter. This is important because we find a letter from

8
Carl E. Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:431. For a text-critical defense of this reading, see my
comments below. Although such groups existed at least until the years immediately preceding the fall of
Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:2; Jer 14:13–16; 23:9–40), some scholars consider this to be an older feature of
Israel’s prophetic traditions because of its prevalence in the days of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 18:3–4; 20:35;
2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1); cf. Menahem Haran, “From Early to Classical Prophecy:
Continuity and Change,” VT 27, no. 4 (1977): 385–88; Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets,
trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 15–18.
9
This sympathy is traced well in Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1996), 237–42.
10
Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (1987; repr., Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 346.
11
He intimates that he has “feared Yhwh” from his youth (‫) ִמנְּע ָֻרי‬, a phrase occurring most
frequently on the lips of the elderly or mature (e.g. Gen 46:34; 1 Sam 12:2; 17:33; 2 Sam 19:7). However,
the prophet Ezekiel uses it not long after his thirtieth birthday (Ezek 4:14), and it is used of mankind in
general with no respect to age (Gen 8:21). A famous New Testament example is that of the rich ruler (Mark
10:17–31; Matt 19:16–30; Luke 18:18–30), who claimed to have kept the commandments “from his youth”
(ἐκ νεότητος [cf. LXX 1 Kgs 18:12]). At the very least, we may say that this phrase may indicate old age on
the part of the speaker but not always.
11

Elijah appearing during the reign of King Jehoram (2 Chr 21:12–15), sandwiched

between the Chronicler’s account of Edom’s uprising against Judah (21:8–10) and a

small-time attack of the Philistines and Arabians on Jerusalem (21:16–17). If the elderly

Elijah lived another thirteen years until the fifth/sixth year of Jehoram, it is highly likely

that Obadiah did as well.12

Third, commentators recognize the importance of the theme of the remnant in

Obadiah 10–18, and particularly Obadiah 17.13 Although this concept appears early in the

Old Testament (e.g. Gen 7:23; 45:7; Exod 14:21–31; Deut 4:27; 28:62), it forms an

integral role of Elijah’s prophetic consciousness (1 Kgs 19:1–18). One could conceivably

argue that this, even over Mount Carmel, was the most significant event of his prophetic

career.14 Indeed, the ripple effect of this passage extends to the apostle Paul, who grounds

his understanding of the remnant of Israel in part on 1 Kings 19.15 It is possible, I would

argue, that the prophecy of Obadiah was influenced by the traditions surrounding Elijah

and the remnant of faithful worshippers he represented. Perhaps some of this

understanding bled over from Elijah onto Ahab’s vizier, who evinces more than a passing

knowledge of the prophet.

My goal in making these observations is not to say that I am certain the prophet

Obadiah was the same individual as the royal attendant Obadiah. My observations are

12
See again Merrill, Kingdom, 353–54.
13
Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:446; Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “‫פלט‬,” in NIDOTTE 3:620. The
word in Obad 17, ‫ ְפלֵיטָה‬, appears as the semantic equivalent of the more common ‫שׁ ֵא ִרית‬
ְ in Ezra 9:8–15.
14
Jeffrey J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East,
SOTBT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 245–49.
15
See Romans 11:1–6. For an extended discussion of this passage and its Old Testament
influences, see Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 667–69.
12

insufficient to prove this suggestion. But this identification is consistent with an early

date for the book, the most defensible position in my view, and deserves more

consideration than it is typically given.16

Date/Setting

By far, this question is the most hotly contested of any in scholarly discussions of

Obadiah. The major views are the following:

1. Pre-exilic (9th century), during the reign of King Jehoram and following

Edom’s rebellion and independence from Judah (2 Kgs 8:20–22; 2 Chr

21:8–17).

2. Early post-exilic (6th century), following the Babylonian destruction of

Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:1–21; 2 Chron 36:17–21; Ps 137).

3. Late post-exilic (5th century), before the Nabatean incursions and after the

Arabian infiltrations.

The final of these views, usually offered by older scholars like Julius Bewer,

stems either from unwillingness to accept the supernatural nature of biblical prophecy,17

or from the belief that Obadiah is narrative rather than prophecy. This view holds that

Obadiah comes from around the period of Malachi 1:2–5, which records the destruction

of Edom at the hand of the Nabateans.18 We may reject this view for two reasons. One,

16
See a similar position in Jeffrey J. Niehaus, “Obadiah,” in MPEEC 2:502–503.
17
Julius A. Bewer assigns Obadiah 12–14 to the early 6th century and the rest of the book to the
5th century, the former due to the prophet’s “first-hand knowledge” of the events surrounding the fall of
Jerusalem and the latter due to the book’s clear teaching on the fall of Edom (“A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Obadiah and Joel,” in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah,
Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1959], 6–9).
18
See Ralph L. Smith, Micah—Malachi, WBC 32 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 305–306;
Isaac Rabinowitz, “Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B.C.E. from a North-Arab Shrine in Egypt,”
JNES 15, no. 1 (1956): 1–9.
13

vaticinium ex eventu (“prophecy from the event”), as held by Bewer and others, is a

hermeneutical presupposition that does not allow the Bible to speak as a word from God

as it clearly claims to do (see 2 Tim 3:16–17). And two, even if this view is not based on

this presupposition, it dismisses Obadiah’s explicit claim to a visionary—and thus

prophetic—experience (‫ ;חֲזוֹן‬Obad 1).19 Hence, unless other evidence can be proffered for

this date, we should accept Obadiah’s (and the Bible’s) claims at face value.20

Presently, the second of these views is the consensus. In fact, some recent

commentators do not even offer an alternative to it.21 And to be sure, the evidence in its

favor appears to be weighty. The language of Edom’s attack seems far too strong for any

event save the Babylonian siege on Jerusalem. The captivity language of Obadiah 19–20

seems to suggest a time following 586 or at least following the fall of Samaria in 722.

The background for Edom’s backstabbing, described in Obadiah 10–14, may well be

events behind the scenes of the coalition Zedekiah called together (Jer 27:2–7).22 Finally,

other post-exilic texts like Psalm 137:7; Ezekiel 35:5–9; and Lamentations 4:21–22

portray the Edomites as actively involved in the attack on Jerusalem (cf. 1 Esdras 4:45).23

19
For comments on ‫חֲזוֹן‬, see below.
20
P. Kyle McCarter comes close when he suggests that Obad 6–7 points to consignment of
Edomite lands to foreigners (assuming the root ‫ זוּר‬for ‫) ָמזוֹר‬, which could only have happened during the 5th
century due to archaeological findings that demonstrate Arabian infiltration and Edomite expulsion
(“Obadiah 7 and the Fall of Edom,” BASOR 221 [1976]: 87–91). But his argument is based on textual
emendations that have little to commend them.
21
Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:425–26.
22
Note Jason C. Dykehouse, “An Historical Reconstruction of Edomite Treaty Betrayal in the
Sixth Century B.C.E. Based on Biblical, Epigraphic, and Archaeological Data” (PhD diss., Baylor
University, 2008).
23
Cf. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 146–48; Douglas Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco,
TX: Word Books, 1987), 403–404; Armerding, “Obadiah,” EBC 8:425–26; Leslie C. Allen, The Books of
Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976), 129–33; Graham S.
Ogden, “Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communal Lament: The Relationship of
14

Nevertheless, this view contains several difficulties. First of all, if the destruction

of Jerusalem and razing of the temple is in view, it is striking that Obadiah never actually

mentions either of these events. “Foreigners came to his gates” (‫שׁע ָָריו‬
ְ ‫[ נָכ ְִרים בָּאוּ‬Qere];

Obad 11), but the prophet says nothing more specifically regarding the state of the city

beyond this. This is an argument from silence to be sure, but the explicitness of the

aforementioned post-exilic imprecations on Edom seems to suggest that the importance

of the city, and especially the temple (see especially Ezek 35:10–15; Ps 137:7), could

hardly have been left out in the prophet’s oracle.24

Second, the argument that the language of this book only fits the violence of 586

is untenable. For one, the prophets elsewhere use strong language to condemn Edom for

relatively small attacks. Few would consider Amos 1:11–12 to contain a gentle rebuke,

and yet even fewer would contend that this text looks prophetically toward to the fall of

Jerusalem! The point Amos makes is that their transgressions against Israel are worthy of

punishment regardless of their relative severity. Thus we are not forced outright to

identify Edom’s actions with the Babylonian siege. Then too, we read that King Ahaz

called upon Assyria for assistance in the wake of another Edomite incursion in which

they “took captive captives” (‫שׁבִי‬


ֶ ‫ ; ַויִּשְׁבּוּ־‬2 Chr 28:17). The Chronicler appears

unconcerned that he is using language most often reserved for exilic contexts some years

prior to the fall of Samaria and Jerusalem.25 In conclusion, the biblical authors used

Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7-22 and Obadiah,” JSOT 24 (1982): 89–97; Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and
Jonah: A Commentary, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1986), 18–19.
24
Conrad Von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets, reprint ed. (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock,
1977), 157; F. Delitzsch, “Obadiah,” in K&D 10:230; Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, updated and rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 335.
25
‫ שׁבה‬appears also in Obadiah 11. Though some instances of this word occurs in discussions of
the fall of the Northern or Southern kingdoms (e.g. 1 Kgs 8:46–50; Isa 14:2; 61:1; Jer 13:17; Ezek 6:9; Ps
15

strong language even to describe small, territorial disputes and so-called captivity

language to describe the seizing of hostages in these disputes. Thus it is not necessary to

hold that Obadiah had in mind an event as calamitous as the fall of Jerusalem.

Third, we may ask to what extent Edom was involved in an attack on the

Jerusalem according to Obadiah, assuming that he has 586 in view. Read most naturally,

the prohibitions in Obadiah 12–14 are meant to keep Edom from committing future acts

against Jerusalem, not past ones.26 To avoid the difficulty these verses present to their

view, early post-exilic proponents take these imperatives stylistically,27 but this appears

to be special pleading. Obadiah 11 appears to be the only clear description of Edom’s

actions for the event in question, but all he says is that they “stood aloof” (‫) ֲעמָדְ ָ ִמנֶּגֶד‬, that

strangers (‫ ז ִָרים‬//‫ ) ְונָכ ְִרים‬plundered Jerusalem and came against its gates (‫שְׁבוֹת חֵילו‬, ‫בָּאוּ‬

ְ [Qere]), and that Edom was “like one of them” (‫)כְּאַחַד ֵמהֶם‬. This suggests Edom’s
‫שׁע ָָריו‬

sin at this time was that they did not help Judah in their time of need, rather than that they

were their actual aggressors. Stated differently, in Obadiah Edom’s sin was one of

omission rather than commission.28 Strictly speaking then, Obadiah never attributes the

137:3), it appears also in other contexts to refer to a more general seizure of prisoners of war (cf. Gen
14:14; Num 21:1; Judg 5:12; 1 Sam 30:3, 5; 2 Chr 25:12; David M. Howard Jr., “‫שׁבה‬,” in NIDOTTE 4:18–
19). Thus the argument that this must be the language of exile is an overstatement (implied in Allen, Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 155; Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 418–19).
26
Niehaus, “Obadiah,” in MPEEC 2:501. He also notes that, “If, as many observe, these verses
refer to Edom after the fall of Jerusalem, they would have been appropriate in Jeremiah 49” (emphasis
original). In other words, Jeremiah’s exclusion of these words argues for Obadiah’s priority because, given
Jeremiah’s writing after the fall of Jerusalem, these commands are no longer necessary. This argument is
interesting but secondary.
27
Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 181; Paul R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, AYB 24D (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 177; Thomas J.
Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 340–41.
28
Although it is possible that the kaf is merely emphatic, it is not likely in this case given the
sentence makes sense without appealing to this rarer, less determinable reading. “[In] practice it is difficult
to be sure when k is strictly emphatic” (IBHS §11.2.9c [204]).
16

attack of Jerusalem to Edom, but only claims their aloofness implicated them in the event.

Obadiah 12–14 thus constitutes a warning not to follow this example in the future. Hence,

we ought to look rather for an occasion in which Edom was guilty by association rather

than action—the very occasion we find in 2 Chronicles 21:8–17.

In light of the foregoing analysis, I believe that the pre-exilic date, specifically

during the reign of King Jehoram (ca. 845), has much to commend it. 2 Kings 8:20–22

and 2 Chronicles 21:8–17 offer the closest historical parallel to the details defined in

Obadiah. This position also makes excellent sense of the theological and didactic import

of the book, to which we now turn.

Purpose

Here we seek to answer two questions, namely, “Why did Obadiah write?” and

“Why does it matter?” The answer to the first question is twofold. First, Obadiah wrote to

pronounce judgment on Edom for throwing off Judean hegemony and for their role in the

Philistine-Arabian raid on Jerusalem. Second, he wrote to extend hope to the inhabitants

of the Southern Kingdom that their impotence was not owing to Yhwh’s unfaithfulness to

them. He had not forgotten them, and nor would he forget what Edom had done to them.

The answer to the second question traces back to Genesis.29 The rivalry between

Jacob and Esau, the ancestors of Israel and Edom, began in the womb of Rebekah and

continued into adulthood when Jacob stole Esau’s birthright and blessing (Gen 25:19–34;

27:1–46). In spite of Jacob’s improper jockeying for position—a character trait that

29
For what follows see Elie Assis, “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in
Prophetic Sources,” VT 56, no. 1 (2006): 1–20; idem., “From Adam to Esau and Israel: An Anti-Edomite
Ideology in 1 Chronicles 1,” VT 56, no. 3 (2006): 287–302; John R. Bartlett, “Edom (Place),” in AYBD
2:287–95; idem., “The Brotherhood of Edom,” JSOT 4 (1977): 2–27; Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother
and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story, JSOTSup 169 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994).
17

weaves through the rest of his life (Gen 30:25–43; 32:22–32)—Yhwh had predetermined

that “the older would serve the younger” (Gen 25:23). Then too, this conflict took part in

a larger complex of patriarchal promises regarding Yhwh’s ultimate assignment of Israel

as the ruler of the nations surrounding him (Gen 22:15–18; 28:10–15). Hence, the “bad

blood” between Israel and Edom began early, and their relationship from the beginning

served as a microcosm of Israel’s relationship with enemy nations.30

This conflict continued into the time of the exodus. The song of Moses and

Miriam speaks of Edom’s dismay over Israel’s salvation at the Red Sea, for Yhwh used

this event to pave their way toward the eventual conquest of Canaan (Exod 15:14–18). In

the wilderness wanderings, Edom denies Israel passage through his territory in spite of

their ancestral brotherhood and Israel’s promise not to use any of his resources (Num

20:14–21; cf. Deut 2:4–5; 23:7; Judg 11:17–18). This event turns out to be a catalyst for

the plague of serpents Yhwh sent against the people for their murmuring and impatience

(Num 21:4–9). No doubt due to these events in part, the pagan prophet Balaam predicts

the fall of Edom in his final oracle of blessing (Num 24:15–19).

In the monarchial period, Saul fought against Edom (1 Sam 14:47) and King

David made him a vassal-state after a massive victory in the Valley of Salt (2 Sam 8:14;

Ps 60:1–14). The end of Solomon’s reign saw adversity at the hand of Hadad the

Edomite, who had sought asylum in Egypt following escape from David and Joab’s

massacre (1 Kgs 11:14–22). Judah and Edom formed a coalition with Israel to fight

against Mesha of Moab (2 Kgs 3:4–27). And during the reign of Jehoram in the 840s, the

Sitz im Leben for Obadiah, Edom rebelled and became an independent nation under his

own king (2 Kgs 8:20–22; 2 Chr 21:8–10; cf. Gen 27:40).


30
See Marten H. Woudstra, “Edom and Israel in Ezekiel,” CTJ 3, no. 1 (1968): 26–28.
18

The prophet looks back on this history and assimilates it into his malediction.

Edom should have respected the roots in Isaac they shared with Israel (Obad 10–14).

Further, they should have submitted to God’s plan for Israel’s exaltation, and thus their

subordination to Jacob, for blessing lay therein (cf. Gen 12:1–3). Obadiah thereby

affirms both the retribution Edom deserved and Yhwh’s choice of Israel.

Structure

Commentators are divided on Obadiah’s structure.31 Some, arguing that the book

is a compilation of various sources, strike the second half of verse 15 from its position

and append it to verse 14.32 I side with most commentators in seeing the book as an

essential unity and originally delivered in its present form.33 Within this position there is

some divergence of opinion on subsections, particularly with respect to verses 17–18, but

Obadiah has provided us what I believe to be very clear “paragraph” markers.

‫ חֲזוֹן עֹבַדְ י ָה‬is the book’s superscription. Verse 1 is set off from verses 2–9 by the

use of the imperative and first person cohortative verbs, suggesting a shift in speaker.

Verses 2–4 begin with ‫ ִהנֵּה‬and end with a divinely declarative sentence, ‫נְאֻם־י ְהוָה‬, which

often functions as a “closing formula” in prophetic literature.34 Verses 5–7 are linked

thematically with their singular treatment of Edom’s utter destruction and are bracketed

31
For an older view that excises much of the text, see John M. P. Smith, “The Structure of
Obadiah,” ASJL 22, no. 2 (1906): 131–38.
32
For instance, Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, 37.
33
Raabe, Obadiah, 14–22; Niehaus, “Obadiah,” in MPEEC 2:506–507; Block, Obadiah, 42–46.
34
‫ ִהנֵּה‬occurs only here in Obadiah in spite of its extreme frequency in the rest of the Hebrew
Bible, which makes it unique and all the more striking. However, “the closure may be slight” depending on
context, as it seems to be here (IBHS §40.2.3a [681]).
19

by occurrences of ‫נְאֻם־י ְהוָה‬.35 Verses 8–9 begin with ‫הֲלוֹא בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא‬, an additional temporal

marker and a rhetorical question, and hinge with the closing note of v. 7 (‫)תְּ בוּנָה‬.

Verse 10 begins a new section outlining the reason for Edom’s defeat (causal ‫)מִן‬,

which hinges with the final word of verse 9 through the repetition of the preposition ‫מִן‬.

Verse 11 ties to verse 10 thematically, as a further description of the violence (‫ ) ֲחמַס‬Edom

had committed, and then prepares for verses 12–14 with by its usage of “on the day”

(‫)בְּיוֹם‬, a phrase that occurs in each of the subsequent verses.36 Finally, verses 12–14 are

bound by the eight repetitions of ‫ אַל‬+ 2nd person jussives.

Verses 15–21 are set off by the causal particle ‫ כִּי‬and the “day” Yhwh brings to

match the “day” of His people’s distress and defeat. ‫ כִּי‬is repeated in verse 16 as an

epexegesis of the final clause of verse 15. Verses 17–21 begin with a disjunctive waw and

are tied together by the theme of “possession.” Divided in this way, my outline for

Obadiah may be laid out:

1. The End of Edom Expected (1–9)


A. Obadiah’s Vision (1)
B. The Presumption of Edom’s Perch (2–4)
C. Destruction and Double-Cross (5–7)
D. Sages and Strongmen Will Perish (8–9)
2. The End of Edom Explained (10–14)
A. Violence by Proxy Is Still Violence (10–11)
B. Broken Admonitions Against a Brother (12–14)
3. The End of Edom Expanded (15–21)
A. Defining the Day of Jehovah (15–16)
B. Emancipation and Repossession in the Day of Jehovah (17–21)37

35
Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:437.
36
This is not to say Obadiah 11 and 12–14 deal with the same day, but only that they use similar
terminology—terminology that argues for a sense of parallelism or similarity between the two days.
37
For similar headings and verse divisions, see Irvin Busenitz, Joel and Obadiah, Mentor
Commentary (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2003).
20

Translation and Commentary

Edom’s End Expected (1–9)

‫שׁ ָ֔לּח ֛קוּמוּ ְונ ָ֥קוּמָה ע ֶָל֖י ָה‬ ָ ‫ חֲז֖ וֹן ֽע ֹבַדְ ָי֑ה כֹּֽה־אָ ַמ ֩ר אֲד ָֹ֨ני י ְה ֜ ִוה ֶלא ֱ֗דוֹם שְׁמוּ ָ֨עה‬1
ֻ ‫שׁ ַ֜מעְנוּ מ ֵ ֵ֤את י ְהוָה֙ ְוצִי ֙ר בַּגּוֹ ִי֣ם‬
‫ַל ִמּ ְלחָמָ ֽה׃‬
(1)
Obadiah’s vision: Thus says the Lord Yhwh concerning38 Edom, “A report we39 have
heard from YHWH, and a messenger was sent [with it] among the nations [saying], “Let
us arise quickly40 against her for battle!”

This verse sets the stage for everything to follow. It provides the poem’s

character (“vision of Obadiah”), contents (“concerning Edom … a report … from

Yhwh”), and charter (“let us arise quickly against her for war”). With this verse, we may

summarize the prophecy as follows: Obadiah’s vision of a future war against Edom that

Yhwh oversees.41

The word ‫ חֲזוֹן‬is used to introduce only Obadiah, Isaiah, and Nahum, although

other prophetic visions use the verbal form ‫( ָחזָה‬Dan 8:1; [similarly] Amos 1:1; Mic 1:1;

Hab 1:1). It refers to a revelation from God granted to one God has appointed to receive

it, and more specifically to a genre within the prophetic literature.42 That the message

38
Baker notes that the lamed here, in every other similar construction, refers to the indirect object
of the message (i.e. the recipient) rather than the contents of the message (Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 162–63;
cf. Gen 32:4; 2 Chr 20:15; Isa 45:1), which makes sense of Obadiah’s direct speech to Edom throughout
the book. Armerding cautions this reading, however, saying it can only be speculation whether or not this
message was actually delivered to Edom (“Obadiah,” EBC 8:427). Thus I have translated “concerning” (cf.
Jer 46:2; 49:1). See Billy K. Smith, “Obadiah,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, by Billy K. Smith and Frank S.
Page, NAC 19B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 180.
39
The LXX has the singular ἤκουσα, but the plural is the lectio difficilior and finds support in in
the Vulgate (audivimus) and Tg. Jonathan (‫ש ַמענָא‬
ְ ).
40
‫ קוּמוּ‬is an idiomatic command to do something quickly or to begin to do it (cf. Gen 19:14–15;
Jon 1:2; Elmer Martens, “‫קוּם‬,” in NIDOTTE 3:900; HALOT 3:1086). This is the best translation of the
phrase, as a double translation of ‫“( קוּם‬arise, let us arise”) makes little sense. See J-M §105e (324).
41
Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah, BZAW 242 (Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1996), 150–51; Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:431–32.
42
Jackie A. Naudé, “‫ ָחז ָה‬,” in NIDOTTE 2:58; Robert D. Culver, “‫ ָחז ָה‬,” in TWOT 1:274–75.
21

(‫ )שְׁמוּעָה‬comes from “the Lord Yhwh” (‫ )אֲדֹנָי י ְהוִה‬underscores the authority behind it.43 To

describe the individual carrying the battle summons, the infrequent word ‫ צִיר‬is used most

likely for stylistic purposes, namely wordplay with ‫שׂעִיר‬


ֵ —Esau’s physical feature and the

name of the hill country he settled (cf. Gen 27:11, 23; 36:8, 9).44 The conjunction of an

imperative with a cohortative, literally “arise, let us arise” (‫)קוּמוּ ְונָקוּמָה‬, underscores the

earnestness behind the summons.45

‫ הִנֵּ ֥ה ק ָ֛ט ֹן נְתַ ִ ֖תּיָ בַּגּוֹ ִי֑ם ָבּז֥וּי א ָ ַ֖תּה מְאֹֽד׃‬2


‫יוֹר ֵ ֖דנִי אָ ֶֽרץ׃‬
ִ ‫ְתּוֹ א ֵ ֹ֣מר ְבּל ִ֔בּ ֹו ִמ֥י‬֑ ‫שׁב‬
ִ ‫ֵי־סּלַע מ ְ֣רוֹם‬֖ ֶ ‫ ז ְ֤דוֹן ִל ְבּ ָ֙ ִהשִּׁי ֶ֔אָ שׁ ֹ ְכ ִנ֥י ְב ַחגְו‬3
‫אוֹרידְ ָ֖ נְאֻם־י ְהוָ ֽה׃‬ֽ ִ ‫ִשּׁם‬ ֥ ָ ‫ אִם־תַּ ג ִ ְ֣בּי ַהּ ַכּ ֶ֔נּשֶׁר ְואִם־בֵּ ֥ין כּֽוֹכ ִ ָ֖בים ִ ֣שׂים ק ִֶנָּ֑ מ‬4
(2)
Behold, small46 I will make you among the nations. Greatly despised are you! (3) Your
presumptuous heart has deceived you, you who dwell in the rocky clefts, whose47 seat is
on high, who says in his heart, “Who will bring me down to earth?” (4) “Even though you
exalt yourself48 like the eagle, and though you set your nest among the stars, from there I
will bring you down,” says Yhwh.

43
“The Hebrew expression ‘the Lord Jehovah’ emphasizes the divine authority over the peoples
and kings of the earth. It is supreme majesty which speaks over Edom, a people not recognized as the
people of God, but over which Jehovah also has authority” (César Carhuachín and Mario Martínez,
“Abdías,” in Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano, 24 vols. [El Paso, TX: Editorial Mundo Hispano, 2003],
13:159 [my translation]).
44
Wordplay is one of Obadiah’s favorite linguistic tools, as we will see below. It is possible that
this reference to a messenger could also connect Obadiah to a prophetic school, as we have already
suggested may have been the case (thus Carhuachín and Martínez, “Abdias,” in Comentario 13:159; see
again Haran, “Prophecy,” 385–97). On the other hand, it could be a reference to an angelic messenger from
the divine council (Paul R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB
24D [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996], 113–16; Daniel I. Block, Obadiah: The Kingship
Belongs to YHWH, HMSOT 27 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2013], 53). Perhaps it is best to
remain undecided on this point, for it may very likely be that the prophet means to underscore both divine
origin and human conveyance. The parallelism in the verse leans in this direction.
45
Smith, “Obadiah,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 181.
46
Following IBHS §14.3.1a (258) on predicate adjectives, I translate the adjective and participle
first to retain the Hebrew word order.
47
I prefer a relative reading for the pronominal suffix here because of the relativity of all three of
the clauses in this verse. The antecedent of the two participles is the second masculine singular referent in
ָ‫שּׁי ֶא‬
ִ ‫זְדוֹן ִלבְָּ ִה‬, thus making them substantival and best read relatively. If the three clauses are parallel, this
is the best way to maintain the parallelism.
48
Qal ‫ ָגּבַהּ‬is stative (see definition in IBHS §22.2.1c [364]) and may be intransitive in the Hiphil.
A verb like this may be termed an “inwardly transitive” or “internal” Hiphil (IBHS §27.2f [439–40]).
22

Understanding Edom’s geographical environment is important here. Edom had

very strong fortifications in the mountains. Their cities were well defended by the

physical layout of their territory. Two of their cities, Umm el-Biyara (Petra) and Khirbet

Sil’ (Sela) were nigh impenetrable. They truly did dwell “in the clefts of the rock” and

“between the stars” (Obad 3–4).49 Their eventual destruction is thus dramatic: future

humiliation is promised (Obad 2), and they are “despised” (‫ ) ָבּז֥וּי‬just as their ancestor

despised his birthright (Gen 25:34). Their presumption or pride (‫)זְדוֹן‬, thoughts expressed

secretly in their heart50 (yet known by God!) due to their prime position in the cliffs, has

proven to be their downfall, for they are not so impregnable as they thought.51 With

concessive ‫ אִם‬clauses (“even if…”), the prophet celebrates the inevitability of Yhwh’s

action irrespective of its likelihood.52 Edom can exalt himself like the eagle and set his

nest among the stars, but still from there (fronted ‫ ) ִמשָּׁם‬Yhwh will bring him down. The

49
The location described here (‫ ; ְב ַחגְוֵי־ ֶסּלַע‬cf. 2 Kgs 14:7) was first linked to Petra, or modern-day
Umm el Biyara (George L. Robinson, “The Newly Discovered ‘High Place’ at Petra in Edom,” BW 17, no.
1 [1901]: 2–16; A. Forder, “Sela or Petra, ‘The Strong City.’ The Ruined Capital of Edom,” BW 18, no. 5
[1901]: 328–37; Nelson Glueck, “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I,” AASOR 14 [1934–1933]: 77; Denis
Baly, The Geography of the Bible: A Study in Historical Geography [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957],
117, 245, 258). However, this link has since been challenged. Most recently, the location of Sela has been
identified with Khirbet Sil’ (Crystal M. Bennett, “An Archaeological Survey of Biblical Edom,”
Perspective 12, no. 1–2 [1971]: 40; Stephen Hart, “‘Sela’: The Rock of Edom?” PEQ 118 (1986): 91–95;
Bartlett, “Edom,” in AYBD 2:290).
50
Nearly every instance that this phrase occurs is negative, showing incredulity (Gen 17:17; Deut
7:17; Jer 13:22), arrogance (Deut 8:17; 9:4; Isa 14:13; 47:8, 10; Zeph 2:15; Ps 10:6, 11, 13; 35:25; 74:8),
complacency (Zeph 1:12), distress (Isa 49:21), and anger (Ps 4:5). Isa 14:13 is especially pertinent, the
words of the king of Babylon and the influence behind him Satan (cf. Paul R. House, Old Testament
Theology [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998], 364).
51
Raabe, Obadiah, 123. It is possible that this word is a veiled reference to Esau’s “pottage” (‫)נָזִיד‬,
the play being that Esau’s descendants have “boiled over” like the “red stuff” (‫ )הָאָד ֹם‬Esau desired (Gen
25:27–34). Although the words do not come from the same root (Gary V. Smith, “‫זִיד‬,” NIDOTTE 1:1069–
71) this does not preclude the possibility of a phonological wordplay.
52
This is not possible to prove conclusively, but this instance fits normal concessive ‫ ִאם‬clauses
and it matches Edom’s geographical description (cf. Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 417).
23

divine declaration, literally “utterance of Yhwh” (‫ )נְאֻם־י ְהוָה‬strengthens the force of the

sentence and of the last clause in particular.

‫ִם־בּ ֹצ ְִרים֙ ָ ֣בּאוּ ָ֔לְ הֲל֖ וֹא יַשׁ ְִא֥ירוּ ע ֹ ֵללֽוֹת׃‬


ֽ ‫ִם־שׁוֹדְ דֵ י ַ֔ליְלָה ֵ ֣איְ נִדְ ֵ֔מיתָ ה הֲל֥ וֹא יִגְנ ְ֖בוּ דַּ ָיּ֑ם א‬
֣ ‫ אִם־ ַגּנּ ִ ָ֤בים ָבּאֽוּ־ ְל ָ֙ א‬5
‫שׂו נִב ְ֖עוּ ַמ ְצפֻּנָ ֽיו׃‬
ָ ֔ ‫ ֚ ֵאיְ נֶ ְחפּ ְ֣שׂוּ ֵע‬6
‫בוּנ֖ה בּוֹֽ׃‬
ָ ְ‫ְֹמָ ַל ְחמ ְָ֗ י ִ ָ֤שׂימוּ מָזוֹ ֙ר תַּ חְתֶּ֔ יָ אֵ ֥ין תּ‬
֑ ֶ ‫ִיאוָּ יָכְל֥ וּ לְָ֖ אַנ ֵ ְ֣שׁי שׁ‬
֛ ‫שׁלּ ְ֗חוָּ ֚כּ ֹל אַנ ֵ ְ֣שׁי ב ְִריתֶ֔ ָ ִהשּׁ‬ ִ ‫ ַעֽד־ ַהגְּב֣ וּל‬7
(5)
If thieves came to you, if robbers by night53—How you have become like them and
will be destroyed!54—would they not steal [only] their requirements55? If grape-gatherers
came to you, would they not leave behind gleanings? (6) How they have picked Esau
clean! They have searched out his hidden treasures!56 (7) As far as the border men in
covenant with you have sent you, men at peace with you have deceitfully prevailed57
against you. Those who ate your bread58 have laid a trap underneath you.59 There is no
understanding in it.

53
This reading is the opposite of Waltke and O’Connor’s temporal genitive (first term temporal,
second term action), where a nominalized action constitutes the first term and the time period constitutes
the second (cf. IBHS §9.5.1f [144–45]).
54
The use of ‫ דמה‬here is interesting. This consonantal arrangement can mean “be like,” “be silent,”
and “destroy” depending on context (HALOT 1:225–26). I concur with Baker, who suggests some
deliberate ambiguity between the first and third glosses (“Obadiah,” 170); hence my double translation of
one phrase. On this feature of Hebrew poetry in Psalms, see Paul R. Raabe, “Deliberate Ambiguity in the
Psalter,” JBL 110, no. 2 (1991): 213–27 (especially 216, where he discusses the ambiguities involved with
this root in Ps 49:13, 21). Also, ‫ דמה‬sounds like Edom, increasing Obadiah’s play with this word (so Raabe,
Obadiah, 142; Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 170). Both future and past renderings of a qatal verb here
are permissible given the context.
55
For this translation see HALOT 1:219.
56
The Peshitta translates ‫ ַמ ְצ ֻפּנָיו‬as “his hiding places,” but LXX τὰ κεκρυµµένα suggests an object
hidden rather than the hiding place itself, and is to be preferred (cf. HALOT 2:624; Delitzsch, “Obadiah,”
K&D 10:238).
57
‫שּׁיאוָּ יָכְלוּ‬
ִ ‫ ִה‬is a hendiadys (P. Kyle McCarter, “Obadiah 7 and the Fall of Edom,” BASOR 221
[1976]: 88; Baker, “Obadiah,” 171; pace LXX ἀντέστησάν σοι ἠδυνάσθησαν πρὸς σὲ). The net effect of
the phrase suggests “calculated hostility” (Armerding, “Obadiah,” EBC 8:435).
58
This phrase is difficult textually. BHS suggests that the verb prior to ָ‫ ַל ְח ְמ‬was dropped out due
to a scribal error (cf. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 171–72), the best solution being haplography of the
participle ‫ לחמי‬because of the similar lexeme ָ‫ ; ַל ְח ְמ‬see G. I. Davies, “A New Solution to a Crux in Obadiah
7,” VT 27 (1977): 484–87. Extant versions offer no assistance in determining what the Hebrew Vorlage
might have been; thus, Davies’ solution is currently the best one.
59
McCarter offers the alternative translation for ‫“ ָמזוֹר‬place of foreigners,” assuming the root ‫ זוּר‬of
the măqṭăl type, which is “(most frequently) [a noun] of place” (“Obad 7,” 87; cf. IBHS §5.6b [90]; GKC
§85g [236]; followed by Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 171–72). He further suggests that ָ‫ תַּ חְתֶּ י‬should be
taken as “in your stead,” an acceptable rendering (cf. HALOT 4:1723). From this, he postulates that ‫ָמזוֹר‬
refers to either the Persians or the Arabians in the 5th century, who overran Edom’s territory and claimed it
for their own. However this reading, in spite of the difficulty of ‫ ָמזוֹר‬, is unwarranted. We have evidence of
an Akkadian cognate mazūru (HALOT 2:565) and the translation “snare” or “trap” is supported by the LXX
24

Obadiah begins his next stanza with two hypothetical situations designed to show

the severity of Edom’s future judgment. Thieves may only steal what they need, and

grape-gatherers may leave behind some stray grapes, but no preconceived notions of

speed and secrecy (thief) or of cost-effective labor (grape-gatherer) will detain Edom’s

enemies from accomplishing their goal: “how you have become like them and will be

destroyed”!60 Both images would have been relatable to the Edomites, the former because

of their raids and the latter because the fertility of their mountainous region was

conducive to the growth of vine products.61 With more double entendre, the prophet

reveals that Edom will both be “searched out” and “laid bare” (‫חפשׂ‬, ‫)בעה‬.62 In other

words, her enemies will attack with the goal to leave nothing left.

The shock of this attack doubles when Obadiah unveils the identity of Edom’s

assailants: they are “men in covenant with you,” “men at peace with you,” and “men who

ἔνεδρα (LSJ 562; BDAG 334). His proposal seems to me to be a disguised attempt at obtaining linguistic
evidence to support a postexilic date of the prophecy, which I have already discussed and rejected (see
above).
60
Delitzsch explains how this phrase is a parenthetical “exclamation of amazement” due to how
overwhelming the vision is for the prophet (“Obadiah,” K&D 10:238; followed by Armerding, “Obadiah,”
in EBC 8:434).
61
Grape-gatherers (‫ )בֹּצ ְִרים‬could be play on the word “Bozrah” (‫) ָבּצ ְָרה‬, Edom’s capital city
(HALOT 1:149). Both grape-gatherers and thieves (‫ ) ַגּנָּבִים‬in this verse allude to the coming judgment Edom
would face. So Obadiah pokes fun at Edom’s trust in its capital stronghold by using a similar-sounding
word to describe those who would tear her down. The pun is further supported by Bozrah’s impressive
viticulture (George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 25th ed. [London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1931], 565, 575) and Bozrah’s role as a metonym for the whole nation in other prophetic
texts (Isa 34:6; 63:1; Jer 49:22; Amos 1:11–12). Cf. Isaiah 63:1–6, which combines the same agricultural
imagery with a judgment oracle against Bozrah.
62
‫ חפשׂ‬may be glossed as “search.” However, the Ugaritic cognate ḥpšt is used of a woman
“picking up straw on a threshing floor” (HALOT 1:341). Considering the context of v. 5, both meanings
seem permissible. Esau will not only be “sought out,” but it will also be threshed or laid bare. Similarly, the
root ‫ בעה‬can mean “enquire,” “boil” or “bulge,” or “graze bare” (HALOT 1:141). Context here seems to
demand at least the first and third meanings, supported by the parallel passage in Jeremiah 49.
25

ate your bread.”63 Verse 7 thus “explains how God would lure the Edomites down from

their secure heights. He would have their allies turn against them and ‘deceive’ them.”64

Edom’s allies would come to scorn their alliance, likely ratified by a meal (ְָ‫) ַל ְחמ‬, and

would turn on them instead of offering help. Obadiah’s metaphor of a “trap laid

underneath” Edom further highlights the deception and surprise associated with this

reversal of fortunes. Underscoring the absolute certainty of his words,65 Obadiah predicts

an overthrow of Edom that truly beggars the imagination, concluding this stanza with the

climactic declaration, “there is no understanding in [their betrayal].”66

‫בוּנ֖ה מֵהַ ֥ר ע ֵָשֽׂו׃‬


ָ ְ‫ְהוה ְו ַה ֲאבַדְ ִ ֤תּי ֲח ָכמִים֙ מֵ ֽא ֱ֔דוֹם וּת‬
֑ ָ ‫ הֲל֛ וֹא ַבּיּ֥וֹם ה ַ֖הוּא נְאֻם י‬8
‫ת־א֛ישׁ מֵהַ ֥ר ע ָ ֵ֖שׂו מִקָּ ֽטֶל׃‬ִ ‫ימן ל ַ ְ֧מעַן י ִכָּ ֶֽר‬
֑ ָ ֵ‫ִבּוֹריָ תּ‬
֖ ֶ ‫ ְוח ַ֥תּוּ ג‬9
(8)
“Will it not be in that day,” says Yhwh, “that I will cause the wise men of Edom to
perish, and understanding from Mt. Esau? (9) And your warriors will be dismayed,67 O
Teman, with the result that68 every person will be cut off from Mt. Esau in slaughter.”

The mention of understanding (‫ )תְּ בוּנָה‬in the previous verse provides the launching

point for this next stanza. When Yhwh intervenes on Israel’s behalf and defeats Edom,69

63
Abstract subjective genitives (IBHS §9.5.1e [144]).
64
Smith, “Obadiah,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 187. Cf. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 173.
65
Smith argues that these qatal verbs (‫נִדְ ֵמיתָ ה‬, ‫נֶ ְחפְּשׂוּ‬, ‫נִבְעוּ‬, ָ‫שׁלְּחוּ‬
ִ , ָ‫שּׁיאוּ‬
ִ ‫ ִה‬, ‫ )יָכְלוּ‬in vv. 5–7 present
events that have yet to occur as already having taken place (“Obadiah,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 186–87).
Pace Baker, who considers these events as substantially past (Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 169). In such cases,
“The prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it
had been already seen or heard by him” (GKC §106n [312–13]).
66
A feminine pronominal suffix on ‫ בּ‬is more expected here than the masculine (cf. IBHS §16.4f
[305]), but the masculine is perfectly acceptable grammatically and is supported by the LXX (αὐτοῖς).
67
‫ חתת‬is an ambiguous lexeme, in that it can mean “be shattered” and also “to be filled with
terror” (HALOT 1:365). The idea basic to it is the former, given that this definition serves as benchmark for
the latter (Andrew Bowling, “‫חָתַ ת‬,” in TWOT 1:336). “The root … is also used to characterize a terrible
condition or dreadful situation. In such instances it is frequently employed to describe the destruction
associated with war and battle in the context of judgment” (M. V. Van Pelt and W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “‫חָתַ ת‬,” in
NIDOTTE 2:325).
68
‫ ְל ַמעַן‬here is resultant (cf. HALOT 2:614).
26

the first to go will be upper crust of society, the sophists and the soldiers. With respect to

their “wise men,” late archaeologist Nelson Glueck pointed out that this area of biblical

Palestine was sophisticated in light of evidence like the Mesha stele and the book of

Job.70 Irrespective of Edom’s wisdom, however, the nation will not be impervious to

Yhwh’s attack. We have already discussed briefly Edom’s militaristic strategies (vv. 2–

4), and have seen that they did not regard national defense lightly. Yet even the best of

their forces, ‫( ַהגִּבּ ִֹרים‬cf. 1 Sam 17:51) will not stand in that day. Indeed, we may say that

because the wise men and soldiers fall, the entire nation will be susceptible to eventual

slaughter.71 Obadiah’s use of the phrase “cut off” (‫)כרת‬, which appears to carry both

physical and metaphorical connotations, effectively draws this out.72 Moreover, the

silence on the agency of the slaughter (Niphal stem) implies in this context that even

though God would use human soldiers to accomplish His purpose, He Himself would

ultimately be responsible for the carnage.

69
“The expression [‫]בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא‬, familiar in the prophetic literature, frequently looks forward to a
specific time appointed by God in his sovereignty when he will intervene in human history in judgment and
salvation” (Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:437).
70
Nelson Glueck, “The Civilization of the Edomites,” BA 10, no. 4 (1947): 78. In the former he
refers to a stele written by the Moabite king Mesha of 2 Kings 3 (cf. K. A. D. Smelik, “The Inscription of
King Mesha,” in COS 2.23 [137–38]). Both of these points support the rise of a “wisdom tradition”
amongst the Edomites, which explains why it is addressed here (cf. David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, WBC 17
[Dallas, TX: Word, 1989], 59). See a recent study on this by Juan Manuel Tebes, “The ‘Wisdom’ of
Edom,” BN 143 (2009): 97–117.
71
Raabe, Obadiah, 167.
72
Elmer B. Smick, “‫כ ַָרת‬,” in TWOT 2:457. This verb-preposition combination (‫ כרת‬+ ‫ ) ִמן‬is used
often in contexts of covenant community excommunication (e.g. Gen 17:14; Exod 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38;
Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27) and has a parallel in Ezek 35:7. Pace Raabe, Obadiah, 167, who believes that, “The
expression by itself does not specify the precise nature of the elimination process.”
27

Edom’s End Explained (10–14)

‫בוּשׁה ְונִכ ַ ְ֖רתָּ לְעוֹלָ ֽם׃‬


֑ ָ ְָ֣‫אָח֥יָ יַע ֲ֖ק ֹב תְּ ַכסּ‬
ִ ‫ ֵמחֲמַ ֛ס‬10
‫ְאַח֥ד מֵהֶ ֽם׃‬
ַ ‫שׁעֲרוֹ ְועַל־י ְרוּשׁ ָ֨לִ ַם֙ י ַ֣דּוּ גוֹ ָ֔רל גַּם־א ָ ַ֖תּה כּ‬
ַ ‫ֵיֹו ְונָכ ֞ ְִרים ָ ֣בּאוּ‬
֑ ‫ בְּיוֹם֙ עֲמָ ֽדְ ָ֣ ִמ ֶ֔נּגֶד ְבּי֛וֹם שְׁב֥ וֹת ז ִ ָ֖רים ח‬11
(10)
Because of the violence [committed] against your brother Jacob, shame has covered
you and you shall be cut off forever. (11) In the day when you stood aloof, in the day when
strangers took captive his wealth, and foreigners passed through his gates and over
Jerusalem cast lots, even you were like one of them.

The preposition ‫ מִן‬prefixed to ‫ חֲמַ ֛ס‬hooks this next stanza with the previous one, a

word that has the idea of both “moral wrong and overt physical brutality.” In conjunction

with the mention of “Mount Esau” in Obadiah 9, the prophet’s reference to “your brother

Jacob” highlights the familial connection between these two nations as we have discussed

above. Without such a developed backstory, the castigation offered here might seem

excessive.73 The repetition of “cut off” (again Niphal ‫)כרת‬, with the addition of “forever”

(‫)לְעוֹלָם‬, demonstrates the emotion involved in Yhwh’s defeat of Edom; one proclamation

of their destruction is simply not enough.

The two instances of “in the day” (‫ )בְּיוֹם‬parallel one another, the second clause an

epexegesis of the first one. Thus, “standing aloof” (‫ ) ֲעמָדְ ָ ִמנֶּגֶד‬may also be translated

“standing against,” for it indicates a very distinct separation of the two entities in

question that is expressed in the next phrase in terms of an attack on Jerusalem.74

Obadiah is careful here not to explicitly associate the Edomites with those who “took

captive his wealth,” instead attributing this action to “foreigners” (‫)שְׁבוֹת ז ִָרים חֵיֹו‬.75

73
See Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 179; Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:438. An analysis of
the verb used here is missing from Anne Marie Kitz, “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its
Ancient Near Eastern Context,” CBQ 62 (2000): 207–14.
74
Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:438–40.
75
More generally, ‫ זָר‬refers to “that which is strange, foreign, forbidden, or unauthorized” (A. H.
Konkel, “‫זָר‬,” in NIDOTTE 1:1118–19).
28

Casting lots refers to some form of bargaining over the victor’s spoils after the city was

taken.76 Obadiah implicates the Edomites with this action while maintaining distance

between them and the actual perpetrators. Their ancestral relationship and prime position

to offer backup combine to make them more guilty than otherwise: “…to fail to act, or to

approve an evil act (Ro 1:32), is morally equivalent to perpetrating the crime itself.”77

‫ְהוּדה ְבּי֣וֹם אָב ָ ְ֑דם וְאַל־תַּ גְדֵּ ֥ל ִ ֖פּיָ ְבּי֥וֹם צ ָ ָֽרה׃‬ ֖ ָ ‫ְאַל־תּ ֶרא בְיוֹם־אָ ִ֨חי ָ֙ ְבּי֣וֹם נָכ ְ֔ר ֹו וְאַל־תִּ שְׂמַ ֥ח ִלבְנֵ ֽי־י‬ ֵ֤ ‫ ו‬12
ֽ ‫ֵיד ֹו וְאַל־תִּ שְׁלַ ֥ ְחנָה ְב ֵחיֹ֖ ו ְבּי֥וֹם א‬
‫ֵיד ֹו׃‬ ֑ ‫אַל־תּ ֶרא גַם־א ַָתּ֛ה בּ ְָרעָתוֹ֖ ְבּי֣וֹם א‬ ֵ֧ ‫ְשׁעַר־ ַע ִמּ ֙י ְבּי֣וֹם אֵידָ֔ ם‬ֽ ַ ‫ אַל־תָּ ב֤ וֹא ב‬13
‫ידיו ְבּי֥וֹם צ ָ ָֽרה׃‬
֖ ָ ‫ִיטיו וְאַל־תַּ סְגֵּ ֥ר שׂ ְִר‬֑ ָ ‫ וְאַ ֽל־תַּ עֲמ ֹ ֙ד עַל־ ַה ֶ֔פּ ֶרק ְל ַהכ ִ ְ֖רית אֶת־ ְפּל‬14
(12)
But78 you must not look on in the day of your brother, in the day of his misfortune,
and you must not rejoice over the Judahites on the day they perish, and you must not
open your mouth wide in the day of distress. (13) You must not pass through the gates of
my people in the day of their calamity, you must not look, even you, upon his devastation
in the day of his calamity and you must not send for his wealth in the day of his calamity.
(14)
And you must not stand at the crossroads to cut off his escape, and you must not
deliver over his survivors in the day of distress.

Obadiah’s eight injunctions (‫ אַל‬+ 2nd person jussives79) in these three verses

imply urgency, as he strenuously objects to Edom’s action of inaction. As noted above,

some argue these injunctions are merely stylistic: “The author may use this form to

express the immediacy of the horror to him, placing himself back directly into the time of

the action and calling out, ‘STOP!’”80 However, we have argued that when taken most

naturally, prohibitions refer to actions that are yet in the future. This paragraph therefore

forms a warning, a mandate that in the future Edom must not do similar to the Philistine

and Arabian invasion of Jerusalem in the 840s. Seen in this light, it becomes clear that the

76
Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 180. Compare Joel 4:3.
77
Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:439.
78
I read the first waw in Obadiah 12–14 as disjunctive and the rest as conjunctive.
79
GKC §109e (322); IBHS §34.2.1b (567); J-M §114k (377).
80
Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 181. See above for others who defend this position.
29

later authors of Scripture deemed Edom to have done precisely the opposite of what

Obadiah warned (Ezek 35:10–1581; Lam 4:21–22; Ps 137:7). And this should come as no

surprise, given that Obadiah’s warnings to Edom in verses suggest he realizes their

potential and proclivity to do the same (if given the opportunity82).

To “look on” (‫ )וְאַל־תֵּ ֶרא‬implies passivity when activity is necessary. Edom

passively “stood aloof” (Obad 11) when the Philistines and Arabians invaded, and

Obadiah urges that Edom must not repeat this offense in a similar (yet future) day.83

Their “scornful laughter” (ָ‫וְאַל־תַּ גְדֵּ ל פִּי‬84) and joy (‫ )שׂמח‬demonstrate disdain for Judah,

gladness over her doom. Passing through the gates of the city (‫שׁעַר‬
ַ ‫ )אַל־תָּ בוֹא ְב‬refers to an

invasion,85 while “sending for his wealth” (‫שׁ ַל ְחנָה ְבחֵילוֹ‬


ְ ִ‫ )וְאַל־תּ‬probably has to do with

sharing in the spoils of war.86 To “stand at the crossroads” (‫)וְאַל־תַּ עֲמ ֹד עַל־ ַהפּ ֶֶרק‬87 implies

that Edom would seek to thwart any escape attempt made by the calamity-scourged

Judeans.88 To “cut off” Judah’s fugitives (‫ ) ְל ַהכ ְִרית אֶת־ ְפּלִיטָיו‬recalls Obadiah’s usage of the

81
I note some of the allusions of Ezekiel to Obadiah in this passage in chapter two.
82
The repetitions of ‫ בְּיוֹם‬in these verses give an air of certainty. In other words, it is not if Edom
will have an opportunity to come to Judah’s aid rather than attack, but when.
83
With literary dexterity, the prophet aligns the misfortune (‫ )נָכְר ֹו‬that will befall Judah with the
foreigners (‫ )נָכ ְִרים‬who brought it before (v. 11), further tightening the connection. This word ‫ נֵכֶר‬is rare; it
occurs only in here and in Job 31:3. It would seem Obadiah chose this word for the sake of the play
(HALOT 2:700).
84
Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 181; Raabe, Obadiah, 179.
85
Cf. 2 Kings 8:31; Jeremiah 7:2; 17:20–21, 25, 27; 22:2, 4; Nehemiah 2:15; 2 Chronicles 33:14.
86
This constitutes another recollection of Obadiah 11 (‫שׁבוֹת ז ִָרים חֵילוֹ‬
ְ ‫)בְּיוֹם‬.
87
‫“ אַל־תַּ עֲמ ֹד‬echoes” ‫ ֲע ָמדְ ָ ִמנֶּגֶד‬, and “thereby corroborates the impression of detachment from the
main scene of action … [but] also qualifies this detachment sharply, for it is shown to be accompanied by
outright aggression…” (Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:441).
88
LXX διεκβολή may be translated “mountain pass” (LSJ 423), but at base gives the idea of a
“passage through.” Thus Raabe avers the LXX (and Vulgate) translators may have understood to a breach
in the wall (Obadiah, 184).
30

same verb in verses 9–10, and also plays phonologically on ‫ ְונָכ ְִרים‬and ‫( נָכְר ֹו‬see above).89

Both “fugitives” (‫ ) ְפּלִיטָיו‬and “survivors” (‫ )שׂ ְִרידָ יו‬refers to that group of people who

would flee the scene of disaster, whom Edom would desire to “deliver” (Hiphil ‫ )סגר‬over

to their aggressors.

These prohibitions, although referring to future events, are so explicit that I

suggest Obadiah may have seen their involvement in a future attack (e.g. the fall of

Jerusalem in 586). And even if he did not actually see a vision of the temple razing and

Jerusalem’s destruction, the writing was already on the wall for this event (Deut 28:15–

68) and for continued animosity from Edom that could climax in their involvement in

such an event. Read this way, we may describe Obadiah 12–14 both as commands of

what Edom should not do but also as descriptions of what Edom would certainly do. And

therefore, in light of the givenness of their involvement of the future attack, Edom is

culpable and in danger of the judgment coming on the Day of the Lord.

Edom’s End Expanded (15–21)

‫ֹאשָֽׁ׃‬
ֶ ‫ית י ָ ֵ֣עשֶׂה ָ֔לְּ ְגּ ֻמלְָ֖ י ָ֥שׁוּב בְּר‬ ָ֙ ‫שׂ‬
ִ ֨ ‫ֲשׁר ָע‬
֤ ֶ ‫ְהו֖ה עַל־כָּל־הַגּוֹ ִי֑ם ַכּא‬ָ ‫ כִּ ֽי־ק ָ֥רוֹב יוֹם־י‬15
‫שׁ ֣תוּ ְול ָ֔עוּ ְוהָי֖ וּ כְּל֥ וֹא ָהי ֽוּ׃‬
ָ ‫שׁי יִשׁ ְ֥תּוּ כָ ֽל־הַגּוֹ ִי֖ם תָּ ִ ֑מיד ְו‬ ִ ֔ ְ‫ַל־הר קָד‬
֣ ַ ‫ֲשׁר שְׁתִ יתֶ ם֙ ע‬
֤ ֶ ‫ ִ֗כּי כַּ ֽא‬16
(15)
For near is the Day of Yhwh upon all the nations: Just as you have done, so shall it be
done to you; your retribution will turn back upon your head. (16) For just as you drank on
my holy mount, all the nations will drink continually. So90 they will drink and swallow,
and they will be as though they had never been.

In response to and because of (‫ )כִּי‬the “day” Edom would doubtless bring on

Judah (Obad 11–14), Yhwh has a “day” against all of the enemies of His people (“the

89
The effect of the wordplay is to show that even by Edom’s “removed” actions, i.e. cutting off
the escape of the fugitives from Jerusalem, they too behave like “foreigners” to Judah and contribute to his
“misfortune.” Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “A Theology of the Minor Prophets,” in A Biblical Theology of the
Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1991), 431.
90
Resumptive waw on ‫שׁתוּ‬
ָ ‫ ְו‬.
31

nations”). This day, according to Obadiah, is governed by the lex talionis: “just as you

have done, so shall it be done to you; your retribution will turn back upon your head”

(Obad 15). In other words, Edom may expect that the judgment Yhwh will bring upon

them will parallel and even exceed the wickedness they brought upon Judah. Although

later canonical writings explain the “Day of Yhwh” in greater detail (e.g. Joel 1:15; 2:1–

11; Isa 13:6ff.), Obadiah limits his discussion to respond more poignantly to the twofold

question at hand, namely Edom’s wickedness and Yhwh’s faithfulness to Israel.

The identity of the plural “you” in Obadiah 16 is debated; it may refer to the

Edomites or the Judahites. The former view has the strength of maintaining a consistency

in referent for the second-person verbs in the book, 91 but it does not attempt to explain

why Obadiah would switch from singular to plural here (‫)שְׁתִ יתֶ ם‬. Then too, this view

would demand a shift from the figurative to the literal without any warning. Finally,

although it is tempting to posit a victory celebration here, such an event does not fit the

historical background we have detailed above. Edom was not on the inside of the city

with the raiding party but on the outside, and even if they were inside, such a raiding

party would not have waited around to celebrate before escaping with the hostages and

loot. I thus favor the second view.92 Judah may have suffered a sip of the wine of Yhwh’s

91
Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 420; Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:445; Niehaus, “Obadiah,” in
MPEEC 2:535–36. The transformation of the plural ‫שׁתִ יתֶ ם‬ ְ into the singular ἔπιες in the LXX seems to
further support this position, for it suggests the translators believed the verb to refer to the Edomites (cf.
Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 371–72).
92
See Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 161–62; Raabe, Obadiah, 203–204; Baker, Joel,
Obadiah, Malachi, 189–91; Block, Obadiah, 86–88; Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A
Commentary, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1986), 64–65. Ben Zvi’s
“ambiguity” reading, which allows for both senses to apply without contradiction, is plausible but in my
opinion not the best explanation (Obadiah, 179–81).
32

wrath, but their enemies would one day suffer long draughts of it; indeed, those draughts

will provoke choking and gagging (‫ לעע‬II93) such that death will come upon them.94

‫מוֹרשֵׁיהֶם׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ וּבְהַ ֥ר ִציּ֛וֹן תִּ ְה ֶי ֥ה ְפלֵי ָ ֖טה ו ָ ְ֣הי ָה ֑ק ֹדֶ שׁ ְו ָי ְֽרשׁ ֙וּ ֵ ֣בּית ַיֽע ֲ֔ק ֹב ֵ ֖את‬17
ָ ֔ ‫שׂ ֙ו ְל ַ֔קשׁ וְדָ ל ְ֥קוּ ב ֶ ָ֖הם ַו ֲאכ ָ֑לוּם ְוֹֽא־ ִי ֽ ְה ֶי֤ה שׂ ִָרי ֙ד ל ֵ ְ֣בית ֵע‬
‫שׂו ִכּ֥י‬ ָ ‫וּבית ֵע‬֤ ֵ ‫יוֹסף ֶל ָה ָ֗בה‬ ֣ ֵ ‫וּבית‬ ֧ ֵ ‫ ְו ָהי ָה֩ בֵית־יַע ֲ֨ק ֹב ֵ֜אשׁ‬18
‫ְהו֖ה דִּ בֵּ ֽר׃‬
ָ ‫י‬
(17)
But on Mount Zion there will be an escape, and [Mount Zion]95 will be holy. And [the
people of] the house of Jacob will possess those who possessed them.96 (18) So the house
of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau will be like
stubble. They will burn against them and consume them, and there shall be no survivor
for the house of Esau, for Yhwh has spoken.

Here the prophet foresees a future re-conquest of the Promised Land and a re-

gathering of the people to the Promised Land. This stanza is of utmost importance to the

argument of the book because it underscores the inevitability of the fulfillment of Yhwh’s

promises, the very question raised by the Edomite coalition’s raid on Jerusalem. By

reiterating the land promises, then, Obadiah reiterates Yhwh’s faithfulness to His people,

the “house of Jacob.”97

The term “escape,” ‫ ְפלֵי ָטה‬, derives from the verb ‫ פלט‬and refers to the group of

individuals who will survive the onslaught of the Day of Yhwh. Little is said here of the

way in which Yhwh will deliver, for this is not Obadiah’s main concern. Rather, he

wishes to underscore the existence of an Israelite remnant, specifically one that will

93
Note the onomatopoeia (HALOT 2:533; Robert H. O’Connell, “‫לעע‬,” in NIDOTTE 2:801–802).
94
More than likely, Obadiah is able to make such economic use of this metaphor because it was
already well established via the psalms of Asaph (see Ps 75:9), who was a worship leader during David’s
reign (2 Chr 29:30; Neh 12:46; cf. Robert L. Alden, “Asaph,” in NIDOTTE 4:414). We will consider this
metaphor in greater detail in chapter two.
95
Understood based on the gender of the verb.
96
HALOT 2:561.
97
John E. Hartley, “‫ירשׁ‬,” in TWOT 1:409–11; Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:448. On ‫בֵית־יַעֲק ֹב‬
and ‫בֵית יוֹסֵף‬, see Daniel I. Block, “Israel’s House: Reflections on the Use of BYT YŚR’L in the Old
Testament in the Light of Its Ancient Near Eastern Environment,” JETS 28, no. 3 (1985): 257–75.
33

“possess those who possessed them.”98 The establishment of holiness on Mount Zion in

v. 17 enigmatically looks forward to a time when the inhabitants of the city will obey

Torah and will fulfill their purpose as the nation Yhwh has chosen to reflect His character

(cf. Lev 11:44). The fire imagery he employs, denoting a rapid and comprehensive

consumption of land and inhabitants, fits the tone of the passage well. Not one individual

who remains hostile to Yhwh will survive (v. 18).99

‫שּׁ ֵפלָה֙ אֶת־ ְפּ ִלשְׁתִּ֔ ים ְוי ְָרשׁ ֙וּ אֶת־שׂ ֵ ְ֣דה ֶאפ ְַ֔רי ִם ו ֵ ְ֖את שׂ ֵ ְ֣דה שׁ ֹמ ְ֑רוֹן וּ ִבנְי ִ ָ֖מן אֶת־ ַה ִגּל ְָעֽד׃‬ ְ ‫שׂו ְו ַה‬ ָ ֗ ‫ֶת־הר ֵע‬
֣ ַ ‫ ְוי ְָר ֨שׁוּ ַה ֶ֜נּגֶב א‬19
֣ ֶ ‫ַד־צ ְ֣ר ַ֔פת ְוגָלֻ ֥ת י ְרוּשׁ ָ֖לִ ַם א‬
‫ֲשׁר ִבּ ְספ ַ ָ֑רד ִי ְֽר ֕שׁוּ ֵ ֖את ע ֵ ָ֥רי הַנֶּ ֽגֶב׃‬ ָ ‫ ְוגָלֻ ֣ת הַ ֽחֵל־ ֠ ַהזֶּה ִל ְב ֵ֨ני יִשׂ ְָר ֵ ֤אל א ֲֶשֽׁר־ ְכּנַ ֲענִים֙ ע‬20
‫ֽיהו֖ה ַהמְּלוּכָ ֽה׃‬ ָ ַ‫ֶת־הר ע ָ ֵ֑שׂו ְו ָהי ְָת֥ה ל‬
֣ ַ ‫שׁעִים֙ בּ ַ ְ֣הר צִיּ֔ וֹן ִלשׁ ְ֖פּ ֹט א‬ ִ ‫ ְועָל֤ וּ מֽוֹ‬21
(19)
And [the people of]100 the Negev will possess Mount Esau, and [the people of] the
Shephelah [will possess] the Philistines, and they will possess the territory of Ephraim
and the territory of Samaria, and Benjamin [will possess] Gilead. (20) And the exilic
community of the outskirts belonging to the Israelites [will possess] from the Canaanites
as far as Zarephath, and the exilic community of Jerusalem that is in Sardis will possess
the cities of the Negev. (21) And deliverers will go up on Mount Zion to judge Mount
Esau, and the kingdom will belong to Yhwh.

From the Negev in the south, to the Shephelah in the west, to Samaria in the

north, and to Gilead in the east, Yhwh’s people will take back their land.101 Not even

those exiled into the farthest reaches of the Near East will be kept from returning home to

take part in the promise fulfillment; those in Zarephath (in Tyre) and even in Sardis (in

98
‫שׁיהֶם‬
ֵ ‫מוֹר‬,
ָ glossed “their possessions,” is to be read as a wordplay with the Hiphil participle of the
verb ‫ירשׁ‬. In this way Obadiah states that Israel will recover their territory, their “possessions,” and will
“possess those who possessed them” (HALOT 2:561).
99
Although this verse is surely metaphorical, the use of fire in ancient conquests is well attested
(e.g. Josh 6:24; 8:20; 1 Sam 30:1–3; Mordechai Cogan, “Sennacherib: The Capture and Destruction of
Babylon,” in COS 2:119E [305]), and may not be far from the reality Edom will one day endure. That there
will be “no survivors” is an example of the lex talionis that pervades the book, for Edom cut off “survivors”
from Judah (Obad 14); cf. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, 192; Armerding, “Obadiah,” in EBC 8:446.
100
Obadiah 19–21 is a very elliptical passage. This is one instance of many in these verses in
which one must understand certain words from the context.
101
I would argue that Obadiah identifies these four regions in an attempt to portray, via a kind of
merismatic parallelism, the requisition of the Promised Land.
34

Persia) will come back!102 Playing on the “wealth” the Edomites sought, Obadiah

proclaims that “this company” (‫ ) ַהחֵל־ ַהזֶּה‬will take back what belonged to them.103

As during the period of the judges, “saviors” will arise as officials of justice when

exile ends, who will judge Mount Esau. But this in no way indicates their authority; quite

the contrary, “the kingship will belong to Yhwh” (Obad 21). The lamed preposition gives

a statement of possession or ownership; Yhwh owns kingship, or the right to rule, over

and against all other powers and authorities. By bringing His people back to the Promised

Land He will prove His hegemony over the entire earth. Ending with an allusion to Psalm

22:28, the prophet indicates his knowledge of the true Savior, the crushed Son who was

derelict just as Israel felt she was. His suffering would accomplish not only the

justification of the many (see Isa 52:13–53:12; Matt 27:46), but would also usher in

Yhwh’s reign upon the earth such that exile would end and the nations would know the

only true King (Gal 3:13–14).104

102
The location of ‫ ְספ ַָרד‬is debated. Sepharad was a name used by the Jews in the Middle Ages to
designate the Iberian Peninsula, from which derives the term “Sephardic” Jew. This opinion was followed
by some Greek writings (so J. Gray, “The Diaspora of Israel and Judah in Obadiah 20,” ZAW 65 [1953]:
53–59; David Neiman, “Sefarad: The Name of Spain,” JNES 22, no. 2 [1963]: 128–32). However, most
contend that it is the Persian city Sardis (e.g. E. Lipinski, “Obadiah 20,” VT 23 [1973]: 368–70). Cf. John
Griffiths Pedley, “Sardis (Place),” in AYBD 5:982–84.
103
The translation of ‫ ַהחֵל־ ַהזּ ֶה‬is very difficult. BHS proposes the reading ‫ ֲחלַח ז ֶה‬, referring to a
location in Assyria (2 Kgs 17:6; 18:11; 1 Chr 5:26; followed by Block, Obadiah, 98–99). It could also refer
to a fortress or rampart (BDB 298). More likely, however, it is a different spelling of the well-attested ‫ַחי ִל‬
(thus Raabe, Obadiah, 263–64; Niehaus, “Obadiah,” in MPEEC 2:540).
104
James R. Lillie, “Obadiah—A Celebration of God’s Kingdom,” CurTM 6 (1979): 18–22;
Block, Obadiah, 102–104.
CHAPTER TWO
ALLUSIONS TO OBADIAH IN THE WRITING PROHPETS
Introduction

Having provided a foundational understanding of Obadiah itself, we may now

turn to the impact his work makes on the rest of the writing prophets. In both chapters

two and three we will discuss this impact, but we begin here with how Obadiah alludes to

the later prophets. I have chosen to limit my investigation to four passages that contain

multiple affinities with Obadiah, and thus offer what I would call “extended allusions.”

For definition, an intertextual allusion refers to any time an author intentionally

uses specific words or phrases that come from another writing in order to make a

particular point in his or her context.1 Authorial intent is the deciding factor in

determining an allusion, for without it we cannot be sure to what a given text is alluding

(for there may be various possibilities2) or even if a given text is alluding at all. But

without personal access to the authors of Scripture, we must establish some criteria in

order to prove (1) the existence of an allusion and (2) the direction of that allusion.3

Several scholars have attempted to provide specific criteria for establishing likely

intertextual allusions in the biblical text. Richard Hays has given seven: availability

1
William Irwin, “What Is an Allusion?” JAAC 59, no. 3 (2001): 287–97; Gregory Machacek,
“Allusion,” PMLA 122, no. 2 (2007): 522–36.
2
For example, is Jonah 4:2 alluding to Exodus 34:6–7 or Joel 2:13?
3
Jeffery M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127,
no. 2 (2008): 242.

35
36

(“Was the proposed source of the echo available to the author and/or original readers?”),

volume (“the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns”), recurrence

(“How often does [the author] elsewhere cite or allude to the same scriptural passage?”),

thematic coherence (“How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that

[the author] is developing?”), historical plausibility (“Could [the author] have intended

the alleged meaning effect? Could his readers have understood it?”), history of

interpretation (“Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same

echoes?”), and satisfaction (“does the proposed reading make sense?”).4 More recently

Paul Noble5 and Jeffrey Leonard6 have suggested other criteria, but neither one adds

significantly to what Hays has marked out here. In sum, authorial intent is the single way

of verifying an allusion with certainty, and we come as close to it we can through

specific, linguistic connections between two texts we have already attempted to date

chronologically. Hence, in what follows, I will identify what I deem to be allusions to

4
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1989), 29–32. See the affirmation of these principles in another noted intertextuality scholar,
Benjamin D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle
Eslinger,” VT 46, no. 4 (1996): 484n9.
5
Noble focuses on how both specific linguistic connections and story patterns are factors that may
be used to determine intertextual allusions (“Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-
Biblical Allusions,” VT 52, no. 2 [2002]: 249–52).
6
“(1) Shared language is the single most important factor in establishing a textual connection. (2)
Shared language is more important than nonshared language. (3) Shared language that is rare or distinctive
suggests a stronger connection than does language that is widely used. (4) Shared phrases suggest a
stronger connection than do individual shared terms. (5) The accumulation of shared language suggests a
stronger connection than does a single shared term or phrase. (6) Shared language in similar contexts
suggests a stronger connection than does shared language alone. (7) Shared language need not be
accompanied by shared ideology to establish a connection. (8) Shared language need not be accompanied
by shared form to establish a connection” (Leonard, “Identifying,” 246). Although Leonard notes that part
of identifying inner-biblical allusions is to determine the direction of allusion, he does not include this
factor in his eight principles.
37

Obadiah in the writing prophets in the order I believe the prophets wrote (Joel  Amos

 Jeremiah  Ezekiel).7

Allusions in Joel

Joel 3:1–5

In this famous text Joel predicts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This event will

take place “after this” (‫)אַח ֲֵרי־כֵן‬, which is best understood as a reference to the “latter

days,” or the time of Yhwh’s eschatological promise fulfillment.8 Attending the Holy

Spirit Yhwh will also give cosmic “signs” (‫ )מוֹפְתִ ים‬to signal the coming of His day (3:3–

4). Thus it shall be (‫ ) ְו ָהי ָה‬that “everyone who calls upon the name of Yhwh will be saved”

(3:5). The reason given for this (‫ )כִּי‬is that “on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be

an escape, just as Yhwh has said, and among the survivors those whom Yhwh will call”

(‫ְהו֖ה ק ֵ ֹֽרא‬
ָ ‫ֲשׁר י‬
֥ ֶ ‫אָמר י ְה ֔ ָוה וּ ַ֨בשּׂ ְִרידִ֔ ים א‬
֣ ַ ‫שׁ ֙ר‬
ֶ ‫) ֠ ִכּי ְבּהַר־צִיּ֨ וֹן וּבִירוּשׁ ָ֜לִ ַם תִּ ֽ ְה ֶי֣ה ְפלֵי ָ֗טה כַּ ֽ ֲא‬.

This final clause, I argue, is an allusion to Obadiah 17. First of all, the words ‫תִּ ְהי ֶה‬

‫ ְבּהַר־צִיּוֹן … ְפלֵיטָה‬appear nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Given the importance of this

statement to Joel—it is the bedrock on which he grounds the salvation of those who call

upon Yhwh’s name (cf. Rom 10:13)—it is unlikely that this is a mere coincidence.9

Second, ‫ ַכּ ֲאשֶׁר אָמַר י ְהוָה‬appears to be a sort of quotation formula, much like “it is written.”

Joel bases his knowledge of the coming escape on Mount Zion on previously revealed

7
For a defense of my chronology, see the appendix to this thesis.
8
See Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 4:30; Hosea 3:5; Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1; Daniel
2:28; Acts 2:17. Note also John T. Willis, “The Expression be’ acharith hayyamim in the Old Testament,”
ResQ 22 (1979): 54–71; E. Lipinski, “‫ באחרית הימים‬dans les Textes Pré-Exiliques,” VT 20 (1970): 445–50.
For this reading of ‫ אַח ֲֵרי־כֵן‬see Willem A. VanGemeren, “The Spirit of Restoration,” WTJ 50 (1988): 84–90.
9
F. Delitzsch, “Obadiah,” in K&D 10:231.
38

truth, Obadiah 17 being the best candidate.10 Third, Obadiah also uses ‫ שׂ ִָריד‬in parallel

with ‫ ָפּלִיט‬to refer to those who attempted escape from Jerusalem at the time of the raid

(Obad 14).11 Finally, the context of judgment against the nations in Obadiah 15–16 fits

the events that will occur in Joel 4.12

Joel 4:1–8

Here13 the prophet writes of Yhwh’s favorable act on behalf of His people taking

place “in those days and at that time” (‫) ַבּיָּמִים ָה ֵהמָּה וּ ָבעֵת ַההִיא‬, which ties chapter 4

chronologically to chapter 3 and suggests what Joel will detail here is eschatological.14

He will render judgment upon the nations “because of my people, my inheritance Israel,

whom they scattered among the nations, and [because] they divided my land” (4:2). Joel

4:3 then explains the protocol behind this: they (1) cast lots, and (2) traded boys for

prostitutes and girls for wine to drink. Most specifically, Yhwh calls out Tyre, Sidon and

10
Michael Fishbane has pointed out the use of ‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫ ַכּ ֲא‬as an intertextual linking marker in the
Hebrew Bible (Biblical Interpretation, 352, 362). He suggests that its use here in Joel 3:5 is an allusion to
Isaiah 4:2, which mentions ‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬
ְ ִ ‫( ְפלֵיטַת י‬Biblical Interpretation, 479), but Obadiah 17 is much closer
semantically. On quotation theory see Yair Hoffman, “The Technique of Quotation and Citation as an
Interpretive Device,” in Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the
Centuries, ed. Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning Graf Reventlow, JSOTSup 59 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1988), 71–79.
11
Although the two terms are thought of synonymously elsewhere (Josh 8:22; Jer 42:17; 44:14;
Lam 2:22), these other passages use the stock phrase ‫שׂ ִריד‬
ָ ‫ ָפּלִיט ְו‬and do not have them as synonyms in a
poetic bicolon. This tightens the connection specifically between Joel and Obadiah.
12
In support of Obadiah 17 as Joel’s source, see also Raymond Dillard, “Joel,” in MPEEC 1:298;
David W. Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 103–104; Thomas J.
Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 75; Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976), 102.
13
For a number of parallels with Obadiah in Joel 4, see Graham S. Ogden, “Joel 4 and Prophetic
Responses to National Laments,” JSOT 26 (1983): 97–106. I disagree with his thesis that texts like
Obadiah, Joel 4 and Jeremiah 49 were written as a response to the laments of the Israelite community (e.g.
Psalm 137), but he nevertheless notes helpful parallels.
14
This description is correct irrespective of whether one derives ‫שׁבוּת‬
ְ from ‫( שׁבה‬with LXX) or
‫שׁוּב‬, the now-consensus opinion (cf. Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 108–109; Richard D. Patterson,
“Joel,” in EBC 8:339).
39

the Philistines for this wicked behavior, promising to “return [their] recompense upon

[their] heads” (4:4, 7).

I find here two allusions to Obadiah. First, this expression for casting lots (‫ ידד‬plus

‫)גּוֹרל‬
ָ is uncommon; more often the Old Testament uses Hiphil ‫( נפל‬cf. Jon 1:7; Isa 34:17;

Ps 22:18). This particular phrase occurs only in Joel 4:3; Obadiah 11 (‫גוֹרל‬
ָ ‫;) ְועַל־י ְרוּשָׁלַ ִם י ַדּוּ‬

and Nahum 3:10. Since Obadiah is the only other writing that predates Joel with this

phrase, it is at least possible this is an allusion. Second, the expression “return your

ְ ‫ )גְּמוּל בְּר ֹא‬is noteworthy. ‫ גְּמוּל‬often occurs


recompense upon your head” (Hiphil ‫ שׁוּב‬+ ‫שׁכֶם‬

in judgment contexts (cf. Isa 59:18; 66:6; Jer 51:6), but this particular expression is quite

uncommon, occurring only here in Joel and in Obadiah 15 (ֶָ‫) ְגּ ֻמלְָ י ָשׁוּב בְּר ֹאשׁ‬.15

Joel 4:9–15

Moving forward, Joel sounds the challenge of Yhwh to the nations to meet Him

on the battlefield with every man they can spare (“let the weak one say, ‘I am a mighty

man!’”) and every armament they can muster (“Beat your plowshares into swords and

your pruning knives into spears”).16 When they do Yhwh’s angelic warriors will descend

upon them with no hope of survival; the sickle will fly and His enemies will be cut down

as grapes into a winepress to be crushed under His feet.17

15
A third possible allusion is in the drinking of wine following slave negotiations, most likely in
celebration of some kind, which may recall Obadiah 16. This allusion is far less certain than the other two.
16
Joel 4:10; see also Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3; Hans Walter Wolff, “Swords into Plowshares: Misuse
of a Word of Prophecy?” CurTM 12, no. 3 (1985): 133–47.
17
See my discussion below on this metaphor. In defense of my angelic reading of ָ‫ִבּוֹרי‬
ֶ ‫ַהנְחַת י ְהוָה גּ‬
see Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 96–97.
40

Several allusions to Obadiah present themselves here. First, the call to war in

verse 9 has some similarity to the call to war in Obadiah 1.18 Second, Yhwh promises to

return, “to judge all the surrounding nations” (‫) ִלשְׁפּ ֹט אֶת־כָּל־הַגּוֹי ִם ִמ ָסּבִיב‬, an echo of the

saviors who will arise “to judge Mount Esau” (‫ ; ִלשְׁפּ ֹט אֶת־הַר ֵעשָׂו‬Obad 21).19 Third, as we

have already observed, the phrase ‫ כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם י ְהוָה‬also appears here in 4:14 (see with Obad

15), and this with both texts clearly referring to judgment upon Israel’s enemies. Fourth,

Joel 4:13–14 utilizes the winepress of wrath metaphor, which is a tandem image of the

cup of wrath metaphor from Obadiah 16.

Joel 4:16–21

In this final pericope Joel proclaims Yhwh’s intent to judge and the results of His

judgment in the cosmos, in the hearts of His people and His city, and in Judah’s territory

(4:16–18). Joel ends his book with a reference to judgment that will befall Egypt and

Edom, two of the nations that plagued Israel throughout her history with war and hatred

(4:19–21).20

18
‫ ִק ְראוּ־ז ֹאת בַּגּוֹי ִם‬// ‫שׁלָּח‬
ֻ ‫שׁי ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ; ְוצִיר בַּגּוֹי ִם‬
ֵ ְ‫ִבּוֹרים יִגְּשׁוּ יַעֲלוּ כּ ֹל אַנ‬
ִ ‫ ַקדְּ שׁוּ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה ָהעִירוּ ַהגּ‬// ‫קוּמוּ ְונָקוּ ָמה ָעלֶי ָה‬
‫ ; ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬see Ogden, “Joel 4,” 101. I am aware that the contexts are different, but I argue that the call for
nations to arise against Yhwh in battle (Joel) is part of the same eschatological event when the nations arise
against Edom (Obadiah), for the latter will take place after the former (cf. Zech 14:1–5).
19
‫שׁפּ ֹט‬
ְ ‫ ִל‬followed immediately by the direct object marker appears only elsewhere in Exodus 18:13;
1 Kings 3:9; 1 Chronicles 16:33.
20
We cannot be entirely sure what historical events lie behind their actions, but I suggest the best
Sitz im Leben the Bible offers is time of the accession of Rehoboam to the throne and the division of the
kingdom in the final quarter of the 10th century. The connection of the two nations here suggests their
attacks on Israel were similar, or that the attacks happened at the same time, or both. To uncover this time,
we need to isolate a period when Egypt made incursions into the Levant, as took place during the reign of
Pharaoh Shoshenq I (945–924; cf. 1 Kgs 14:25–28; K. A. Kitchen, “Late-Egyptian Chronology and the
Hebrew Monarchy,” JANES 5 [1973]: 225–33; Merrill, Kingdom, 323–25). It is noteworthy that not long
before his reign, Hadad the Edomite had fled to Egypt for asylum when David and Joab subjected Edom to
Israelite hegemony (cf. 2 Sam 8:13–14; Ps 60). This royal Edomite married the sister-in-law of Pharaoh
Siamun (ca. 979–959), the same pharaoh who gave his daughter in marriage to King Solomon (1 Kgs
11:14–22; Merrill, Kingdom, 299). Although we have no material remains to this effect, it is not out of the
question that some sort of alliance between Egypt and Edom extended into the 9th century.
41

In this context Joel offers two more allusions to Obadiah. First, he prophesies that

Jerusalem will become a place of holiness (‫) ְו ָהי ְתָ ה י ְרוּשָׁלַ ִם ק ֹדֶ שׁ‬, which sounds like ‫ְו ָהי ָה ק ֹדֶ שׁ‬

in Obadiah 17.21 The connection between these two dicta is strengthened with Joel’s

expansion ‫ ְוז ִָרים ֹא־י ַ ַעבְרוּ־בָהּ עוֹד‬, which could be read as something of a reflex of

Obadiah’s words against the ‫ ז ִָרים‬that attacked Jerusalem (Obad 11–14). Second, it is

entirely possible that Joel had in mind the attack on Jerusalem of which Obadiah speaks,

for they utilize the same rationale for divine judgment, namely violence committed

against Judah (‫) ֵמ ֲחמַס‬.22

Allusions in Amos

Amos 1:6–10

In these oracles against Philistia and Tyre, Edom plays a secondary role. The two

oracles are tied together with the mention of ‫שׁ ֵלמָה‬


ְ ‫גָּלוּת‬, which for our purposes is best

understood as a reference to a complete group of people forcibly removed from their

homeland.23 The use of the same terminology not only ties these two oracles together in

Amos’s arrangement, but it also renders probable that Amos had in mind the same event

or sort of events perpetrated by both people groups.24 The allusion to Obadiah here is

21
Although Qal weqatal ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ק ֹדֶ שׁ‬is frequent in the Old Testament, the establishment of
Jerusalem as ‫ ק ֹדֶ שׁ‬is not; only Joel 4:17 and Obadiah 17 speak of this.
22
Thus Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 102; Von Orelli, Twelve Minor Prophets, 97; Allen, Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 105; Ogden, “Joel 4,” 102; Dillard, “Joel,” in MPEEC 1:312; Garrett, Hosea, Joel,
396. This allusion is strengthened by the observation that only three occurrences of this phrase with a
causal ‫ ִמן‬and an objective genitive occur in the Hebrew Bible, the other being Ezekiel 12:19.
23
See Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 145–46.
24
For the argument that each of Amos’s successive oracles is tied through Stichworte with the
previous one (as here), see Shalom M. Paul, “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90, no.
4 (1971): 397–403.
42

with the use of Hiphil ‫“( סגר‬hand over”) in connection with the “exiling” activities of

Philistia and Tyre (see Obad 14).25

The background for these events, I believe, may be identified positively as the

same state of affairs spoken of in Joel 4:1–8. For one, Tyre and Philistia are only very

infrequently linked in biblical texts (cf. Ps 83:8; 87:4). And two, both Amos and Joel use

“captivity language” in contexts that do not reflect the exile of either the Northern

Kingdom or the Southern Kingdom. The similarities between the two texts are striking

and should not be ignored.26 It follows from this that Amos is intertextually linked also

with Obadiah, given the close affinities between Joel 4 and Obadiah mentioned above.

Moreover, the mention of the Philistines in connection with a raid on Jerusalem during

the reign of Jehoram (see above), and the unforeseen and otherwise unexplainable

mention of Philistia in Obadiah 19, further links Amos 1:6–8 with Obadiah through Joel.

Amos 1:11–12

In this oracle explicitly against Edom, Amos calls Israel Edom’s “brother.”27 This

arguably alludes to Obadiah, the nearest chronological and textual referent for this idea

(cf. Num 20:14). As we will see in chapter three, Edom’s brotherhood with Israel

included a treaty-like understanding that deserved a respect Edom did not render; thus

25
It is noteworthy that, along with Amos 6:8, no other instances of this verb form occur in the
prophetic literature.
26
Beecher, “Historical Situation,” 32–35.
27
Menahem Haran argued that Edom should be emended to Aram (“Observations on the
Historical Background of Amos 1:2-2:6,” IEJ 18, no. 4 [1968]: 201–207), but this is not necessary if one
dismisses his a priori assumption that these verses must speak of a time when Israel had been defeated by
an international foe (so also Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 147).
43

ִ ‫) ְו‬.28 Another possible allusion is apparent in the promise


“his mercy is spoiled” (‫שׁחֵת ַר ֲחמָיו‬

of a judgment of fire (1:12), which parallels the metaphor for judgment in Obadiah 18.

Amos 9:11–15

I will limit our discussion on this text a few linguistic ties, saving the rest for

chapter three. First, the verb ‫ ירשׁ‬appears here with ‫שׁא ִֵרית אֱדוֹם‬
ְ ‫ אֶת־‬as its direct object.

Although this same construction does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, a

very similar construction does occur in Obadiah 19 (‫) ְוי ְָרשׁוּ … אֶת־הַר ֵעשָׂו‬. Second, the

plethora of allusions here to Joel 3–4 pulls on an intertextual thread that we have seen

leads back to Obadiah.29 These observations underscore the climactic remark in Obadiah

21, namely that after Israel’s hegemony over the nations is established, then (resultant

weqatal) “kingship will belong to Yhwh.”

Allusions in Jeremiah

Jeremiah 38:22

In context, this verse details a vision of Jeremiah against King Zedekiah if he did

not follow Yhwh’s command to surrender to Babylon. According to the prophet, the

king’s fear of his already defected subjects’ animosity would be realized: the palace’s

28
HALOT 4:1470. Several scholars have attempted to ascertain the meaning of ‫ ַר ֲח ָמיו‬here. First,
Michael Fishbane proposed that the word had covenantal connotations and could be translated “allies” or
“friends” (“Treaty Background,” 313–18). Robert B. Coote responded in disagreement on etymological
grounds (“Amos 1:11: RHMYW,” JBL 90, no. 2 [1971]: 206–8), which motivated Fishbane to retreat
slightly from his original contention (“Additional Remarks on Rḥmyw (Amos 1:11),” JBL 91, no. 3 [1972]:
391–93). However, Fishbane has since found support (S. David Sperling, “Biblical rḥm I and rḥm II,”
JANES 19 [1989]: 149–59), and this reading should be followed.
29
Amos 9:12, ‫שׁ ִמי ֲעלֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫שׁר־נִ ְק ָרא‬ֶ ‫ ֲא‬// Joel 3:5, ‫שׁם י ְהוָה‬ ֵ ‫שׁר־י ִ ְק ָרא ְבּ‬
ֶ ‫ ;כּ ֹל ֲא‬Amos 9:13, ‫ְו ִהטִּיפוּ ֶהה ִָרים ָעסִיס‬
‫ ְוכָל־ ַה ְגּבָעוֹת תִּ תְ מוֹגַגְנָה‬// Joel 4:18, ‫ ;יִטְּפוּ ֶהה ִָרים ָעסִיס ְו ַה ְגּבָעוֹת תֵּ ַל ְכנָה ָחלָב‬Amos 9:14, ‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁבוּת ַע ִמּי י‬
ְ ‫שׁבְתִּ י ֶאת־‬
ַ ‫ ְו‬// Joel
4:1 ‫שׁלָ ִם‬ ָ ‫שׁבוּת י ְהוּדָ ה וִירוּ‬ ְ ‫שׁיב[ ֶאת־‬
ִ ‫ ;אָשׁוּב ]אָ‬cf. Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 123; Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 399;
Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 395.
44

women would be led out saying, “‘The men who were at peace with you have enticed

ֵ ְ‫) ִהסִּיתוָּ ְויָכְלוּ לְָ אַנ‬.30


you and prevailed against you…’” (ֶָ‫שׁי שְֹׁמ‬

The allusion to Obadiah 7 is clear in the phrase ֶָ‫אַנְשֵׁי שְֹׁמ‬. This construction also

appears in Psalm 37:37 and 41:10, but in the singular and without the second person

pronominal suffix. Jeremiah switches ָ‫“( ִהסִּיתוּ‬they have incited you”) for ָ‫“( ִהשִּׁיאוּ‬they

have deceived you”) but this is easily explained as a better contextual equivalent, for

some of Zedekiah’s “allies” had ulterior motives for their coalition against

Nebuchadnezzar II.31

Excursus: Views on Dependence between Obadiah and Jeremiah 49

The question of dependence between Obadiah and Jeremiah 49 has received a

number of treatments. In favor of Obadiah’s dependence on Jeremiah, Jack Lundbom is

representative when he argues that Obadiah 10–14 considers the fall of Jerusalem in 586,

and if Jeremiah postdated Obadiah he surely would have included its fall as well.32 A

second position, namely that Obadiah and Jeremiah derive independently from an oral

source, is held by Wolff and others.33 The third position, and the one I have adopted here,

is that Jeremiah borrowed from Obadiah. Beyond the strong support for Obadiah’s dating

to the 9th century, some two hundred years prior to Jeremiah’s ministry, several points

are salient. First, Jeremiah is well known as a “prophet of intertextuality,” meaning he

consistently roots his words in previous writings. This is true particularly of his oracles

30
Thompson, Jeremiah, 642.
31
This is demonstrated concerning Edom in Jason C. Dykehouse, “An Historical Reconstruction
of Edomite Treaty Betrayal in the Sixth Century B.C.E. Based on Biblical, Epigraphic, and Archaeological
Data” (PhD diss., Baylor University, 2008). Cf. Ronald Youngblood, “‫סות‬,” in NIDOTTE 3:239.
32
Jeremiah 37–52, 325–26; also Raabe, Obadiah, 22–31; Block, Obadiah, 37–40.
33
Obadiah and Jonah, 39–40; also Ben Zvi, Obadiah, 99–114 (especially 108–109).
45

against the nations in chapters 46–51, which evince strong allusions to Amos 1–2 and

Isaiah 13–16.34 Second, Jeremiah’s lack of the injunctions found in Obadiah 12–14 may

be telling that these words were no longer appropriate because Edom hadn’t listened the

first time they were offered.35 Third, Jeremiah’s theological expansions upon the theme of

Edom’s destruction, like the note regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (49:18), suggest a

more developed understanding of Yhwh’s plan for this nation than is found in Obadiah.

Fourth, some of the individual text-critical differences between Obadiah and Jeremiah 49

are better explained by Obadiah’s primacy than the other way around, which I will

discuss in the next section.36

Jeremiah 49:7–22

This oracle may be divided into three parts, verses 7–11, 12–16, and 17–22.37

Verses 7–11 parallel Obadiah 1, 5–6, 8–9, and verses 12–16 parallel Obadiah 1–4, 16.38

In verses 7–11, Jeremiah flips the order of Obadiah’s introductory formula to ‫ֶלאֱדוֹם כּ ֹה‬

‫ אָמַר י ְהוָה ְצבָאוֹת‬in conformity with his introductory formula in his oracles against the

34
Delitzsch, “Obadiah,” in K&D 10:229. One case of this is apparent in the aforementioned
Jeremiah 38:22, in which the prophet draws on three Davidic psalms (Ps 37:37; 41:10; 69:14). He roots his
vision that Yhwh gave him in previous revelation to David. It would make sense, then, that he took the
phrase ָ‫שֹׁ ֶמ‬
ְ ‫שׁי‬
ֵ ְ‫ אַנ‬from another writing as well (cf. Thompson, Jeremiah, 642; pace Jack R. Lundbom,
Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 21C [New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2004], 77).
35
Jeffrey J. Niehaus, “Obadiah,” in MPEEC 2:501.
36
Ben Zvi has cautioned against this sort of comparative analysis because of its subjectivity
(Obadiah, 104–108). I agree with his concerns, but I do not presume to think that the task of text-critical
decision-making can be anything but subjective. I am aware many writers may and will disagree with my
assessment, but I would still consider it a worthwhile question to address.
37
These verses are bracketed with ‫( כּ ֹה אָ ַמר י ְהוָה‬vv. 7, 12) and ‫( נְ ֻאם־י ְהוָה‬v. 16).
38
The easiest way to show the parallels is in a side-by-side or point-by-point comparison, as some
commentators have done (Ben Zvi, Obadiah, 99–114; Block, Obadiah, 37–39; Raabe, Obadiah, 22–31.
Raabe’s commentary is particularly helpful because he lays out his understanding of the differences
between the two texts. I do not wish to duplicate their work here; my goal, in tandem with these works, is
to point out the larger blocks of continuity and comment on them.
46

nations (49:7).39 He further conflates Obadiah 8–9 by tying ‫ ָח ְכמָה‬to Teman and using the

verb ‫ אבד‬with reference to the “counsel” (‫ ) ֵעצָה‬of the ‫ ֲח ָכמִים‬rather than with reference to

the ‫ ֲח ָכמִים‬themselves (49:7). The ‫ אִם‬clauses of Obadiah 5 then appear in reverse order

(49:9), and the reference to the threshing and searching out of Edom’s treasures in

Obadiah 6 is paralleled with synonymous vocabulary (49:10).40

In verses 12–16 Jeremiah begins by making reference to the cup of wrath that

appears in an abbreviated form in Obadiah 16.41 Then, beginning in verse 14, he launches

into an almost verbatim quote of Obadiah 1–4 concerning the messenger sent to call the

nations to battle, Edom’s pride and height in the mountains, and Yhwh’s intention to

lower him.42

39
See Jeremiah 46:1, which introduces chapters 46–51 with ‫ ָהי ָה דְ בַר־י ְהוָה … עַל־ ַהגּוֹי ִם‬, and then the
repetitions of lamed + nation in 46:2; 48:1; 49:1, 23, 28. The formula is broken in the case of 47:1; 49:34
and 50:1, which use ‫ ֶאל‬+ nation. On balance it is better to see Jeremiah as having changed Obadiah than the
other way around because ‫ כּ ֹה אָ ַמר י ְהוָה‬followed by the topic introduced with lamed is attested elsewhere
(Jer 4:3; 14:10), while the reverse is not.
40
‫שׁ ִארוּ עוֹלֵלוֹת‬
ְ ַ ‫ ֹא י‬in 49:9 differs from Obadiah only in ‫הֲלוֹא‬. Nothing in this difference points in
either direction. However, the vocabulary differences from Obadiah 6 (‫חשׂף‬//‫חפשׂ‬, ‫גלה‬//‫ )בעה‬are better
explained by Jeremiah’s dependence, in that the first word in Obadiah is found nowhere else with this
meaning and the second word is quite rare (cf. HALOT 1:141–42, 341). Jeremiah’s “update” makes
Obadiah easier to understand.
41
Raabe contends that the cup of wrath metaphor in Jeremiah 25 and 49 must stand behind
Obadiah because otherwise Obadiah 16 “would be rather unintelligible” (Obadiah, 23). However, I have
already noted that the cup of wrath metaphor extends back to the psalms of Asaph, who lived during the
time of David (see above). Hence Obadiah’s readers would not need to know Jeremiah, or any of the other
writing prophets for that matter, for his message to obtain.
42
Several contrasts should be made on these verses. First, Obadiah 1 has the plural ‫שׁ ַמעְנוּ‬ ָ , whereas
Jeremiah 49:14 has singular ‫שׁ ַמעְתִּ י‬ָ . We commented above on the plural being the harder reading (cf. LXX
Obad 1), a point that also suggests Jeremiah is the later reading. Arguably Obadiah would have the singular
if he were the later (contra Raabe, Obadiah, 24). Second, Obadiah maintains the first person plural in the
cohortative to rise for battle (‫ )קוּמוּ ְונָקוּ ָמה‬while Jeremiah 49:14 does not. This is again better explained
through Obadiah’s primacy, for the first person plural is the harder reading. Third, Jeremiah holds the
longer form of the call to battle (five words compared to four), which also argues in favor of Obadiah.
Fourth, the extra word in Jeremiah’s call (‫ )הִתְ ַקבְּצוּ‬seems to smooth out the difficulty of the image in
Obadiah of a messenger calling everyone to battle without first rallying the troops together. Fifth, Jeremiah
cleans up the ambiguous transition from Obadiah 1 to Obadiah 2 with the conjunction ‫( כִּי‬noted in Raabe,
Obadiah, 25). Sixth, the wordplay Jeremiah uses in 49:15 on Edom with ‫ ָבּאָדָ ם‬is missing in Obadiah, which
would make little sense if Jeremiah was his source given his affinity to wordplay on the name Edom (see
comments above). Seventh, the phrase ֶָ‫שׁר ִקנּ‬ ֶ ֶ‫ כִּי־תַ גְבִּי ַה ַכּנּ‬in Jeremiah 49:16 is likely to be a conflation of the
47

Allusions in Ezekiel

Ezekiel 25:12–14

The prediction of judgment in this passage is predicated upon certain vengeful

activity on Edom’s part, which assumes an established relationship between him and

Judah. Ezekiel’s thematic coherence with Obadiah on the question of Edom’s relationship

with Judah (see below) is undergirded by the specific intertextual allusions Ezekiel makes

to Obadiah. For one, he uses the similar phrase ‫ כרת‬with preposition ‫ מִן‬as in Obadiah 9.43

And second, Ezekiel views Yhwh’s wrath against Edom as instrumented through Israel,

specifically labeled “my people” (‫) ַעמִּי‬, as Obadiah 17–21 already predicted.44

Ezekiel 35:1–9

This oracle opens up against Mount Seir, a name used elsewhere to refer to the

territory of Edom.45 For his hostility and joy at the fall of Jerusalem, the nation is

promised destruction. In order to accomplish this, Ezekiel draws on several verses from

Obadiah. First of all, Ezekiel remarks concerning the “desolation” that Edom will

experience in the future (‫שׁ ָממָה‬


ְ and synonyms). We have seen this word employed in Joel

4:19, which I have argued links back to Obadiah. Second, Ezekiel also uses the

uncommon expression ‫“( אֵידָ ם‬their distress”; v. 5) to bespeak the travesty that befell

two clauses in Obadiah 4 (ֶָ‫שׂים ִקנּ‬ ֶ ֶ‫) ִאם־תַּ גְבִּי ַהּ ַכּנּ‬. Admittedly this is the longer reading, which
ִ ‫שׁר ְו ִאם־בֵּין כּוֹ ָכבִים‬
may suggest Jeremiah’s primacy, but it is also the harder reading with the switch from a finite verb to a
participle. The only points I find here in favor of Jeremiah are the difficult hapax legomenon ‫( תִּ ְפ ֶלצֶת‬49:16),
which is missing from Obadiah, and the Edomite speech in Obadiah 3 (‫אָרץ‬ ֶ ‫יוֹרדֵ נִי‬
ִ ‫)א ֹ ֵמר ְבּלִבּוֹ ִמי‬.
43
This verb-preposition collocation is abundant in the Hebrew Bible, but the shared concern of
Edom, and especially the mention of Teman, links these texts more certainly.
44
Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 68.
45
Cf. Gen 36:8–9; Deut 2:1, 5; Josh 15:10; 24:4; 1 Chr 4:42; 2 Chr 20:10, 22–23. More than likely
the name originates from Esau’s hairy composition (‫שׂעִר‬ָ ‫[ ִאישׁ‬Gen 27:11]), although it is also possible it
derives in part from the makeup of the land known by this name; so Ernst Axel Knauf, “Seir (Place),” in
AYBD 5:1072–73.
48

Jerusalem at the hand of Babylon—an expression that Obadiah 12–14 also uses.46

Finally, it is possible that Ezekiel caught on the ‫צִיר‬/‫שׂעִיר‬


ֵ wordplay in Obadiah 1 and thus

decided to focus his oracle around this name rather than Edom.

Ezekiel 35:10–15

Moving forward, Ezekiel notes Edom’s desire to possess (‫ )ירשׁ‬the “the two

nations and two lands” (‫שׁנֵי הַגּוֹי ִם ְואֶת־שְׁתֵּ י ָהא ֲָרצוֹת‬


ְ ‫)אֶת־‬, probably a reference to the Northern

and Southern kingdoms. We have already noted the importance of the verb ‫ ירשׁ‬in

Obadiah, and it is possible Ezekiel alludes to him on this point. Also, Ezekiel notes here

the Edomites “rejoiced” over the fall of Jerusalem, a verb that Obadiah uses as an

injunction (Obad 12). Finally, and most convincingly, Ezekiel 35:13 alludes to Obadiah

12 with the phrase ‫וַתַּ גְדִּ ילוּ ָעלַי ְבּפִיכֶם‬.47

Conclusions

In this chapter I have mentioned specific linguistic connections between Obadiah

and Joel, Amos, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in order to trace Obadiah’s influence on them. We

noted that for Joel 3–4 the prophet undergirds his portrayal of DOL with an allusion to

the remnant theology and lex talionis judgments of Yhwh found in Obadiah. Amos 1 and

9 show that Yhwh’s concern for justice impacts his relationship such that he records the

wickedness of (among others) Philistia, Tyre, and Edom against Israel and will not

“bring” these nations “back” because of it. Furthermore, Yhwh will flesh out this

retribution through His chosen people: Israel will “possess the remnant of Edom, and all

46
Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 172. Both prophets appear to use this term for its wordplay on “Edom.”
47
Hiphil ‫ גדל‬+ ‫ פֶּה‬as direct object appear only here in the Hebrew Bible (Raabe, Obadiah, 179–80).
The only differences between the two are Ezekiel’s use of the preposition ‫עַל‬, the pronominal suffix
(singular in Obadiah, plural in Ezekiel), and the prefixed bet in Ezekiel.
49

the nations …” (Amos 9:12). Jeremiah’s allusions Obadiah similarly underscore Yhwh’s

future plans of world judgment and domination, while also lending credence to the

warning to repent or face bitter betrayal that the prophet levied against King Zedekiah.

Ezekiel’s allusions serve to recall Obadiah in the minds of his readers as they struggle to

make sense of the carnage and trouble surrounding Yhwh’s presence having left the

temple and the temple’s subsequent destruction.48 If the people may remember that Yhwh

has already ensured Edom’s end for a relatively small affair, they can be assured (lesser

to greater argument) that He will not leave Edom unpunished for their involvement in the

events of 586.

We have noted that, in general, the prophets refer back to Obadiah to foment their

words with an air of authority and conviction, as what they say in nuce is not new. This

would have the effect of strengthening the faith of their audience and building the case

against Edom. Also we have seen, in the cases of Joel and Amos, that the prophets recall

specific events in the history between Israel and Edom in order to give substance to their

promises of judgment. The prophets regarded him and his words concerning Edom to be

of utmost importance to their messages. One could almost say that without Obadiah, the

oracles of judgment that make up much of the prophetic message would not be the same.

However, Obadiah’s influence on the prophets may be discernable even more deeply than

this, namely through thematic continuity, to which we now turn.

48
This concern is in Ezekiel’s immediate context, as the oracles against the nation come
immediately after the report that Nebuchadnezzar II had begun the siege (24:1ff.).
CHAPTER THREE
THEMES OF OBADIAH IN THE WRITING PROPHETS
Introduction

This chapter builds on the previous one. Having discussed how Obadiah alludes

to later prophetic writings, we may now turn to the development of certain themes from

Obadiah onward. I define “theme,” for our purposes, as a topic of concern dealt with in a

particular writing. The two themes I have chosen are Edom and the Day of Yhwh

(hereafter DOL), both of which I have chosen because of their importance in latter

prophets and because both evince some development through the prophetic corpus. As

noted in my introduction and at the beginning of chapter two, I will trace these themes

diachronically.1

Edom in the Writing Prophets

In this section I will survey each of the other writing prophets that mention Edom,

with occasional mention of other references as well.2 My goal is to show (1) how the

prophets develop Obadiah’s description of Edom as a paradigm for the nations, and (2)

how they develop Obadiah’s discussion of the relationship between Edom and Israel.

1
Again, for the defense of my chronology, see the appendix.
2
I will not discuss every place Edom is mentioned in the prophets but only those texts that
advance my argument. I do not believe this detracts from my arguments in any way because I am not trying
to prove that the prophets only saw Edom in the ways I will discuss, but rather that in many cases they did.

50
51

Edom as a Paradigm for the Nations

To begin this section, I wish to clarify precisely what I will attempt to show here.

By way of definition, when I call Edom a “paradigm for the nations,” I have in mind a

representative role: Edom is an example of the nations, and this specifically in his

hostility to Yhwh and Israel. As we will see, the prophets pass fluidly and (some would

say) inexplicably from oracles against Edom to references to the cosmos and vice versa.

The reason for this traces back to the ventral dispute of Genesis 25:30, in which Esau and

his descendants are subordinated to little brother Jacob and his descendants. The

Pentateuch and narrative sources of the Old Testament detail the particulars of this

dispute over the years, but say little didactically regarding Edom other than that Israel is

to treat him like a brother (Deut 2:1–8; 23:7–8). Obadiah’s vision against them, then,

paves the way for other prophets who follow him and comment further on Edom’s

enmity. Together the prophets promise Edom ultimate and climactic destruction, and this

as the work of judgment par excellence that Yhwh will accomplish.

In Obadiah

In the final movement of his prophecy, Obadiah predicts the Day of Yhwh

(hereafter DOL) to fall “upon all the nations” (vv. 15–16). To switch from a vision of

Edom’s future destruction to one of cosmic destruction may strike the present-day reader

as odd, for of what import is Edom—a relatively small nation in southern Transjordan—

in the broad scope of Yhwh’s international program? Many commentators, upon seeing

how the Pentateuchal and narrative books regard Edom, have come to the conclusion that

Edom seems to have a paradigmatic role in Obadiah’s mind. Edom represents the other

nations and, one may say, is Israel’s arch nemesis. Thus the switch from an individual
52

nation to the whole world is easily explained: Obadiah realizes that what happens to

Edom for what they did to Israel will happen to all of Israel’s enemies in the future.3 This

perspective will serve as our benchmark for continued discussion of Edom’s

paradigmatic role in the other writing prophets.

In Joel

Beginning with Joel, the only text that mentions Edom is 4:19, in which the

prophet predicts that, “Edom will become a desert of desolation” (‫שׁ ָממָה תִּ ְהי ֶה‬
ְ ‫) ֶואֱדוֹם ְלמִדְ בַּר‬.

The reason stated is “because of the violence [committed against] the sons of Judah,

when they shed innocent blood in their land” (‫ְאַרצָם‬ ָ ‫) ֵמ ֲחמַס ְבּנֵי י ְהוּדָ ה ֲאשֶׁר־‬.
ְ ‫שׁפְכוּ דָ ם־נָקִיא בּ‬

Then two verses later, Yhwh further states that He will not “leave unpunished” (Piel ‫)נקה‬

either Egypt or Edom’s bloodguilt (4:21). This doubtless refers to the innocent blood they

shed in Judah’s land.4 This promised destruction is a stunning reversal, an application of

Judah’s situation under divine judgment (see 1:7, ‫שׁמָּה‬ ְ ‫ )מִדְ בַּר‬to her enemies.5
ַ ; 2:3, ‫שׁ ָממָה‬

The picture Joel provides of Edom is terse, but even here it is evident that Egypt and

Edom are singled out and presented as examples of how Yhwh will desolate His enemies,

for in the immediate context Joel has had a broader, global perspective of Yhwh’s

3
Daniel I. Block, Obadiah: The Kingship Belongs to YHWH, HMSOT 27 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 2013), 88–89; Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary, trans.
Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1986), 62–64; Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical
Study of the Book of Obadiah, BZAW 242 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 166–67.
4
It is also grammatically permissible to take the pronominal suffix on ‫ְאַרצָם‬
ְ ‫ בּ‬as referring to Egypt
and Edom rather than to Judah. If so, then this verse bespeaks maltreatment of slaves taken away from
Judah, which would accord with 4:1–8 (see Raymond Dillard, “Joel,” in MPEEC 1:312–13; David W.
Baker, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, NIVAC [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006], 138). I prefer to see the suffix
as referring to Judah (with, implicitly, Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, WEC [Chicago: Moody
Press, 1990], 100–102).
5
Joel 1:7 is a description of Jerusalem in the wake of a massive locust plague, and Joel 2:3 is a
description of the power of Yhwh’s apocalyptic army (cf. Rev 9:7–10). See Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel,
NAC 19A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 333–44 for an excellent defense of the latter
contention.
53

judgment (note “all the nations” in Joel 4:2, 9, 11, 12). Thus Joel seems to say, with

Obadiah 15, that Edom stands as a representative of Yhwh’s enemies and as an example

of what will befall Yhwh’s enemies in the future.6

In Amos

We have already considered briefly the judgment oracles against Philistia, Tyre,

and Edom in Amos 1:6–12, and have seen how all three allude to Obadiah. The text that

now occupies our concern is Amos 9:11–12, a well-known crux interpretum. Because

this crux is immediately applicable to my thesis, I will treat it here at some length.

In context, this passage falls immediately after the final vision of five in which

Yhwh threatens judgment on the Northern Kingdom. Although Yhwh relents when Amos

intercedes in visions one and two (7:1–3, 4–6), no intercession and no extension of grace

is provided for visions three and four (7:7–9; 8:1–14). The final vision (9:1–10) bespeaks

Yhwh’s earthquake-like anger poured out on His people and the intensity of His intent to

punish. There will be no hiding place for them, nor will their chosen status assuage His

wrath. However, Yhwh caps this proclamation with a promise to not abandon His people

forever. Using the illustration of a sieve (9:9–10), He explains His intention to preserve a

remnant while at the same time destroying His enemies within her midst. This winnowing

process is described in 9:8 by the juxtaposition (note ‫ ) ֶאפֶס כִּי‬of the phrase “I will destroy”

with “yet I will not utterly destroy.”7

6
Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets, paperback ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1990), 85;
Douglas Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 270; Richard D. Patterson,
“Joel,” in EBC 8:345; John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KT: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2001), 110.
7
On this exceptive, juxtaposing conjunction, see IBHS §39.3.5.e (673); J-M §173a (603).
54

The prophet then follows this with a prediction of Yhwh’s plan to reestablish the

Davidic dynasty8 and the United Kingdom (9:11) and to possess the remnant of Edom

and all the nations called by His name (9:12). On the first, it is evident that Amos

foresees a time when David’s dynasty will have already collapsed,9 a prediction also

made elsewhere in the prophetic corpus (Isa 22:25; Jer 22:28–30; cf. Ps 89:39–53). To be

sure, Yhwh never completely abandoned His original promises to David (2 Sam 7:4–17),

but with the moral debilitation of David’s heirs there would be no choice but to send even

him and his lineage into exile (cf. Mic 1:15).10 This period of discipline will one day

come to an end, however, and the dynasty will flourish once more (Mic 5:1–4; Ezek

34:23–24; Jer 23:5–6; Ps 132:17–18).11

MT Amos 9:12 may be translated, “‘… in order that they might possess the

remnant of Edom, indeed all the nations upon whom my name is called,’ declares Yhwh

who will do this” (‫ְהו֖ה ֥ע ֹשֶׂה זּ ֹֽאת‬


ָ ‫ֵיהם נְאֻם־י‬
֑ ֶ ‫שׁא ִ ֵ֤רית אֱדוֹם֙ ְוכָל־הַגּוֹ ִ֔ים ֲאשֶׁר־נִק ָ ְ֥רא שׁ ִ ְ֖מי ֲעל‬
ְ ‫) ְל ַ֨מעַן ִי ְֽיר ֜שׁוּ אֶת־‬.

The first word, ‫ ְל ַמעַן‬, posits 9:12 as consequent to 9:11, suggesting that it will be through

8
This is the most common view on the meaning of ‫( ֻסכַּת דָּ וִיד‬Thomas E. McComiskey and
Tremper Longman III, “Amos,” in EBC 8:417–18; Billy K. Smith, “Amos,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, by
Billy K. Smith and Frank S. Page, NAC 19B [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995], 165–67).
Richardson (“Skt (Amos 9:11): ‘Booth’ or ‘Succoth’?” JBL 99 [1973]: 375–81) contends that the word
should be revocalized as ‫ סֻכּוֹת‬and refers to a city on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley (followed by
Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 398), but the evidence from the versions does not support this revocalization.
9
Pace GKC §116d (356), which reads ‫ הַנּ ֹ ֶפלֶת‬as “ready to fall,” and Thomas E. McComiskey and
Tremper Longman III, “Amos,” in EBC 8:417, who translate present continuous (“is falling”); with Finley,
Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 323; Jeffrey Niehaus, “Amos,” in MPEEC 1:490.
10
On the Davidic Covenant, see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Blessing of David: The Charter for
Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson
Allis, ed. John H. Skilton (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 298–318; Michael A. Grisanti,
“The Davidic Covenant,” MSJ 10, no. 2 (1999): 233–50; Andrew E. Steinmann, “What Did David
Understand about the Promises in the Davidic Covenant?” BSac 171 (2014): 19–29. For the passage in
Micah, see Bruce K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 84–85.
11
On the function of David in Amos, see Greg Goswell, “David in the Prophecy of Amos,” VT 61
(2011): 243–57; John Mauchline, “Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire,” VT 20, no.
3 (1970): 287–92.
55

and after the resurrection of the Davidic dynasty that the foretold conquest will take

place.12 ‫ירשׁ‬, I argue, unequivocally evokes the imagery of war, a point minimized or even

lost on some scholars.13 Although “remnant” (‫שׁא ִֵרית‬


ְ ) has a positive, theological

connotation in many contexts (e.g. Amos 9:8–10), here it appears to better parallel the

sense in Amos 1:8 of no survivors.14 Continuing, Stuart paraphrases ‫שׁמִי ֲעלֵיהֶם‬


ְ ‫ֲאשֶׁר־נִק ְָרא‬

as “which I control,” and goes on to relate this text to others that detail Israel’s future

conquest of her enemies (e.g. Lev 26:36–39). ‫ נְאֻם־י ְהוָה עֹשֶׂה זּ ֹאת‬enwraps the prediction in

assurance of the divine power behind it and certainty that “He will do it.”15

As stated above, this passage is a difficult one for commentators, this in large part

because of the translation found in the LXX and the verse’s usage by James the Just in

Acts 15:13–18.16 LXX reads, “‘… in order that the remnants of men and all the nations

might seek [the Lord],17 everyone upon whom my name is called,’ says the Lord God

who does these things” (ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ

ἔθνη, ἐφʼ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνοµά µου ἐπʼ αὐτούς, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα).

12
So J-M §169g (598); Finley draws attention to the allusion these two verses make to 2 Sam
8:13–14 and David’s original conquest of Edom (Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 323–24).
13
See my comments above on Obadiah 17–21 and the literature I cite there. I believe Smith
(“Amos,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 167–68) and Kaiser (“The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the
Gentiles (Amos 9:9-15 and Acts 15:13-18): A Test Passage for Theological Systems,” JETS 20, no. 2
[1977]: 102–103) fall into this category (cf. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 324).
14
Smith’s explanation of ‫ ירשׁ‬in Amos 1:8 (“Amos,” in Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 52) is valuable
though he would disagree with the point I am making (see note above).
15
Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 396–98.
16
I do not intend to comment on James’s exegetical methods or the broader question of the New
Testament’s usage of the Old Testament. For this see Kaiser, “Davidic Promise,” 97–111; Michael A.
Braun, “James’ Use of Amos at the Jerusalem Council: Steps toward a Possible Solution of the Textual and
Theological Problems (Acts 15),” JETS 20, no. 2 (1977): 113–21; Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 502–505.
17
Codex Alexandrinus adds τὸν κύριον, which appears also in Acts 15:17.
56

The differences between MT and LXX pertinent here are (1) ‫ י ְִירשׁוּ‬// ἐκζητήσωσιν, and

ְ ‫ אֶת־‬// οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων.


(2) ‫שׁא ִֵרית אֱדוֹם‬

On the first, it is likely LXX had ‫ ידרשׁו‬rather than ‫ יירשׁו‬as its Vorlage, and thus

translated with ἐκζητέω.18 On the second, most commentators suggest that LXX had ‫אדם‬

rather than ‫ אדום‬as its Vorlage, and thus the translators took the Hebrew singular in its

very common, corporate sense.19 In favor of MT, however, stands the text-critical

principle that MT is to be preferred over LXX unless strong internal and/or external

evidence weighs in its favor. MT is perfectly understandable here, and thus should be

preferred.20 Further, Amos has already postulated Edom in 1:6–12 as an enemy of

Israel—a notion commonplace in the rest of the Old Testament.21 Thus Edom’s

appearance here is not out of character with Amos, and neither is ‫ ירשׁ‬instead of ‫דרשׁ‬. In

agreement with most commentators, then, I believe the MT holds the original reading.22

How does this passage contribute to the prophets’ perspective on Edom? First,

Israel’s future possession of Edom in Amos 9 echoes what Obadiah said almost one

hundred years earlier (Obad 17–21). Amos thus depends on what Obadiah has already

said to develop his argument regarding the reestablishment of the United Kingdom and

David’s line, while at the same time incorporating elements from previous texts that

18
Perhaps, as both Niehaus and Stuart suggest, a scribe misread dalet for yod (“Amos,” in
MPEEC 1:491; Hosea—Jonah, 396).
19
HALOT 1:14; thus Stuart, Hosea—Jonah, 396; Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 327–28;
McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” in EBC 8:418.
20
On the text-critical priority of MT to LXX, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 121–23. For a position to the contrary, see Peter J. Gentry, “The
Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament,” BBR 16, no. 2 (2006): 193–218.
21
See the texts and sources, along with my comments, above in chapter one under “Purpose.”
22
Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 323; Smith, “Amos,” 167–68; Niehaus, “Amos,” 491; Stuart,
Hosea—Jonah, 396–98.
57

discuss Davidic rule over Edom (e.g. Num 24:17–18; 2 Sam 8:13–14; Ps 60:1–14).23

Amos 9:12 also contains a strong allusion to Joel 3:5, which states that, “everyone who

calls on the name of Yhwh will be saved” (‫)כּ ֹל ֲאשֶׁר־יִק ְָרא ְבּשֵׁם י ְהוָה י ִ ָמּלֵט‬.24 This allusion

broadens the potential meaning in Amos 9:12 to include both militaristic and spiritual

conquest; in other words, Amos foresees a time when Israel will experience military

dominance over her enemies and will draw her enemies into fellowship with Yhwh (cf.

Exod 19:6; Isa 66:18–21).25 Also, as we have already seen in Obadiah and Joel, Edom

may stand as a metonymy for the rest of the nations, a paradigm for Yhwh’s international

program: what Yhwh does to and with Edom is an example of what He will do to and with

the other nations.26 In sum, by drawing together Obadiah and Joel 3:5, Amos presents a

two-sided vision for Yhwh’s “possession” of the nations in the future: (1) He will bring

them under Davidic hegemony, and (2) He will use this hegemony as a catalyst for the

salvation of some, specifically those who call upon His name.27

In Isaiah

In chapter 34, the prophet begins by describing Yhwh’s judgment of all the

nations with sacrificial language (34:1–3). Heaping up phrases (nations, peoples, earth,

23
See Kaiser, “Davidic Promise,” 103; Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 323–25.
24
These are the only two verses in the Hebrew Bible that contain ‫ כּ ֹל‬immediately followed by
(form of ‫שׁר־)קרא‬
ֶ ‫ ֲא‬with ‫שׁם‬
ֵ as the direct object of ‫קרא‬.
25
Thus the MT ‫יירשׁו‬, in one sense, is not at odds with the LXX ἐκζητήσωσιν.
26
Hence my epexegetical translation of the waw on ‫( ְוכָל־הַגּוֹי ִם‬Kaiser, “Davidic Promise,” 103).
27
Finley comments: “When Amos says that the nations are called by the Lord’s name, there surely
has to be some element of salvation and benefit for the Gentiles as well as for Israel. The unique
relationship that had been limited to Israel will be extended to all nations” (Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
325; cf. Niehaus, “Amos,” in MPEEC 1:491–92; McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” in EBC 8:418).
58

world) emphasizes “the universal scope of his words.”28 The slaughter will be

comprehensive; both heaven and earth will surrender their troops to Yhwh’s attack

(34:4). Drawing on the same vocabulary he used earlier in the chapter, Isaiah goes on to

graphically depict the bloodbath that Edom will endure (34:6–7).29 The reason given for

this judgment is stated plainly: “For a day of vengeance belongs to Yhwh, a year of

recompense for Zion’s lawsuit” (34:8).30 The desolation that will be wrought on Edom’s

land will be so complete that Isaiah sees almost no distinction between it and the final

judgment of Yhwh on the earth (34:8–10; cf. Isa 30:33; 66:24).31 Nothing will live in

their land save wild animals and plants (34:11–17).

From this reconstruction we see, first, that Yhwh’s “universal” wrath in 34:1–3

winnows down to focus on Edom in 34:5–10, arguably because Edom’s experiences are a

sample of all the nations’ experiences. Second, Edom is presented explicitly as a parallel

for the heavens in 34:5, where one would most naturally expect to find “earth,”

suggesting Isaiah may see the two as almost indistinct.32 Third, the ‫ כִּי‬clauses in the first

ten verses parallel one another, which draws the reader to parallel the ideas introduced in

28
Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in EBC 6:690.
29
‫( ֶטבַח‬34:2, 6), ‫( חרם‬34:2, 5), ‫ עלה‬+ ‫שׁם‬
ָ ‫ ָב ְא‬/‫שׁנָהּ‬
ָ ‫( ֲע‬34:3, 10).
30
Note ‫כִּי‬, which functions as a structural marker in this chapter (34:2, 5, 6, 8; see James
Muilenburg, “The Literary Character of Isaiah 34,” JBL 59, no. 3 [1940]: 341–42; John D. W. Watts,
Isaiah 34–66, rev. ed., WBC 25 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005], 519–20). ‫ צִיּוֹן‬is a genitive of advantage
(IBHS §9.5.2e [147]; pace Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 526–27). Here we have veiled allusions to DOL, which I
will cover more completely in the second part of this chapter.
31
Sulfur or brimstone (‫ ) ָגּפ ְִרית‬is unique to contexts of categorical judgment (e.g. Gen 19:24; Deut
29:23; Ezek 38:22; Ps 11:6; Job 18:15; see also Rev 9:18; 14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8), and found only in Isa
30:33 and 34:9. No extinguishment aligns 34:10 with 66:24 (‫)כבה‬. Although he diverges from orthodoxy in
his view of the duration of the torment of the wicked in Hell, see the comments on these facets of judgment
in Edward Fudge, “The Final End of the Wicked,” JETS 27, no. 3 (1984): 325–34.
32
The parallel between Edom and the heavens is tightened by the reference to judgment by sword
in both locations; cf. Muilenburg, “Isaiah 34,” 348.
59

them. Thus Yhwh’s anger against all the nations (34:2) is parallel to His sword’s

punishing of the heavens and Edom (34:5–6) and to His day of vengeance (34:8). In other

words, the ideas intermingle and cross over, which facilitates the connection between

Edom and the cosmos. Finally, as mentioned above, the same vocabulary for universal

judgment is applied to Edom’s judgment. The prophet may not say it explicitly, but he

evinces here an understanding of Edom as a paradigm for the other nations who will also

fall under Yhwh’s wrath.33

The same is true in Isaiah 63. Here, with a number of allusions back to chapter 34,

the prophet envisions Yhwh as a warrior returning from battle drenched in the blood of

His foes.34 Interviewing Him, Isaiah writes how His apparel is “red” (‫)אָד ֹם‬, both a

reference to the blood spattered on Him and a wordplay with the name Edom (‫)אֱדוֹם‬.35

Echoing Isaiah 59:15–21, Yhwh the Warrior brings Himself salvation by His own arm,

which seals the salvation of those who turn to Him including a contingency from among

the nations.36 Once again Edom is presented fluidly in parallel with the rest of the

33
See the excellent case made for this assertion in J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An
Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 268–72; John Goldingay, The
Theology of the Book of Isaiah (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 58–59. For a full length
treatment of the point made here, see Claire R. Mathews, Defending Zion: Edom’s Desolation and Jacob’s
Restoration (Isaiah 34–35) in Context, BZAW 236 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995).
34
Note especially 63:4 and the lines ‫ יוֹם נָ ָקם‬and ‫שׁנַת גְּאוּלַי‬
ְ with ‫ יוֹם נָ ָקם‬and ‫שׁלּוּ ִמים‬
ִ ‫שׁנַת‬
ְ (34:8);
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 19B
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 248–49; Matthew J. Lynch, “Zion’s Warrior and the
Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion Traditions,” CBQ 70 (2008): 256–57. This theophanic
language also derives from Deuteronomy 33:2 and Judges 5:4, and is picked up in Habakkuk 3:3 (cf.
Jeffrey J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East, SOTBT
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 281–82, 288–96).
35
See Elizabeth Achtemeier, The Community and Message of Isaiah 56-66: A Theological
Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1982), 107–108. This play on words traces all the way
back to Genesis 25:30 (Lynch, “Zion’s Warrior,” 258), another hint that Isaiah is not just isolating Edom
randomly, but is drawing on a thematic, intertextual line and using it to flesh out the vision he presents.
36
See especially Isaiah 59:19. The mightiness of Yhwh to save here no doubt has as its main
referent the children of Israel, but it does not exclude the inclusion of the Gentiles in His plan. Thus, it
60

nations. Those who fall under the crushing blow of His feet are called “peoples” (‫) ַעמִּים‬,

clarifying that the destruction described here is broader than one nationality (63:3, 6).37

The recall of chapter 59 further underscores this point, as the judgment Yhwh exerts there

extends “to the coastlands” (59:18). It is not, then, that “…Edom denotes not Yahweh’s

victim but simply the direction from which Yahweh comes….”38 Rather, Edom functions

here as a metonymy for the nations as Obadiah originally espoused.

In Jeremiah

Jeremiah 49:7–22 contains many parallel elements to Obadiah, which we

considered at length in chapter two. In 49:21, however, the prophet describes the

response of the nations at Edom’s fall: “At the sound of their fall the earth quakes. The

scream of her voice will be heard in the Red Sea.” This holistic rejoicing over Edom’s

fall, as we will see below in greater detail in Ezekiel, is indicative of their representative

role. Edom’s fall is telling of the fall of the entire earth.39

seems to me that this passage, seen in tandem with Isaiah 59, constitutes another tie with our dual-sided
picture of Edom thus far, as it allows for a contingency of Edomites to turn to Yhwh for salvation, just as
Amos 9:12 in part predicts. On the affinities between Isaiah 59 and 63, see Motyer, Isaiah, 509–11; Lynch,
“Zion’s Warrior,” 245; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 599; Fredrick Holmgren, “Yahweh the Avenger: Isaiah 63:1-6,” in Rhetorical
Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler, PTMS 1
(Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974), 133–48.
37
Isaiah conflates here the metaphors of Yhwh’s wrath as a winepress (cf. Joel 4:11–15; Rev
14:19–20; 19:15–16) and the wine from the press (cf. Isa 51:17–23; Rev 14:9–11). We will comment on the
theme of the cup of Yhwh’s wrath in the second half of this chapter. It is also worth noting here that these
metaphors, particularly that of the winepress, are a function of Yhwh’s singular plan to crush evil through
the Messiah which extends back to Genesis 3:15 (cf. James M. Hamilton Jr., “The Skull-Crushing Seed of
the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” SBJT 10, no. 2 [2006]: 30–54). On the
Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 63, see Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 595–99; Motyer, Isaiah, 509–11.
38
Pace Goldingay, Theology of Isaiah, 79.
39
This is supported by the eschatological and theophanic connotations in the phrase ‫ָאָרץ‬
ֶ ‫שׁה ה‬
ָ ‫ָר ֲע‬
(see Judg 5:4; 2 Sam 22:8; Isa 13:13; 14:16; 24:18; Jer 10:10, 22; 50:46; 51:29; Ezek 31:16; 38:20; Joel
2:10; 4:16; Nah 1:5; Hag 2:6, 21; Ps 18:8; 60:4; 68:9; 77:18), on which see Brevard S. Childs, “The Enemy
from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” JBL 68 (1959): 187–98.
61

In Habakkuk

Habakkuk 3 is a theophanic psalm.40 Beginning in 3:3 the prophet depicts Yhwh

dressed with light and wreaking havoc on His enemies, His choice weapons being bow

and arrows on a chariot (3:8–15). Here the adversaries listed are both general and

specific: Yhwh “shook” and “threshed” the nations (3:6, 12) and attacked the “wicked”

(3:13–14), but His location of battle is Teman/Mount Paran (3:3) and He causes

trembling in Cushan and Midian (3:7).41 The polemical elements present in the psalm

against Babylonian, Ugaritic and Egyptian myths underscore the universality of this

war.42 Yet Teman, a metonym for Edom in other texts (Obad 9!), appears to establish this

nation as representative once again. Coming from Teman after having judged, Yhwh

elicits the praise of the whole earth and “His splendor” (‫ )הוֹדוֹ‬covered the heavens (3:3).

Such a holistic response from the cosmos indicates that this battle from which Yhwh was

returning must have been a cosmic one, an assertion supported by the rest of the psalm.43

40
On the literary aspects of this psalm, see Richard D. Patterson, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” GTJ
8, no. 2 (1987): 163–94; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk,” VT
41, no. 1 (1991): 78–81; James W. Watts, “Psalmody in Prophecy: Habakkuk 3 in Context,” in Forming
Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. Paul R. House
and James W. Watts, JSOTSup 235 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 209–23; Michael L.
Barré, “Newly Discovered Literary Devices in the Prayer of Habakkuk,” CBQ 75 (2013): 446–62.
41
These locations are all toward southern Transjordan (Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible:
A Historical Geography, rev. and enlarged ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979], 146).
42
Thus Patterson, “Psalm,” 187–92; (Babylonian) William A. Irwin, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,”
JNES 1, no. 1 (1942): 10–40; idem., “The Mythological Background of Habakkuk, Chapter 3,” JNES 15,
no. 1 (1956): 47–50; (Ugaritic) W. F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in Studies of the Old Testament
Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1950), 1–18; (Egyptian)
Nili Shupak, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3–7,”
JANES 28 (2001): 97–116. For a more skeptical approach to the mythic elements in this psalm see David
Toshio Tsumura, “Ugaritic Poetry and Habakkuk 3,” TynBul 40 (1988): 24–48.
43
The use of similar motifs and phrases in Deuteronomy 33:2, Judges 5:4 and Psalm 68:8, on
which Habakkuk 3:3 draws, also indicates a universal battle sequence is in view. Still further, the recall of
the wilderness journey from Egypt here suggests a past battle scene from which Yhwh, playing Himself
from years past, has arrived (cf. F. F. Bruce, “Habakkuk,” in MPEEC 2:882; Shupak, “God from Teman,”
108–110).
62

In this way Habakkuk also parallels the nation of Edom with the rest of the cosmos as a

representative nation.

In Ezekiel

Of all the prophets, no other gave as much “press time” to Edom as Ezekiel.44

Following Yhwh’s promise of the new covenant and the return of Israel from exile under

the leadership of a new David (34:20–31), Edom is called out for judgment in chapter 35.

Yhwh promises to desolate Edom’s cities (35:3–4, 7–9, 14–15; cf. Joel 4:19) and to

follow them for blood (‫[ דָ ם‬35:5–6]45), the sword being His weapon of choice and a

symbol of the war He will enact (35:5, 8; cf. Isa 34:6–7; 63:1–6). Just as Edom had

rejoiced in the day of Judah’s ultimate calamity, so also the whole world would take

pleasure in watching Edom fall (35:5, 14–15). As in Habakkuk, the holistic perspective

on Edom’s judgment here suggests that he is a “whipping boy” so to speak, an example

of how Yhwh deals with the enemies of His people. Further, in the next chapter Edom

stands in parallel to the other nations with similar phrases applied to them (36:5),

suggesting that Edom’s hostility to Israel is telling of the hostility of all the nations, that

his hostility is a sample of that of the other nations.46 And, as above with Isaiah 63, there

are echoes here of the age-old battle with evil that began in the Garden of Eden, which

even further solidifies Edom’s representative role.47

44
Marten H. Woudstra, “Edom and Israel in Ezekiel,” CTJ 3, no. 1 (1968): 21–35.
45
Note the wordplay between ‫ דָ ם‬and Edom (Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The
Glory of the Lord [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], 202).
46
Woudstra, “Edom and Israel,” 28–30. For a discussion of the connections between chaps. 35–36
and the representative role Edom plays, see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, NICOT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 309–11, 330.
47
Woudstra, “Edom and Israel,” 30. The word ‫ ֵאיבָה‬, although derived from the very common ‫איב‬,
only occurs in Gen 3:15; Num 35:21–22; Ezek 25:15; 35:5 (Tyler F. Williams, “‫איב‬,” in NIDOTTE 1:364).
63

In Malachi

The last of the prophets begins his oracle with a word concerning Edom. First

mentioning the relationship between Edom and Israel, Malachi goes on to discuss the

destruction Edom had endured in the recent past.48 Drawing on the language of Joel,

Isaiah and Ezekiel, this word of judgment promises Edom will be desolated and never

permanently rebuilt, with horrific names called over him (1:3–4).49 The final phrase in

Malachi 1:5 suggests that, via Edom’s destruction, Israel might draw confidence in

Yhwh’s power and His covenant love for them. In this way the prophet uses Edom as a

test case, as it were, of what Yhwh is able to do to the nations in order to elicit the

response of faith in His people.50

Summary

Thus far we have seen the impact of Obadiah on the later writing prophets with

respect to the paradigmatic portrait of Edom they proffer. Obadiah’s juxtaposition of

Edom with all the nations is picked up in Joel, Amos, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Habakkuk and

Malachi as they speak of Yhwh’s judgment and salvation of the nations. To be sure, as

See also Ezekiel 25:12–14, to which our present text links back. Although Feinberg is not unequivocal on
this point, he has an excellent discussion of judgment against Yhwh’s perpetual enemies in this context
(Ezekiel, 201–204).
48
This text probably recalls the incursions of Nabonidus into the Levant in 551, ostensibly the
“beginning of the end” for Edom; see John R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, JSOTSup 77 (Sheffield,
UK: JSOT Press, 1989), 147–61; Bradley L. Crowell, “Nabonidus, as-Sila’, and the Beginning of the End
of Edom,” BASOR 348 (2007): 75–88.
49
See Joel 4:19; Isa 34:10–17; Ezek 35:3–4, 7–9, 14–15; Ruth Scoralick, “The Case of Edom in
the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis,” in
Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional
Processes, Historical Insights, ed. Rainer Albertz, James Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, BZAW 433 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 45–50; Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AYB 25D (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 169.
50
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Malachi: God’s Unchanging Love (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984),
29–30; Hill, Malachi, 169–70.
64

we have already seen, this role traces back into Genesis, and is by no means a creation of

Obadiah’s. However, through various intertextual echoes and re-usage of specific

vocabulary, the later prophets make clear they are at least in part dependent on Obadiah’s

conception of Edom as they develop their own. We will now look at another facet of

Edom’s role in the prophets and how Obadiah’s prophecy impacts them, namely that of

Edom as Israel’s brother.

Edom as Israel’s Brother

By way of definition, when I call Edom Israel’s “brother” I have two main ideas

in mind, namely ancestry and covenant. I suggest the writing prophets, beginning with

Obadiah, saw the nation of Edom both as the ancestral relative of Israel and as an implicit

covenant partner with Israel, the latter being a function of the former. Although opinions

diverge as to when this relationship became common knowledge and as to what this

relationship entailed throughout its long and rich history,51 I will work from the

assumption that Israel knew the Jacob-Esau stories and regarded Edom as a brother at

least as early as ca. 1406 B.C. (the date of Deuteronomy), and that Obadiah is the first

composition detailing future judgment upon this brother for his un-brotherly activity.52

In Obadiah

There are two main observations we must make here. First, scholars often ask

about the preponderance of the name Esau in Obadiah when other, commoner names for

51
See my comments above in chapter one under the “Purpose of Obadiah.”
52
For (substantial) Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy cf. Eugene H. Merrill, “The Book of
Deuteronomy,” in The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Eugene H. Merrill,
Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 251–57. Against the critical,
seventh-century view, see Gordon Wenham, “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-Pin of Old Testament
Criticism. Part One,” Them 10, no. 3 (1985): 15–20; idem., “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-Pin of Old
Testament Criticism. Part Two,” Them 11, no. 1 (1985): 15–18.
65

Edom (Edom, Seir, Bozrah, Teman) are readily available. It is evident that Obadiah uses

these other names as well, but it is striking that no other book in the Hebrew Bible

besides Genesis repeats the name more.53 What is to be made of this? As most

commentators note, it appears Obadiah is relating his prophecy to the Genesis narratives

between Jacob and Esau, positing the dispute between Israel and Edom ca. 845 as only a

new flare in the age-old rivalry between them.54

Second, Obadiah makes use of very explicit language to communicate the depth

of this relationship, calling Edom Jacob’s brother (Obad 10). The use of Jacob here, the

first in the book, maintains the tie back to the patriarchal narratives. Although nothing is

stated here explicitly concerning the relationship the two peoples had established at this

point in history, the point is clear: “this is not how a brother should behave!”55 As the

earliest of the writing prophets, then, Obadiah reopens this question of Israel’s

brotherhood with Edom that later prophets will develop.

In Joel

In the final words of his prophecy, Joel draws attention to the maltreatment of

Judah at the hands of Egypt and Edom (4:19–21). Although he uses no vocabulary that

makes clear what relationship he sees between them, the reference to innocent blood

53
Esau is also mentioned in Deuteronomy (2:4, 8, 12, 22, 29), Joshua (24:4), Jeremiah (49:8, 10),
Malachi (1:2–3), and 1 Chronicles (1:34, 35).
54
This point challenges the idea that the Edom-Israel conflict began after the fall of Jerusalem, as
contend Elie Assis, “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources,” VT 56,
no. 1 (2006): 1–20; Beth Glazier-McDonald, “Edom in the Prophetical Corpus,” in You Shall Not Abhor an
Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman,
SBLABS 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 23–32. Bartlett makes this conflict a child of David’s reign (ca.
1000; Edom and Edomites, 156–57), but even this date does not seem to provide the time necessary for this
conception to sink in adequately, assuming a 9th century composition of Obadiah.
55
J. R. Bartlett, “The Brotherhood of Edom,” JSOT 4 (1977): 4. What is entailed in this
brotherhood, I believe, will be fleshed out in subsequent paragraphs on Amos 1:6–12.
66

argues that Edom’s attack(s) crossed the line. It is only one logical step from this to infer

that part of the reason Joel regarded their actions in this way is because of the amicable

relationship Edom should have maintained with Judah.56

In Amos

Amos’s prophecy begins with eight judgment speeches against the nations

surrounding the Northern Kingdom, each one conforming to the formulaic dictum,
57
“because of three sins of … and because of four…” (‫ַל־אַר ָבּעָה‬
ְ ‫שׁעֵי … ְוע‬
ְ ‫שׁה ִפּ‬ ְ ‫)עַל־‬. Important
ָ ֹ‫שׁ‬

for our discussion is Barré’s contention that the root ‫ שׁוב‬in this context has covenantal

overtones. Both against the Sovereign Yhwh and against one another, the nations invoked

here have violated their treaty relationships, and thus Yhwh will not “take them back.”58

As noted above, in 1:6–8 and 1:9–10 Edom is listed alongside Philistia and Tyre

as hostile to Israel, playing a secondary yet active role in their attacks on Israel. In the

latter passage Yhwh upbraids Tyre for not remembering “a covenant of brotherhood”

(‫)בּ ְִרית אַחִים‬. Although this verse does not state explicitly that Edom was in the same sort

56
It is not enough to say that this is merely Judah’s perspective on the matter, i.e. that Judah did
nothing to provoke a skirmish, for ‫ דָ ם־נָ ִקיא‬never occurs in a war context except here. As the old adage goes,
“All’s fair in love and war.” I suggest then that for Joel to use an unprecedented dictum here makes it very
likely he had more on the mind than just the attack(s), the amity between the two nations likely being the
missing piece. Note also the allusion he makes in this context to Obadiah 10 (‫ ֵמ ֲח ַמס ְבּנֵי י ְהוּדָ ה‬// ָ‫ֵמ ֲח ַמס אָחִי‬
‫ ;יַעֲק ֹב‬thus Dillard, “Joel,” in MPEEC 1:312–13; Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 102), which I will defend in
detail in chapter three.
57
This phrase refers either to an indefinite number of transgressions (McComiskey and Longman,
“Amos,” in EBC 8:363); “seven,” i.e. a full number of, transgressions (Meir Weiss, “The Pattern of
Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2: A Re-Examination,” JBL 86, no. 4 [1967]: 416–23; James Limburg,
“Sevenfold Structures in the Book of Amos,” JBL 106, no. 2 [1987]: 217–22); or “one too many”
transgressions (b. Yoma 86b; b. Sanh. 7a; John H. Hayes, “Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations (1:2-2:16),”
RevExp 92 [1995]: 156). I favor the “one too many” view, but in any case a plurality of transgressions still
obtains. Indeed, Stuart comments that this phrase “does connote multiplicity” (Hosea—Jonah, 310).
58
Michael L. Barré, “The Meaning of l’ ’šybnw in Amos 1:3–2:6,” JBL 105, no. 4 (1986): 611–31.
Finley comments that it is unlikely that Israel would have understood the other nations as vassals under
Yhwh’s sovereignty in some sense, albeit subordinate to their own (Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 140), but in my
judgment his reasoning is unconvincing.
67

of covenant with Israel, Edom is also chided, “because he pursued his brother with the

sword” (‫ַל־רדְ פוֹ ַבח ֶֶרב אָחִיו‬


ָ ‫ ;ע‬Amos 1:11). The repetition of ‫ אָח‬ties this oracle back to the

previous one against Tyre, suggesting that both nations should have been on friendly

terms with Israel and (perhaps) that these terms could have been similarly defined.59 We

see also that Amos uses the word “allies” (‫;ר ֲחמָיו‬
ַ see above) to describe Israel, further

underscoring the state of affairs that should have existed between them.

In Jeremiah

Chapter 27 of Jeremiah tells of a coalition of kings in the Levant gathering

together in Jerusalem with Zedekiah in an effort to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar II. The

only comment we need make here is that this coalition, arguably, is the overflow of an

outstanding relationship between Judah and Edom following his independence during the

reign of Jehoram (see above). This relationship was certainly not amicable, but their

ancestral ties and their common foe (Babylon) drew them together.60

A divergent picture appears in Jeremiah 40, which details the asylum Judahites

sought from Moab, Ammon and Edom after the destruction of Jerusalem. It certainly

does not fit with the consistent polemic we have seen thus far, but it does indicate that,

59
This is a natural implication of the argument advanced in Shalom M. Paul, “Amos 1:3–2:3: A
Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90, no. 4 (1971): 397–403, mentioned above, which shows how each of
the eight oracles is tied to the one before it through Stichworte. I would argue that both references to
brotherhood here have some formal/informal treaty background (cf. John F. Priest, “The Covenant of
Brothers,” JBL 84, no. 4 [1965]: 400–406; Michael Fishbane, “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and
Related Matters,” JBL 89, no. 3 [1970]: 314–15).
60
Jason C. Dykehouse, “An Historical Reconstruction of Edomite Treaty Betrayal in the Sixth
Century B.C.E. Based on Biblical, Epigraphic, and Archaeological Data” (PhD diss., Baylor University,
2008), 209–12.
68

beyond geographical proximity, Edom and Judah were close enough to expect such help

from one another, again in the face of the Babylonian threat.61

In Ezekiel

In his first oracle against Edom, Ezekiel stresses that their action was vengeful

(25:12–14).62 By definition, vengeance assumes a previous action that must be repaid or

answered, which contributes to the likelihood that Ezekiel saw the two nations as linked.

Then too, he uses a very strong phrase (“… and they incurred grievous guilt …”; ‫ַויּ ֶ ְאשְׁמוּ‬

‫ )אָשׁוֹם‬to define the inculpation of the Edomites resulting from their taking of vengeance.

Reading this verse with Leviticus 5:19 (‫ )אָשׁ ֹם אָשַׁם‬has the effect of “covenantalizing”

Edom’s vengeance against Judah; in other words, their revenge was a violation of their

familial duty to Judah.63 Block comments: “While the crime is not specified, it

undoubtedly relates to Edom’s abandonment of his brother in the critical hour, and

Edom’s glee at the razing of Jerusalem (cf. Ps. 137:7).”64 In this brief oracle, then,

Ezekiel contains a veiled reference to Edom’s relationship with Judah.

The brotherly relationship also undergirds Ezekiel 35–36, as Yhwh attempts to

show His covenant favor toward Israel in the context of His future plans to end the exile

61
Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,
AYB 21C (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), 113; Dykehouse, “Edomite Treaty,” 25–26.
62
‫( ִבּנְק ֹם נָ ָקם ְלבֵית י ְהוּדָ ה … ְונִ ְקּמוּ ָבהֶם‬25:12). This phrase “highlights the malicious passion of the
perpetrator” (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 23).
63
‫ אשׁם‬as a cognate infinitive absolute appears only here and in Leviticus 5:19, which discusses the
guilt offering, a reparation for unintentional sins here labeled a “breach of faith” (‫[ תִ ְמע ֹל ַמעַל‬5:15]). ‫ ַמעַל‬is s
a violation of one’s legal or covenantal obligations, e.g. Josh 7:1 (HALOT 2:612–13; Victor P. Hamilton,
“‫ ַמעַל‬,” in TWOT 1:519–20). Hence, “This offense was … viewed as sacrilege, as a direct affront against
Israel’s God with whom the Israelites were aligned by covenant agreement” (Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus,
NAC 3A [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000], 123–24).
64
Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 23. Though his use of the term “brother” here appears to be nothing more
than a rhetorical flourish, I suggest Block is close to the point I am making here: guilt of this kind is
reserved for the transgression of close (covenant!) relationships.
69

through a new David and restore His relationship with them (34:1–24; 37:1–28). In 35:11

Yhwh promises to act in accordance with His wrath “because of your [Edom’s] hatred

against them” (‫שׂנְאָה‬


ִ ). Although not in every instance, some scholars have noted that the

“love” and “hate” are covenantal terms.65 Here, even though this meaning is secondary to

the general attitude “hatred” communicates, I argue it is still present.66 Then too, the

expression “you handed over the sons of Israel to the power of the sword” (‫וַתַּ גֵּר אֶת־ ְבּנֵי־‬

‫ )יִשׂ ְָראֵל עַל־י ְדֵ י־ח ֶָרב‬in 35:5 offers a sense of closeness between the two nations, enough that

Edom could capitalize on Israel’s weakness when Jerusalem was attacked.67

In Malachi

Few would deny the familial ties proffered in Malachi 1 between Edom and

Israel. The prophet invokes personal names of their ancestors, Jacob and Esau, for just

this reason.68 The biblical theme of election, as fleshed out in Romans 9:13, also finds its

roots here as Yhwh uses covenant language to remind Jacob of her chosen status and

Esau’s rejected status.69 Yhwh’s international program was designed to draw the

65
This was first suggested for the book of Deuteronomy in William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near
Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25, no. 1 (1963): 77–87. The discussion
has since expanded to consider other texts like Hosea 9:15 (Norbert Lohfink, “Hate and Love in Osee
9,15,” CBQ 25, no. 4 [1963]: 417) and Malachi 1:2–5, which I will discuss below. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld,
“Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93, no. 2 (1973):
190–99.
66
In two articles, J. A. Thompson has pointed out the covenantal background for the use of these
poles in Ezekiel 16 and 23 (“Israel’s ‘Lovers,’” VT 27, no. 4 [1977]: 476–77; “Israel’s ‘Haters,’” VT 29, no.
2 [1979]: 201–202). It stands to reason that if Ezekiel could use these words with covenantal overtones
elsewhere, the same may be true here.
67
Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in EBC 7:839.
68
Joachim J. Krause, “Tradition, History, and Our Story: Some Observations on Jacob and Esau in
the Books of Obadiah and Malachi,” JSOT 32, no. 4 (2008): 475–86 (especially 482).
69
“Love” and “hate” arguably are covenantal terms here (thus Steven L. McKenzie and Howard
N. Wallace, “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 [1983]: 555–57; Hill, Malachi, 166–68). Elie Assis
has argued recently that this text foments his argument regarding Israel’s existential crisis following the fall
of Jerusalem, namely that Edom had surreptitiously become the new “people of God” in their place. Hence,
70

attentions of Israel away from their depressed myopia and onto His ability to fulfill His

promises concerning the world and thus, by extension (implicit qal wahomer argument),

concerning them as well.70

Summary

I have attempted to show in these last pages how Edom was conceived as a

relative and covenant partner with Israel/Judah in the writing prophets, an idea that

Obadiah introduces to the corpus and the rest flesh out. Via intertextual allusions and

biblical-theological commonplaces, I argue that the later writing prophets evince a

marked thematic dependency on Obadiah. Having traced “Edom as a paradigm” and

“Edom as Israel’s brother,” we now turn to our second theme, the Day of Yhwh (DOL).

The Day of Yhwh in the Writing Prophets

Here I will describe the motif of DOL as defined in Obadiah and as developed in

the writing prophets who follow him. The working definition I will use of DOL is a fixed

period of time when Yhwh will appear with an army to attack Jerusalem, purge her

wickedness, and destroy all the nations who have mounted an attack against her.71 As we

old racial boundaries no longer existed, and inter-marriage and divorce had become acceptable in the public
eye (“Love, Hate and Self-Identity in Malachi: A New Perspective to Mal 1:1-5 and 2:10-16,” JNSL 35, no.
2 [2009]: 109–20; cf. his “Why Edom?” 1–20). It is clear that Israel was left questioning Yhwh’s covenant
love following the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Isa 40:27; 49:14), but I find his main contention on the
connection between Malachi 1:2–5 and 2:10–16 unconvincing, positive elements of his “Why Edom?”
thesis notwithstanding.
70
Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, WEC (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 392–93.
71
Douglas Stuart has suggested that this phrase has roots in ANE propagandistic literature, in
which various kings boasted of their abilities to end wars in a single day (“The Sovereign’s Day of
Conquest,” BASOR 221 [1976]: 159–64), which accords with Gerhard von Rad’s contention that DOL
derives from the “holy war” traditions of ancient Israel (The Message of the Prophets, trans. D. M. G.
Stalker [New York: Harper & Row, 1967], 95–99). Much in Stuart’s thesis is commendable, but whether
that means DOL is only one, twenty-four hour period is not certain (note the parallelism of ‫ יוֹם‬with ‫שׁנָה‬
ָ in
Isa 34:8; 61:2; 63:5). See also Meir Weiss, “The Origin of the ‘Day of the Lord’—Reconsidered,” HUCA
37 (1966): 29–71; Michael S. Moore, “Yahweh’s Day,” ResQ 29, no. 4 (1987): 193–208; Rolf Rendtorff,
“Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the LORD’ in the Book of the Twelve,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to
71

will see, then, DOL carries notions of both judgment and salvation. I have isolated three

elements of Obadiah’s portrayal to trace: (1) the nearness of DOL, and (2) the cup of

Yhwh’s wrath in DOL.

The Nearness of the Day of Yhwh

Here I will examine the phrase, “the Day of Yhwh is near” (‫)קָרוֹב יוֹם י ְהוָה‬.

Nearness in these contexts refers to spatial (not temporal) proximity.72 This phrase does

not change drastically throughout the prophetic literature, but the changes present may be

significant in the development of DOL in Israelite consciousness.

In Obadiah

Obadiah 15 begins with a ‫ כִּי‬clause introducing the purpose behind the injunctions

of verses 12–14. Having received a vision of a future scene in which Edom would share

in an attack on Jerusalem, and writing to warn them not to follow through with it,

Obadiah details a Day that will match the day of Judah’s attack. He outlines the objects

of DOL wrath as “all the nations” (‫)כָּל־הַגּוֹי ִם‬, a reflex of the Edom-nations

interchangeability we have noted above. The second half of the verse functions as an

epexegesis of the first half: the nearness of DOL means that, “Just as you [Edom] have

done, so shall it be done to you; your retribution will turn back upon your head.”73 Two

Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 186–97;
Shimon Bakon, “The Day of the Lord,” JBQ 38 (2010): 149–56.
72
Note Bill T. Arnold, “‫ ָק ֵרב‬,” in NIDOTTE 3:973–75. The spatial sense is frontloaded in HALOT
3:1139–40, but it still allows for a temporal reading.
73
Several commentators have noted the infrequent Niphal stem of the verb ‫ עשׂה‬here (‫שׂה‬ ֶ ‫)י ֵ ָע‬.
Arguably this is a “divine passive,” indicating Yhwh is the One who will do to Edom what he had done to
Israel. To be sure, this does not mean He will not use intermediaries (see Obad 1), but it does mean He is
the prime mover behind their defeat (Paul R. Raabe, Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AYB 24D [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996], 193; Block, Obadiah, 85–86).
72

points are pertinent thus far: (1) the identity of DOL’s objects (the nations), and (2) the

explanation of DOL’s nearness (lex talionis).

In Joel

Joel 1:15 offers the first mention of DOL in the book, and also mentions its

nearness. He begins with a cry of woe (‫) ֲאהָהּ לַיּוֹם‬, and then follows up with, “… and like

might from the Almighty it will come” (‫)וּכְשׁ ֹד ִמשַׁדַּ י י ָבוֹא‬. With this we see that Joel also

regards DOL as a work of judgment that has Yhwh as its ultimate source. Then too, in a

later discussion on DOL and the cosmic battle Yhwh will fight, the prophet describes

Yhwh’s actions in terms of lex talionis, utilizing very similar vocabulary to Obadiah

(4:1–8, 14).

Finally, in Joel 2:1 the prophet conflates the vocabulary of 1:15 and Obadiah 15

with two ‫ כִּי‬clauses explaining the reason why the inhabitants of the land should tremble.

Its nearness is further described as an army of apocalyptic proportions making its way

into Jerusalem with Yhwh as its captain (2:2–11; 3:4). This passage diverges from

Obadiah, however, for it posits DOL as coming against Jerusalem, not against the

nations.74 The interlocutor in chapter one is implied (Israel/Judah) yet inexplicit, while

the reference in chapter four is clearly against Israel’s enemies, so one may argue that

Joel’s DOL is still cosmic in scope as is Obadiah’s. Yet we find in Joel 2 the beginnings

of what becomes clear elsewhere, namely that Israel is not exempt from the judgment of

DOL (see Amos 5:18–20).75

74
Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 334–35.
75
This text in Amos deserves some extended comment. Here Amos rebukes Israel for desiring
DOL. Rolf Rendtorff has argued from this that DOL here is “not … a hitherto unknown term; on the
contrary, he is opposing an obviously common understanding of this particular day among his audience….”
He then goes on to argue, based on his canonical reading of the Twelve, that Joel’s DOL programs Amos 5
because it is the nearest canonical referent (“Day of the Lord,” 187). I disagree with his rationale, but his
73

In Isaiah

Isaiah 13 falls at the front of a compilation of judgment oracles against the

nations.76 In an almost exact quote of Joel 1:15, Isaiah also posits DOL as “near” and

“like the might of the Almighty” (13:6). This oracle also regards Babylon in the

representative role we have discussed for Edom.77 In fact, one may make the case that the

very army Yhwh will lead into Jerusalem according to Joel, which itself links back to

Obadiah 1, is the same one described here in Isaiah. This battle will elicit the dismay and

fear of the entire earth for it is a cosmic battle (Isa 13:5–8). Isaiah contributes to DOL

theology by making quite explicit what is the purpose of DOL: “to destroy [the earth’s]

sinners from upon it” (13:9). This judgment is neither capricious nor unwarranted; those

who will fall on that day will deserve it.78 Hence Isaiah develops Obadiah’s paradigm of

“one-nation-for-all” by inserting Babylon instead of Edom into the position of the one,

assessment of the audience of Amos 5, in my estimation, is spot-on. Amos had to be referring to an already
well-known concept; how else would his message have had an impact (pace Weiss, “Origin Reconsidered,”
60)? Then too, why would Israel have desired DOL to begin with? Rendtorff argues, rightly I think, that it
is because they viewed DOL as primarily a day of judgment upon their enemies, much like those judgments
leveled in Amos 1–2 (“Day of the Lord,” 191–93; cf. Bakon, “Day of the Lord,” 24–25; Feinberg, Minor
Prophets, 105–106; Kenneth D. Mulzac, “Amos 5:18–20 in Its Exegetical and Theological Contexts,” JATS
13, no. 2 [2002]: 94–107). Doubtless both Obadiah and Joel functioned as base texts in this errant view,
ֶ ֹ ‫ ח‬and ‫)אָפֵל‬.
and particularly Joel 2:1–2 (note the repetitions of ְ‫שׁ‬
76
Paul R. Raabe, “Look to the Holy One of Israel, All You Nations: The Oracles about the
Nations Still Speak Today,” CJ 30, no. 4 (2004): 336–49; Seth Erlandsson, “The Burden of Babylon: A
Study of Isaiah 13:2-14:23,” Springfielder 38, no. 1 (1974): 1–12.
77
See also Jeremiah 25:12–29; Revelation 18:1–24. On Babylon in Isaiah, cf. Deomar Roos,
“Babylon in the Book of Isaiah,” CJ 30, no. 4 (2004): 350–75. The fact this oracle is against one nation,
while it contains elements directed to all the nations, underscores the point I have made concerning Edom.
78
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1986), 305–306; Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, NAC 15A (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007),
302. On the reasons for these oracles, see G. R. Hamborg, “Reasons for Judgement in the Oracles against
the Nations of the Prophet Isaiah,” VT 31, no. 2 (1981): 145–59. His article is overly reductionistic, in that
he disallows the interpretation that these oracles would have served as indirect words of salvation and hope
for Israel, but his list is helpful nevertheless.
74

while also drawing on a number of allusions to Joel, in order to describe DOL as

universal and against sinners.79

In Zephaniah

Commentators have noted how Zephaniah “has only one topic, and he never

digresses from it,” that topic being DOL.80 With stunning allusions to creation and the

flood, Zephaniah describes DOL in cosmic terms.81 Perhaps nowhere else does DOL

receive such an abysmal description: “A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and

distress, a day of devastation and desolation, a day of darkness and deep darkness, a day

of cloud and thick darkness, a day of trumpet and shouting against the unassailable cities

and against the battlements of the lofty” (1:15–16).82 More than this, he uses language

from Isaiah 34, which we have already seen is an oracle against Edom (Zeph 1:7).83

DOL’s nearness for Zephaniah is thus characterized by sacrificial judgment of the whole

earth, a fact to which Obadiah, Joel and Isaiah have already attested.

In Ezekiel

Chapters 25–31 in Ezekiel constitute oracles against the nation meant to

encourage Israel that Yhwh has not forgotten them even with judgment fast approaching

79
This oracle, seen in tandem with the rest of Isaiah especially, has no national bias, by which I
mean Israelites too would fall under Yhwh’s judgment (cf. 66:5–6 and the similar vocabulary used there).
80
J. Alec Motyer, “Zephaniah,” in MPEEC 3:897.
81
For these allusions see Michael De Roche, “Zephaniah I 2-3: The ‘Sweeping’ of Creation,” VT
30, no. 1 (1980): 104–109.
82
ֶ ֹ ‫ ח‬with ‫ ֲא ֵפלָה‬and ‫ ָענָן‬with ‫ ע ֲָרפֶל‬allude to Joel 2:2.
The piling up of ‫ יוֹם‬and the paralleling of ְ‫שׁ‬
83
Isaiah 34:8 (‫ )יוֹם נָ ָקם‬infuses the rest of the oracle with an air of DOL (see the literature cited
above). Then too, the metaphor of judgment as a sacrifice of the officials (Isa 34:6–7; Zeph 1:7–8; cf. Larry
L. Walker, “Zephaniah,” in EBC 8:666) draws the two texts together.
75

(see 24:1ff.).84 Egypt receives the brunt of Ezekiel’s focus, in which context the prophet

relates that DOL is near (30:3). Ezekiel makes use of Joel’s and Zephaniah’s

descriptions, seeing DOL as a “day of cloud, a time for the nations” (‫;יוֹם ָענָן עֵת גּוֹי ִם י ִ ְהי ֶה‬

cf. Joel 2:1–2; Zeph 1:15),85 while at the same time making use of Joel’s emotional cry

over the judgment that day will bring (cf. Joel 1:15).86

Summary

Here we have considered the nearness of DOL. We have seen how the universal

perspective of Obadiah is maintained through Joel, Isaiah and Zephaniah, and how this

universality and its attending motifs were designed to strike fear in the readers and elicit

repentance. Next we will consider the motif of the cup of wrath in DOL.

The Cup of Wrath in the Day of Yhwh

Although Revelation provides the presentation par excellence of this metaphor

(14:9–11; 16:17–21; 18:4–8), the Old Testament prophets used this metaphor when

commenting on coming judgment. Here we will see how the prophets developed the

abbreviated image in Obadiah toward the robust one utilized in Revelation.87

In Obadiah

Although Obadiah does not use any of the three words for drinking vessel found

in these contexts, he does describe the act of Judah’s drinking on Mount Zion and the

future drinking of all the nations: “They will drink and swallow and will be as though

84
Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in EBC 6:650.
85
Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 157.
86
‫ הָהּ לַיּוֹם‬approximates ‫( ֲאהָהּ לַיּוֹם‬Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 115); see also ‫ הֵילִילוּ‬in Isaiah 13:6.
87
I will only comment on the texts that relate DOL with the cup of wrath in some way, but note
also Habakkuk 2:15–16; Ezekiel 23:32–34; Psalm 75:9. A tandem metaphor is that of the winepress of
Yhwh’s wrath (cf. Joel 4:11–15; Isa 63:1–6; Jer 25:30; Rev 14:19–20; 19:15–16).
76

they had never been” (Obad 16). The continual suffering of Judah’s enemies will surpass

her momentary suffering. The final verb here splits the metaphor wide open, for it unveils

the toxic nature of the contents of the cup from which the nations will drink. The

disjunctive clause with which Obadiah 17 opens up (‫ )וּ ְבהַר צִיּוֹן‬further draws this out, as

the escape (‫ ) ְפלֵיטָה‬some would experience on Mount Zion functions as the parallel

opposite of the drinking in Obadiah 16. In this way Obadiah posits both the grace of

deliverance and the horror of judgment side by side through the imagery of wrath

drinking, and this in the context of the future DOL.88

In Isaiah

We find a very similar picture Isaiah 51. Roused for the end of exile and return to

the Promised Land, Jerusalem is depicted as having drunk from the cup of wrath such

that no one is left to lead them back home. In their state of drunkenness and staggering,

Yhwh will graciously remove the cup from His people and pass it on to the instruments

of His wrath, the enemies who originally attacked her.89 Although DOL does not appear

explicitly in Isaiah 51, chapter 13 shows that the judgment of all the earth including

Babylon—the enemy in view here—will take place on DOL.90 Grace for Israel and

judgment for the nations join together as they have already in Obadiah.

88
As an aside, it is worth noting that Lamentations 4:21 also passes the cup of wrath to Edom for
his role in the destruction of Jerusalem. See the lengthy excursus on this topic in Raabe, Obadiah, 206–42
and idem., “Drinking the Cup of God’s Wrath: A Biblical Metaphor,” in Hear the Word of Yahweh: Essays
on Scripture and Archaeology in Honor of Horace D. Hummel, ed. Horace D. Hummel et al. (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing, 2002), 45–56.
89
Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 355–57.
90
Reading in concert the repetitions of the doubled imperative ‫ עור‬in Isaiah 51:9, 17 and 52:1 has
the effect of drawing the three pericopes together; hence the transfer of the cup in 51:17–23 should be
identified with the general time period of the end of exile (51:9–11; 52:1–6). This time is referred to as
“that day,” arguably a veiled reference to DOL (thus Roos, “Babylon,” 365–67). There is further support
for this contention in the well-established opinion that Isaiah 40–55 presupposes the Babylonian exile and
hints as this fact throughout (cf. Motyer, Isaiah, 298).
77

In Jeremiah

Jeremiah, immediately following his seventy years prophecy (25:8–14; cf. Dan

9:1–27), dives into a word regarding the cup of wrath. Diverging from Obadiah and

Isaiah, he mentions Jerusalem at the front of a list detailing all the nations destined for

judgment (25:17–26). The scope of this list is universal; it is for “all the kingdoms of the

earth on the face of the ground,” with the final drinker being the king of Babylon

(25:26).91 The placement of Jerusalem at the head of the list and the prophet’s note in

25:29 suggest that judgment will come first to Yhwh’s people and second to the nations,

the same pattern as is present in Obadiah and Isaiah (cf. 1 Pet 4:17–19). With allusions to

Joel 4 here, Jeremiah relates wrath drinking to DOL, albeit in a veiled sense.92

In Jeremiah 49:12, with the same phraseology and rationale as in 25:29, Yhwh

insists that Edom must drink from the cup of wrath. DOL is not immediately apparent

here either (only 49:22), but the extended allusion to Obadiah in 49:7–22 suggests it was

in the prophet’s mind when he wrote and probably derives from that context.93

In Zechariah

In his second burden (‫ ; ַמשָּׂא‬chapters 12–14), Zechariah unveils in glorious detail

Yhwh’s program “on that day” (‫)בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא‬.94 With repetitions of this phrase and the even

clearer statement in 14:1 (‫) ִהנֵּה יוֹם־בָּא לַיהוָה‬, Zechariah controls his second burden with

91
This climactic position in the list arguably stations Babylon as the head of all the kingdoms of
the earth, as we have already seen in Isaiah 13 (see above).
92
25:29, ‫ וְאַתֶּ ם ִהנָּ ֵקה תִ נָּקוּ ֹא תִ נָּקוּ‬// Joel 4:21, ‫( ְונִ ֵקּיתִ י דָּ ָמם ֹא־נִ ֵקּיתִ י‬cf. Jer 49:12); 25:30, ‫שׁאָג‬
ְ ִ ‫י ְהוָה ִמ ָמּרוֹם י‬
‫ וּ ִמ ְמּעוֹן ָקדְ שׁוֹ י ִתֵּ ן קוֹלוֹ‬// Joel 4:16, ‫שׁלַ ִם י ִתֵּ ן קוֹלוֹ‬ָ ‫שׁאָג וּ ִמירוּ‬
ְ ִ ‫( וַיהוָה ִמצִּיּוֹן י‬cf. Amos 1:2); Thompson, Jeremiah, 519.
93
Pace Ogden, “Prophetic Oracles,” 92. See above in chapter two on this extended allusion.
94
Note this phrase in 12:3, 4, 6, 8–9, 11; 13:1–2, 4; 14:4, 6, 8–9, 13, 20–21. It appears to function
as a major structural marker in these chapters (cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 2 vols., Berit
Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 2:684–85, 697).
78

DOL.95 His opening words regarding this program concern the cup of wrath against the

nations, but with a significant transformation from the image postulated by his

predecessors: “Behold, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup that causes staggering for all

the surrounding peoples, and it will even be against Judah during the siege on

Jerusalem.”96 This change is significant because Zechariah passes over the thought of the

cup of wrath first being the possession of Judah and immediately applies it to the nations

who surround her. At the same time, however, he mentions clearly that Jerusalem is

under siege—a hint at the wrath Yhwh was intending to pour out on the city. Zechariah

thus incorporates the cup of wrath motif with DOL as well.

Summary

In this subsection we have traced the theme of the cup of Yhwh’s wrath through

DOL contexts in the prophets in an attempt to define how Obadiah is developed through

them. We observed a substantial agreement between Obadiah and Isaiah 51, and some

veiled references in Jeremiah 25; 49; and Zechariah 12. The writing prophets draw upon

Obadiah’s dual focus of grace and judgment in the cup of wrath motif as they consider

elements attending DOL.

Conclusions

In this chapter we have considered two main themes found in Obadiah and how

those themes develop through the prophetic corpus. Based on the heuristic data from

95
12:2 and 14:1 share ‫ ִהנֵּה‬and future instance participles, suggesting that they parallel one another
in the macrostructure of the book (so also Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 2:697; Meredith G. Kline, “The
Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” JETS 34, no. 2 [1991]: 188–90).
96
On the future instance participle rendering see Zechariah 11:6, 16 (cf. Merrill, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, 317; IBHS §37.6f [627]). This verse is notorious, centering on the difficult phrase ‫ְוגַם‬
‫שׁלָ ִם‬
ָ ‫עַל־י ְהוּדָ ה י ִ ְהי ֶה ַב ָמּצוֹר עַל־י ְרוּ‬. My translation comes from Von Orelli, Minor Prophets, 364, but see also
Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 317; David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A
Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 107–108; Thomas E.
McComiskey, “Zechariah,” in MPEEC 3:1209; Feinberg, Minor Prophets, 330–31 for a discussion.
79

chapter two, where we noted specific intertextual allusions back to Obadiah in Joel,

Amos, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, we have expanded our purview to include those themes

most of the prophets share. Our study has shown not only that the prophets used Obadiah

as a source for “proof texts,” but also that his writing undergirds the specific foci they

have. From our tracing of DOL and Edom in the prophets, along with the specific

linguistic connections mentioned in chapter two, I believe it is apparent that Obadiah’s

impact on the prophetic corpus is far more substantial than we typically realize. His is the

shortest of the prophetic writings, but its influence far outdistances its length.
CONCLUSION
In this thesis I have traced the intertextual impact of Obadiah through the other

Old Testament prophets. I began in chapter one with an introduction, translation and

commentary to the book, in which I defended Obadiah’s primacy, and thus the viability

of my thesis. In chapter two I gave linguistic data to posit specific allusions the prophets

made to Obadiah. Then in chapter three, I outlined two of the themes, Edom and the Day

of Yhwh, that flow from Obadiah into the other prophets and showed how they expanded

on what Obadiah said in nuce.

As stated in the introduction, my goal was not to write anything novel.

Furthermore, this study is only the beginning. Examination of other themes found in

Obadiah, such as the remnant, would serve as an excellent starting point for more

research. Also, an in-depth consideration of the feasibility of dating through intertextual

studies, although a difficult argument to prove and to protect from circular reasoning

(“Joel borrows from Obadiah because he postdates Obadiah, as seen by the fact that he

borrows from him”) would be another fruitful direction for future study. In spite of this,

my concern has been to show the fruitfulness of such diachronic research and how the

message of Obadiah becomes so much more revolutionary when we understand its

impact on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Joel and the other prophets. From Obadiah

we await and praise the coming King: ‫ֽיהו֖ה ַהמְּלוּכָ ֽה‬


ָ ַ‫( ְו ָהי ָ ְ֥תה ל‬Obad 21)!

80
APPENDIX
DATING THE PROPHETS
Here I wish to offer a brief defense of the chronology for the prophets I have used

in this thesis. There are two main reasons for this. First, diachronic intertextual studies

demand such date analysis. One may be skeptical on this or that date, to be sure, but in

order to adequately trace thematic and allusive developments a relative chronology must

be in place. Hence the very nature of the thesis demands it. Second, dating the prophets is

a notoriously difficult part of Old Testament exegesis; even the books that provide clear

chronological markers have been attacked and moved into very late periods of Israel’s

history. It is an area of study that must therefore be approached humbly but also

vigorously. As men endowed with the Spirit of God to both preach against societal

shortcomings and to predict future events, it is imperative that the prophets be understood

in the periods in which they wrote if they are to be understood correctly.

My relative chronology, detailed below, will supply the order in which I will

discuss the date of each of the prophets’ writings.

1. Obadiah (ca. 845) 6. Isaiah (740–681)

2. Joel (ca. 830) 7. Micah (740–700)

3. Jonah (ca. 765) 8. Nahum (640–630)

4. Amos (762) 9. Zephaniah (ca. 630)

5. Hosea (755–710) 10. Jeremiah (627–562)

81
82

11. Habakkuk (ca. 606) 14. Zechariah (520–515)

12. Ezekiel (592–572) 15. Malachi (433–425)

13. Haggai (520–515)

Joel

Joel is regularly considered a post-exilic document,1 while a few also date it to the

late pre-exilic period (8th-7th centuries).2 In my judgment the most likely provenance is

toward the beginning of the reign of the Judahite King Joash (835–796), ca. 830, for

several reasons. First, there are a number of historical affinities between Amos and Joel.

The same enemies are mentioned in Joel 4:1–21 as are found in Amos 1:6–12, and, “…

[at] no time after the reign of Joash was the kingdom of Judah faced by this particular

assortment of enemies.”3 The concatenation of Joel’s main concerns (drought, locusts,

foreign invasion; cf. 1:1–2:11) are also present in Amos 4:6–11.4 More specifically, we

may note that in Joel the locust plague is an item of the recent past and the drought one of

the present, whereas in Amos both are regarded as having already passed. These two

factors suggest a date prior to Amos, which all commentators agree was written in the

1
Thus Jacob M. Myers, “Some Considerations Bearing on the Date of Joel,” ZAW 74 (1962):
177–95.; Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1976), 19–25; James L. Crenshaw, Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, AYB 24C (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 21–29; Thomas J. Finley, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, WEC (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 2–9; Elie Assis, “The Date and Meaning of the Book
of Joel,” VT 61 (2011): 163–83. The views that it may be dated into the 4th century (F. R. Stephenson,
“The Date of the Book of Joel,” VT 19 [1969]: 224–29) or into the 3rd century (Marco Treves, “The Date
of Joel,” VT 7 [1957]: 149–56) have not gained traction.
2
Richard D. Patterson, “Joel,” in EBC 8:311–13; Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, NAC 19A
(Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 286–94.
3
Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, updated and rev. ed. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1994), 339 (emphasis mine).
4
Willis J. Beecher, “The Historical Situation in Joel and Obadiah,” JBL 8 (1888): 33. His article,
in my estimation, is a tour de force and has provided a definitive explanation of the background for Joel.
83

middle of the 8th century (see below). Second, Joel assumes that both the wall of

Jerusalem and the temple are standing (2:5, 9, 15–17). Some take these as a reference to

the reconstruction efforts of the 5th century,5 but others have pointed out the unlikelihood

of this.6 This evidence thus aligns favorably with a pre-exilic date, when the wall would

have been strong enough for invaders to lay siege and when the temple would have been

usable for corporate repentance.7 Third, Joel says nothing of the king reigning at the time

of his writing. Although some have argued this point in favor of a post-exilic date, this

silence would also fit well in the reign of Joash, who became king at age seven and was

advised for most of his life by the priest Jehoiada (2 Kgs 22:1–12:21). Joel’s date has

defied consensus ever since the days of John Calvin, so humility is necessary, but I

believe the reign of Joash provides the most likely circumstances in which Joel wrote.8

Jonah

Jeroboam II reigned from 793–53 and experienced some surprising military

success during the middle part of his reign, success that Jonah had predicted (2 Kgs

14:23–27). Jonah’s activity in Nineveh and subsequent writing post-dates this expansion,

corresponding to the reign of the weak Assyrian king Aššur-dan III (772–55). We have

5
Crenshaw, Joel, 24; Treves, “Date,” 151–52.
6
Note Assis, “Date and Meaning,” 164; John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 15; Raymond Dillard, “Joel,” in MPEEC 1:276.
7
Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 289–90.
8
Conrad Von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets, reprint ed. (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock,
1977), 73–77.
84

no reason to believe he wrote from any period later than this, although most scholars

view him as a writing of the post-exilic period.9

Amos

During the reigns of Uzziah (792–740) and Jeroboam II (793–753), “two years

before the earthquake” Amos began his ministry (1:1). The internal evidence of the book

corroborates this, for Amos upbraids the Northern Kingdom for the social injustice that

came as a result of the nation’s affluence (cf. 2:6–8; 8:4–6; 2 Kgs 14:23–27). This

earthquake is dated to 760, making Amos a production of 762.10

Hosea

Hosea’s ministry could have begun as early as 793, the beginning of the reign of

Jeroboam II, and ended as late as 686, the end of Hezekiah’s reign (1:1). The name of

Hosea’s first son fits best at the end of Jeroboam’s reign (ca. 753), since Jeroboam’s son

Zechariah reigned for only a month and was the last heir to Jehu’s dynasty (2 Kgs 15:8).

715 is the earliest Hosea could have finished for this is the date Hezekiah became the sole

ruler in Judah. We may estimate he prophesied between 755–710.

Isaiah

Isaiah’s prophetic career began “in the year King Uzziah died” (Isa 6:1), or 740,

and stretched at least until the assassination of Sennacherib by his sons in 681.11 This

9
For instance, in a recent article Muraoka argues for a post-exilic date based on linguistic factors
like the preference of ‫שׁ‬ ְ over ‫שׁר‬ֶ ‫“( ֲא‬A Case of Diglossia in the Book of Jonah?” VT 62 [2012]: 129–31).
Yet, as he himself notes, ‫שׁ‬ ְ occurs in some very early texts (e.g. Gen 6:3; Judg 5:7). These texts cannot be
simply excised either, for the early (second millennium) existence of this particle also carries comparative
and epigraphic evidence to support it (cf. Robert D. Holmstedt, “The Etymologies of Hebrew ’ăšer and
šeC-*,” JNES 66, no. 3 [2007]: 177–92 [especially 182–85, 189–90]). Thus Jonah’s preference of ‫שׁ‬ ְ over
‫שׁר‬ֶ ‫ ֲא‬does not automatically mean his work was post-exilic.
10
Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos, Herm (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 124.
11
ANET 288–89.
85

accords with the Ascension of Isaiah, which holds King Manasseh (696–642) martyred

him, which would have taken place earlier in his reign prior to his repentance. Of course,

the majority of scholars wish to date parts of Isaiah to the 6th and even 5th centuries

(Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah), but this position, put simply, has been disproven quite

convincingly.12

Micah

Micah began prophesying in 750 at the earliest and finished his career in 686 at

the latest, the span allowable by the superscription to his book. His message against

Samaria presupposes its existence and relative strength, so his ministry probably began

during the middle of the reign of Pekah (752–732; see 2 Kgs 15:27–31). Another oracle

may safely be dated to the time of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem under Sennacherib in

701 (1:10–16; see Isa 36–37). Jeremiah 26:18 also mentions his influence during

Hezekiah’s reign (729–686). It is impossible to be certain, but we can estimate he

prophesied for about forty years, perhaps between 740–700.

Nahum

Nahum predicts the fall of Nineveh in 612, making this the terminus ad quem.

Nahum also calls attention to the fall of Thebes as a matter of the recent past, which took

place in 663 (Nah 3:8–10). Between these two dates we cannot be certain, but the fact

that he does not mention Babylon seems to be a strong argument for a date prior to

Babylon’s rise to power under King Nabopolassar, who reigned 626–605. A date around

640–630 is a reasonable guess and the consensus opinion. This date also allows for

12
J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 25–33; Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in EBC 5:438–47; Mark F. Rooker,
“Dating Isaiah 40–66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?” WTJ 58 (1996): 303–12.
86

Nahum to have taken part in the beginnings of the religious reforms King Josiah

instituted during his reign (640–609).13

Zephaniah

Zephaniah 1:1 states that he prophesied during the days of King Josiah, who

reigned 640–609. He also predicts the fall of Assyria, making the latest date 612 (2:13–

15). The wickedness the prophet saw in Judah at this time makes it likely that he wrote

prior to Josiah’s major reforms in his eighteenth year (622; 2 Kings 22:3–23:37).

Sometime between 640–622, perhaps around 630, seems to be the best estimate.14

Jeremiah

Jeremiah 1:2–3 states plainly the prophet began his ministry in the thirteenth year

of King Josiah and prophesied until the final captivity of Jerusalem (627–586). The final

four verses of the book record the release of Jehoiachin from prison in Babylon, an event

that took place the year that Evil-merodach became king of Babylon (562; cf. 2 Kgs

25:27–30). Although it is possible that these verses were added to the book after Jeremiah

died, it is not out of the question that he wrote them himself, particularly in light of the

fact that he was called into ministry as a “youth” (‫ ;נַעַר‬see Jer 1:6).15

Habakkuk

Habakkuk gives no chronological markers in his book, but we can date it with

great certainty to the final quarter of the 7th century when Babylon was growing in

13
Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (1987; repr., Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 454–55. Patterson prefers a date between 660 and 654, which is also
permissible (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, WEC [Chicago: Moody Press, 1991], 4–7).
14
Merrill, Kingdom, 456–57; Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 275–77.
15
Victor Hamilton, “‫נַעַר‬,” in NIDOTTE 3:125. See Michael L. Brown, “Jeremiah,” in EBC 7:31;
Merrill, Kingdom, 457–67.
87

strength under Nabopolassar and had already defeated Nineveh (612). Also, Habakkuk

says nothing about Nebuchadnezzar’s first attack on Jerusalem (605), but describes the

judgment as coming soon, within his lifetime (3:16). 607–606 is thus a safe estimate.16

Ezekiel

Ezekiel was part of the second wave of exiles taken to Babylon in 597 (Ezek 1:1–

2; 2 Kgs 24:8–17). He first received visions of God in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s

exile to Babylon, or 592 (1:2). His ministry continued until he and his fellow Judeans had

been in exile for twenty-seven years, or 570 (29:17).17

Haggai

Haggai’s ministry began in the sixth month of the second year of Darius king of

Persia (not the same Darius as in the book of Daniel), or 520, in order to shake the people

from their apathy to continue with the rebuilding of the Second Temple (cf. Ezra 4:1–

6:15). On four different occasions Haggai prophesied in the space of three months (1:1;

2:1, 10, 20).18 Ezra notes that the temple was completed because the people “prospered”

under Haggai and Zechariah’s prophecies, probably meaning these two men continued to

minister until the project was done in 515, Darius’s sixth year (Ezra 6:14–15).

Zechariah

Zechariah began his prophetic career in 520 two months after Haggai, in the

eighth month of Darius’ second year (1:1). Three months later he received his night

visions (1:7). His ministry continued at least until 518 (7:1), but as with Haggai, he

16
Merrill, Kingdom, 455; Ralph L. Smith, Micah—Malachi, WBC 32 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1984), 94; Shimon Bakon, “Habakkuk: From Perplexity to Faith,” JBQ 39, no. 1 (2011): 25.
17
Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in EBC 7:647–48;
18
Merrill, Kingdom, 494–95.
88

probably continued to oversee the progress of the Second Temple reconstruction project

until 515 (Ezra 6:14–15).19

Malachi

Malachi has no specific chronological markers in it, so dating this book is

difficult. However, he uses a Persian word for “governor” (‫ ) ֶפּחָה‬in 1:8,20 no kings are

mentioned in the book, and temple worship is active. These points suggest a time during

the Persian period some years after the rebuilding of the Second Temple in 516. Further,

Malachi voices concern over many of the same issues raised in Nehemiah’s day like

tithing, divorce and mixed marriages, and a corrupt priesthood.21 It seems best, then, to

place Malachi’s preaching immediately prior to Nehemiah’s final reforms, or sometime

between 433–425.22

19
Merrill, Kingdom, 496.
20
HALOT 3:923.
21
See Malachi 1:6–2:6; 2:10–16; 3:5–10; Nehemiah 5:1–13; 10:37–39; 13:23–29.
22
Merrill, Kingdom, 513–15; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age
Through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1998), 441–45.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M.
Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart, Germany:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed.
Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

Neusner, Jacob, ed. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 22 vols.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011.

———. , ed. The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 28 vols. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham


Press, 2008.

Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. Revised ed. Stuttgart, Germany:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.

Secondary Sources

Achtemeier, Elizabeth. The Community and Message of Isaiah 56-66: A Theological


Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1982.

Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Revised and enlarged
ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979.

Alexander, Ralph H. “Ezekiel.” In EBC 7:641–924.

Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990.

———. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. New International Commentary
on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976.

Anderson, Bradford A. “Poetic Justice in Obadiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 35, no. 2 (2010): 247–55.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Updated and Revised ed.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Armerding, Carl E. “Habakkuk.” In EBC 8:603–49.

———. “Obadiah.” In EBC 8:421–49.

89
90

Arndt, William F., Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, eds. A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Assis, Elie. “A Disputed Temple (Haggai 2,1–9).” Zeitschrift Für Die Altestamentliche
Wissenschaft 120 (2008): 582–96.

———. “From Adam to Esau and Israel: An Anti-Edomite Ideology in 1 Chronicles 1.”
Vetus Testamentum 56, no. 3 (2006): 287–302.

———. “Love, Hate and Self-Identity in Malachi: A New Perspective to Mal 1:1-5 and
2:10-16.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35, no. 2 (2009): 109–20.

———. “The Date and Meaning of the Book of Joel.” Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011):
163–83.

———. “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources.”
Vetus Testamentum 56, no. 1 (2006): 1–20.

Baker, David W. Joel, Obadiah, Malachi. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Bakhtin, M. M. “Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination, edited by


Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 259–422.
University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1. Austin: University of Texas Press,
1981.

Bakon, Shimon. “Habakkuk: From Perplexity to Faith.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 39, no. 1
(2011): 25–30.

———. “The Day of the Lord.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 38 (2010): 149–56.

Baly, Denis. The Geography of the Bible: A Study in Historical Geography. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1957.

Barré, Michael L. “Newly Discovered Literary Devices in the Prayer of Habakkuk.”


Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013): 446–62.

———. “The Meaning of l’ ’šybnw in Amos 1:3–2:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature


105, no. 4 (1986): 611–31.

Bartlett, John R. Edom and the Edomites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 77. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1989.

———. “Edom (Place).” In AYBD 2:287–95.


91

———. “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom.” Journal of Theological
Studies 20, no. 1 (1969): 1–20.

———. “Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly
114 (1982): 13–24.

———. “From Edomites to Nabateans: A Study in Continuity.” Palestine Exploration


Quarterly 111 (1979): 53–66.

———. “The Brotherhood of Edom.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 4
(1977): 2–27.

Barton, John. “Intertextuality and the ‘Final Form’ of the Text.” In Congress Volume,
Oslo 1998, 33–37. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

———. Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Beale, G. K. “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong
Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’
Exegetical Method.” Themelios 14 (1989): 89–96.

———. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2012.

———. “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: One More Time.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 55, no. 4 (2012): 697–715.

Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beal, Timothy K. “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the
Means of Production.” In Reading Between Texts, 27–39.

Beecher, Willis J. “The Historical Situation in Joel and Obadiah.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 8 (1888): 14–40.

Bennett, Crystal M. “An Archaeological Survey of Biblical Edom.” Perspective 12, no.
1–2 (1971): 35–44.

Ben Zvi, Ehud. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah. Beihefte Zur
Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 242. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1996.
92

———. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.”


In Forming Prophetic Literature, 125–56.

Bewer, Julius A. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Obadiah and Joel.” In A


Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Obadiah and Joel, 1–144. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1959.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and


Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 19B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2003.

Block, Daniel I. “Israel’s House: Reflections on the Use of BYT YŚR’L in the Old
Testament in the Light of Its Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 28, no. 3 (1985): 257–75.

———. Obadiah: The Kingship Belongs to YHWH. Hearing the Message of Scripture: A
Commentary on the Old Testament 27. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
2013.

———. The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Braun, Michael A. “James’ Use of Amos at the Jerusalem Council: Steps toward a
Possible Solution of the Textual and Theological Problems (Acts 15).” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 2 (1977): 113–21.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. The Brown-Driver-Briggs


Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Brown, Michael L. “Jeremiah.” In EBC 7:21–572.

Broyles, Craig C. “Traditions, Intertextuality, and Canon.” In Interpreting the Old


Testament: A Guide for Exegesis, edited by Craig C. Broyles, 157–75. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Bruce, F. F. “Habakkuk.” In MPEEC 2:831–96.

Busenitz, Irvin. Joel and Obadiah. Mentor Commentary. Ross-shire, UK: Christian
Focus Publications, 2003.

Carhuachín, César, and Mario Martínez. “Abdías.” In Comentario Bíblico Mundo


Hispano, 24 vols., 13:153–66. El Paso, TX: Editorial Mundo Hispano, 2003.
93

Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress


Press, 1979.

———. “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 68 (1959): 187–98.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “A Theology of the Minor Prophets.” In A Biblical Theology of
the Old Testament, edited by Roy B. Zuck, 397–433. Chicago: Moody Publishers,
1991.

Chou, Abner. “Better than They Knew or Better than We Give Them Credit for?
Intertextuality, Prophetic Understanding/Exegesis, and Preaching,” 1–25. Sun
Valley, CA, 2012.

Clines, David J. A. Job 1–20. Word Biblical Commentary 17. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989.

Coote, Robert B. “Amos 1:11: RHMYW.” Journal of Biblical Literature 90, no. 2
(1971): 206–8.

Crenshaw, James L. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Yale Bible 24C. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995.

Crowell, Bradley L. “Nabonidus, as-Sila’, and the Beginning of the End of Edom.”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 348 (2007): 75–88.

Davies, G. I. “A New Solution to a Crux in Obadiah 7.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977):


484–87.

Delitzsch, F. “Obadiah.” In Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F.


Delitzsch, 10:225–52. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

———. “Wann Weissagte Obadja?” Zeitschrift Für Die Lutherische Theologie Und
Kirche 12 (1851): 91–102.

De Roche, Michael. “Zephaniah I 2-3: The ‘Sweeping’ of Creation.” Vetus Testamentum


30, no. 1 (1980): 104–9.

Dhorme, E. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight. London:


Thomas Nelson, 1967.

Dicou, Bert. Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical
Prophecy and Story. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 169. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Dillard, Raymond. “Joel.” In MPEEC 1:239–313.


94

Dykehouse, Jason C. “An Historical Reconstruction of Edomite Treaty Betrayal in the


Sixth Century B.C.E. Based on Biblical, Epigraphic, and Archaeological Data.”
PhD diss., Baylor University, 2008.

Edenburg, Cynthia. “Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of


Readership: Some Preliminary Observations.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 35, no. 2 (2010): 131–48.

Erlandsson, Seth. “The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2-14:23.” Springfielder


38, no. 1 (1974): 1–12.

Eslinger, Lyle. “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of


Category.” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 1 (1992): 47–58.

Feinberg, Charles L. The Minor Prophets. Paperback ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers,
1990.

———. The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

Fewell, Danna Nolan, ed. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible.
Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1992.

Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago:


Moody Press, 1990.

Fishbane, Michael. “Additional Remarks on Rḥmyw (Amos 1:11).” Journal of Biblical


Literature 91, no. 3 (1972): 391–93.

———. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

———. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” Journal of


Biblical Literature 99, no. 3 (1980): 343–61.

———. “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 89, no. 3 (1970): 313–18.

———. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” In Congress Volume, 39–44.

Floor, Sebastiaan Jonathan. “From Information Structure, Topic and Focus, to Theme in
Biblical Hebrew Narrative.” DLitt diss., University of Stellenbosch, 2004.

Forder, A. “Sela or Petra, ‘The Strong City.’ The Ruined Capital of Edom.” The Biblical
World 18, no. 5 (1901): 328–37.
95

Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1992.

Fudge, Edward. “The Final End of the Wicked.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 27, no. 3 (1984): 325–34.

Fuller, Russell. “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The Evidence from
the Judean Desert.” In Forming Prophetic Literature, 86–101.

Garland, David E., and Tremper III Longman, eds. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.
Revised ed. 13 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2006–12.

Garrett, Duane A. Hosea, Joel. New American Commentary 19A. Nashville: Broadman
& Holman Publishers, 1997.

Gentry, Peter J. “The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament.” Bulletin for Biblical
Research 16, no. 2 (2006): 193–218.

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by


A. E. Cowley. Dover ed. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006.

Glazier-McDonald, Beth. “Edom in the Prophetical Corpus.” In You Shall Not Abhor an
Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, edited
by Diana Vikander Edelman, 23–32. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology
and Biblical Studies 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Glueck, Nelson. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I.” Annual of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 14 (1934 1933): 1–113.

———. “The Boundaries of Edom.” Hebrew Union College Annual 11 (1936): 141–57.

———. “The Civilization of the Edomites.” The Biblical Archaeologist 10, no. 4 (1947):
77–84.

Goldingay, John. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2014.

Goswell, Greg. “David in the Prophecy of Amos.” Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011): 243–
57.

Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
Anchor Yale Bible 22. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983.

———. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Yale Bible 22A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.
96

Grisanti, Michael A. “The Davidic Covenant.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2
(1999): 233–50.

Grogan, Geoffrey W. “Isaiah.” In EBC 6:435–863.

Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Hamborg, G. R. “Reasons for Judgement in the Oracles against the Nations of the
Prophet Isaiah.” Vetus Testamentum 31, no. 2 (1981): 145–59.

Hamilton, James M., Jr. “The Skull-Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical
Interpretation of Genesis 3:15.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10, no. 2
(2006): 30–54.

Haran, Menahem. “From Early to Classical Prophecy: Continuity and Change.” Vetus
Testamentum 27, no. 4 (1977): 385–97.

———. “Observations on the Historical Background of Amos 1:2-2:6.” Israel


Exploration Journal 18, no. 4 (1968): 201–12.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. 1969. Reprint, Grand Rapids:


Eerdmans Publishing, 1979.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Hart, Stephen. “Sela’: The Rock of Edom?” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 118 (1986):
91–95.

Hayes, John H. “Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations (1:2-2:16).” Review and Expositor
92 (1995): 153–67.

———. “The Usage of Oracles Against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 81–92.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1989.

Hepner, Gershon. “Verbal Resonance in the Bible and Intertextuality.” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001): 3–27.

Hill, Andrew E. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Yale Bible 25D. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.

Hirsch, E. D., Jr. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1967.
97

Hoffman, Yair. “The Technique of Quotation and Citation as an Interpretive Device.” In


Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the
Centuries, edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning Graf Reventlow, 71–79.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 59. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1988.

Holmgren, Fredrick. “Yahweh the Avenger: Isaiah 63:1-6.” In Rhetorical Criticism:


Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, edited by Jared J. Jackson and Martin
Kessler, 133–48. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 1. Pittsburgh:
Pickwick Press, 1974.

Holmstedt, Robert D. “The Etymologies of Hebrew ’ăšer and šeC-*.” Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 66, no. 3 (2007): 177–92.

House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998.

———. The Unity of the Twelve. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 97. Sheffield, UK: Almond Press, 1990.

Howard, Tracy. “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:14: An Alternative Solution.”
Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 314–28.

Irwin, William. “What Is an Allusion?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59, no. 3
(2001): 287–97.

Jeremias, Jörg. “Zur Theologie Obadjas: Die Auslegung von Jer 49,7-16 Durch Obadja.”
In Die Unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien Zur Alttestamentlichen Prophetie;
Festschrift Für Arndt Meinhold, edited by Lux Rüdiger and Ernst-Joachim
Waschke, 269–82. Arbeiten Zur Bibel Und Ihre Geschichte 23. Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006.

Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve. Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 149. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia Biblica 27.
Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish
Wars. Nashville: B&H Academic, 1998.

———. Malachi: God’s Unchanging Love. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984.

———. “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity.” In The Law and the
Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis,
edited by John H. Skilton, 298–318. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974.
98

———. “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles (Amos 9:9-15 and Acts
15:13-18): A Test Passage for Theological Systems.” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 20, no. 2 (1977): 97–111.

Kitchen, K. A. “Late-Egyptian Chronology and the Hebrew Monarchy.” Journal of the


Ancient Near East Society 5 (1973): 225–33.

Kitz, Anne Marie. “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near
Eastern Context.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 207–14.

Kline, Meredith G. “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah.” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 34, no. 2 (1991): 179–93.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Krause, Joachim J. “Tradition, History, and Our Story: Some Observations on Jacob and
Esau in the Books of Obadiah and Malachi.” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 32, no. 4 (2008): 475–86.

Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Edited
by Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Lemaire, André, and Magne Sæbø, eds. Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. Vetus
Testamentum Supplements 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.”


Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 2 (2008): 241–65.

Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, eds. A Greek-English
Lexicon. Revised ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Lillie, James R. “Obadiah—A Celebration of God’s Kingdom.” Currents in Theology


and Mission 6 (1979): 18–22.

Limburg, James. “Sevenfold Structures in the Book of Amos.” Journal of Biblical


Literature 106, no. 2 (1987): 217–22.

Lipinski, E. “Obadiah 20.” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 368–70.

———. “‫ באחרית היּמים‬dans les Textes Pré-Exiliques.” Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970):


445–50.

Lohfink, Norbert. “Hate and Love in Osee 9,15.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 4
(1963): 417.
99

Longenecker, Richard N. “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?”


Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970): 3–38.

Longman, Tremper III, and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2006.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and


Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 21C. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2004.

Lynch, Matthew J. “Zion’s Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b–63:6 in Isaiah’s Zion
Traditions.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008): 244–63.

Machacek, Gregory. “Allusion.” PMLA 122, no. 2 (2007): 522–36.

Magary, Dennis R. “Obadiah.” In NIDOTTE 4:991–94.

Mathews, Claire R. Defending Zion: Edom’s Desolation and Jacob’s Restoration (Isaiah
34–35) in Context. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 236. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.

Mauchline, John. “Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire.” Vetus
Testamentum 20, no. 3 (1970): 287–303.

McCarter, P. Kyle. “Obadiah 7 and the Fall of Edom.” Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 221 (1976): 87–91.

McCartney, Dan, and Peter Enns. “Matthew and Hosea: A Response to John Sailhamer.”
Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 97–105.

McComiskey, Thomas Edward, ed. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository
Commentary. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992–98.

McComiskey, Thomas E., and Tremper III Longman. “Amos.” In EBC 8:348–421.

McKenzie, Steven L., and Howard N. Wallace. “Covenant Themes in Malachi.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 549–63.

Merrill, Eugene H. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary.


Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

———. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1996.

———. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In World and Word, 251–69.


100

Merrill, Eugene H., Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti. The World and the Word:
An Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011.

Moore, Michael S. “Yahweh’s Day.” Restoration Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1987): 193–208.

Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in
Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1963): 77–87.

Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers


Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

———. “Zephaniah.” In MPEEC 3:897–962. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Muilenburg, James. “The Literary Character of Isaiah 34.” Journal of Biblical Literature
59, no. 3 (1940): 339–65.

Mulzac, Kenneth D. “Amos 5:18–20 in Its Exegetical and Theological Contexts.”


Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 13, no. 2 (2002): 94–107.

Muraoka, Takamitsu. “A Case of Diglossia in the Book of Jonah?” Vetus Testamentum


62 (2012): 129–31.

Myers, Jacob M. “Some Considerations Bearing on the Date of Joel.” Zeitschrift Für Die
Altestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1962): 177–95.

Neiman, David. “Sefarad: The Name of Spain.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22, no.
2 (1963): 128–32.

Niehaus, Jeffrey. “Amos.” In MPEEC 1:315–494.

Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near
East. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1995.

———. “Obadiah.” In MPEEC 2:495–541.

Nielsen, Kirsten. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible.” In Congress Volume, 17–31.

Noble, Paul R. “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical
Allusions.” Vetus Testamentum 52, no. 2 (2002): 219–52.

Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift
Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 217. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993.
101

———. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für
Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 218. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993.

Nogalski, James D. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” In Forming Prophetic Literature,


102–24.

———. “Not Just Another Nation: Obadiah’s Placement in the Book of the Twelve.” In
Perspectives, 89–107.

Nogalski, James D., and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. Reading and Hearing the Book of the
Twelve. SBL Symposium Series 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

O’Connell, Robert H. “Telescoping N + 1 Patterns in the Book of Amos.” Vetus


Testamentum 46, no. 1 (1996): 56–73.

Ogden, Graham S. “Joel 4 and Prophetic Responses to National Laments.” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 26 (1983): 97–106.

———. “Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communal Lament:
The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7-22 and Obadiah.” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 24 (1982): 89–97.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1986.

———. The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.

Patterson, Richard D. “Joel.” In Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Tremper III


Longman and David E. Garland, Revised ed., 8:307–46. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2008.

———. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago:


Moody Press, 1991.

———. “The Psalm of Habakkuk.” Grace Theological Journal 8, no. 2 (1987): 163–94.

Paul, Shalom M. “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern.” Journal of Biblical


Literature 90, no. 4 (1971): 397–403.

Perowne, T. T. Obadiah and Jonah, with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: University
Press, 1889.

Petersen, David L. Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary. Old Testament Library.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
102

Prado, J. “Los Destinos de Edom.” Estudios Eclesiásticos 34, no. 134–35 (1960): 557–
67.

Priest, John F. “The Covenant of Brothers.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84, no. 4
(1965): 400–406.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd
ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974.

Raabe, Paul R. “Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110,
no. 2 (1991): 213–27.

———. “Drinking the Cup of God’s Wrath: A Biblical Metaphor.” In Hear the Word of
Yahweh: Essays on Scripture and Archaeology in Honor of Horace D. Hummel,
edited by Horace D. Hummel, Dean O. Wenthe, Paul L. Schrieber, and Lee A.
Maxwell, 45–56. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 2002.

———. “Look to the Holy One of Israel, All You Nations: The Oracles about the
Nations Still Speak Today.” Concordia Journal 30, no. 4 (2004): 336–49.

———. Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale
Bible 24D. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

Redditt, Paul L. “Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One Book.” Currents in
Research: Biblical Studies 9 (2001): 47–80.

———. “The Formation of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” In Thematic Threads,


1–26.

Redditt, Paul L., and Aaron Schart, eds. Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve.
Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 325. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2003.

Rendtorff, Rolf. “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the LORD’ in the Book of the Twelve.”
In God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, edited by Tod Linafelt and
Timothy K. Beal, 186–97. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. New


International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1990.

Robinson, George L. “The Newly Discovered ‘High Place’ at Petra in Edom.” The
Biblical World 17, no. 1 (1901): 2–16.

Robinson, Robert B. “Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah.” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 40 (1988): 83–97.
103

Rooker, Mark F. “Dating Isaiah 40–66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?”
Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 303–12.

———. Leviticus. New American Commentary 3A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
2000.

———. “The Book of Obadiah.” In World and Word, 439–44.

Roos, Deomar. “Babylon in the Book of Isaiah.” Concordia Journal 30, no. 4 (2004):
350–75.

Sailhamer, John H. “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15.” Westminster Theological Journal 63
(2001): 87–96.

Sandmel, Samuel. “The Haggada within Scripture.” Journal of Biblical Literature 80, no.
2 (1961): 105–22.

Scoralick, Ruth. “The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological
Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis.” In Perspectives, 35–52.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” In Commentary, 607–94.

Shepherd, Michael B. The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament. Studies in Biblical
Literature 140. New York: Peter Lang, 2011.

Shupak, Nili. “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of
Habakkuk 3:3–7.” Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 28 (2001): 97–116.

Smith, Billy K., and Frank S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. New American Commentary
19B. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Smith, Billy K. “Amos.” In Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 23–171.

———. “Obadiah.” In Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 171–201.

Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. New American Commentary 15A. Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2007.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 25th ed. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1931.

Smith, John M. P. “The Structure of Obadiah.” American Journal of Semitic Languages


and Literatures 22, no. 2 (1906): 131–38.
104

Smith, Ralph L. Micah—Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Nashville: Thomas


Nelson, 1984.

Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66.


Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1998.

———. “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle
Eslinger.” Vetus Testamentum 46, no. 4 (1996): 479–89.

Sperling, S. David. “Biblical Rḥm I and Rḥm II.” Journal of the Ancient Near East
Society 19 (1989): 149–59.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “What Did David Understand about the Promises in the Davidic
Covenant?” Bibliotheca Sacra 171 (2014): 19–29.

Stephenson, F. R. “The Date of the Book of Joel.” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 224–
29.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea—Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Waco, TX: Word
Books, 1987.

———. “The Sovereign’s Day of Conquest.” Bulletin of the American Schools of


Oriental Research 221 (1976): 159–64.

Sweeney, Marvin A. “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk.” Vetus
Testamentum 41, no. 1 (1991): 63–83.

———. “Synchronic and Diachronic Concerns in Reading the Book of the Twelve
Prophets.” In Perspectives, 21–33.

———. The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2000.

Tebes, Juan Manuel. “The ‘Wisdom’ of Edom.” Biblische Notizen 143 (2009): 97–117.

Thompson, J. A. “Israel’s ‘Haters.’” Vetus Testamentum 29, no. 2 (1979): 200–205.

———. “Israel’s ‘Lovers.’” Vetus Testamentum 27, no. 4 (1977): 475–81.

———. The Book of Jeremiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1980.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
105

Treier, Daniel J. “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32: A Multiple-Lens Approach.” Journal


of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (1997): 13–26.

Treves, Marco. “The Date of Joel.” Vetus Testamentum 7 (1957): 149–56.

Tsumura, David Toshio. “Ugaritic Poetry and Habakkuk 3.” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1988):
24–48.

Tull, Patricia. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” Currents in Research: Biblical
Studies 8 (2000): 59–90.

VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
& Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

———. “The Spirit of Restoration.” Westminster Theological Journal 50 (1988): 81–


102.

Voelz, James W. “Multiple Signs, Levels of Meaning and Self as Text: Elements of
Intertextuality.” Semeia 69/70 (1995): 149–64.

Von Orelli, Conrad. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock &
Klock, 1977.

Von Rad, Gerhard. The Message of the Prophets. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New
York: Harper & Row, 1967.

Walker, Larry L. “Zephaniah.” In EBC 8:650–95.

Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.

Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.

Watts, James W. “Psalmody in Prophecy: Habakkuk 3 in Context.” In Forming Prophetic


Literature, 209–23.

Watts, James W., and Paul R. House, eds. Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on
Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 235. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. Revised ed. Word Biblical Commentary 25. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on
the West.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93, no. 2 (1973): 190–99.
106

Weiss, Meir. The Bible From Within: The Method of Total Interpretation. Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, 1984.

———. “The Origin of the ‘Day of the Lord’ - Reconsidered.” Hebrew Union College
Annual 37 (1966).

———. “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2: A Re-Examination.” Journal


of Biblical Literature 86, no. 4 (1967): 416–23.

Wenham, Gordon. “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-Pin of Old Testament Criticism.


Part One.” Themelios 10, no. 3 (1985): 15–20.

———. “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-Pin of Old Testament Criticism. Part Two.”
Themelios 11, no. 1 (1985): 15–18.

Willis, John T. “The Expression Be’ Acharith Hayyamim in the Old Testament.”
Restoration Quarterly 22 (1979): 54–71.

Wöhrle, Jakob. “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem


of Intertextual Relationships and Their Significance for Redaction Critical
Analysis.” In Perspectives, 3–20.

Wöhrle, Jakob, James Nogalski, and Rainer Albertz, eds. Perspectives on the Formation
of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes,
Historical Insights. Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 433. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

———. Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis:


Augsburg Publishing, 1986.

———. “Swords into Plowshares: Misuse of a Word of Prophecy?” Currents in


Theology and Mission 12, no. 3 (1985): 133–47.

Woudstra, Marten H. “Edom and Israel in Ezekiel.” Calvin Theological Journal 3, no. 1
(1968): 21–35.

You might also like