Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Vol 39.2 (2014): 209-221

The Author(s), 2014. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309089214567376
http://JSOT.sagepub.com

Structure, Redaction and Signicance in

the Prophecy of Obadiah

ELIE ASSIS
Department of Bible Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 529002, Israel

Abstract
This article argues that Obadiah consists of three oracles, each reecting a different time
period. The rst oracle reects the pre-destruction period and comprises criticism of
Edomite pride. The second oracle conveys Judahs hostility to Edom, based on its participation in the destruction of 586 BCE, whereas the third depicts a later period, marked by
signicant Edomite encroachment into southern Judah. This third oracle evokes the
peoples aspiration to reclaim their patriarchal lands. Though it is clear that the books
authorship was a three-phase process, the unity of the work is also unequivocal. The
prophecy is recorded as one sequence and lacks opening and concluding formulae. Moreover, the rhetorical and theoretical application of the lex talionis principle characterizes all
three oracles. In each of the oracles the prophet attributes to Edom a distinct transgression
for which commensurate retribution is anticipated. This article asserts that the author
revised his treatment of Edom in view of political changes that occurred. These modied
political realities prompted new responses from the prophet, though they did not revoke
the earlier oracles. This analysis embodies, perhaps, the advantage of diachronic analysis
of the prophetic text alongside serious consideration of the synchronic view. The willingness to apply both methods facilitates, in this case, a more precise understanding of the
text than that allowed by the exclusive application of just one.
Keywords: Edom, Obadiah, lex talionis, measure for measure, composition, retribution.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

210

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

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

Research
The book of Obadiah is the shortest book of the Hebrew Bible, though as
Mason noted, citing Jerome, its difculty is in inverse proportion to its
length.1 One of the central questions addressed by scholarly research is
that of the books composition and its development. Opinions on this
topic are wide-ranging. Some see the 21 verses of the book as a collection
of fragments; others view it as a cohesive work, authored by one hand at
one time. In this article I will strive to demonstrate that the various phases
of the book of Obadiahs compilation and the objective of its composition
are comprehensible only through an approach that integrates historical
research with literary-rhetorical analysis.
Robinsons position on the question of the books composition is the
most extreme. He viewed the book of Obadiah as a collection of seven
fragments of diversely dated longer poems, dened by a common theme,
namely Edom.2 Watts saw the book as an assortment of ve oracles.3
These research directions did not merit scholarly approbation.
Following Wellhausen, a bipartite division of Obadiah is widely
endorsed by research, with vv. 1-14 and 15b constituting the rst
prophecy and vv. 15a and 16-21 the second. The rst prophecy manifests
a concrete historical background while the second is an eschatological
oracle.4 The division between the two segments is supported by the
signicant disparities between them. While the rst prophecy, vv. 1-14
and 15b, generally addresses Edom in the second person, the second
prophecy refers to Edom exclusively in the third personin conjunction
with all the nationsreserving the second person for Judah (v. 16). The
1. R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (OTG; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press,
1991), p. 87
2. T.H. Robinson, The Structure of the Book of Obadiah, Journal of Theological
Studies 17 (1916), pp. 402-408. The fragments are, in his opinion, vv. 1-5, 6, 7, 8-11, 1214, 15-16, 17-18, 19-21.
3. J.D.W. Watts, Obadiah: A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 20-21.
4. J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: bersetzt und Erklrt (Berlin: Georg
Reimer, 1898), pp. 213-214; D.K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (Tbingen: Mohr, 1904),
p. 228; J. A. Bewer, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), pp. 3-4;
W. Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona (KAT, 13/2; Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus
Gerd Mohn, 1971), pp. 295-96; H.W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (trans.
M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 21-22; J. Barton, Joel and Obadiah,
A Commentary (OTL; London: Westminster John Knox, 2001), p. 118.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance

211

most important distinction between the two prophecies is that the nations
are the executors of Gods judgment of Edom in the rst, whereas the
second includes Edom within all nations upon whom the day of the
Lord shall come, and Israel is the implement though which Gods judgment shall be enacted against the nations. Further noteworthy is that the
rst oracles portrayal of the retribution against Edom lacks any mention
of Judah, while in the second part the redemption of Israel is the ip side
of the coin of Edoms destruction in the framework of the day of the
Lord. This distinction holds true regarding v. 15 as well: the rst part of
the verse discusses the judgment against all the nations, as do vv. 16-21,
while v. 15s second segment addresses Edom in the second person, as do
vv. 1-14.5 These discrepancies brought most scholars who accept this
division to the conclusion that these two prophecies were not composed
by the same prophetic author. On the other hand, Rudolph and Weiser,
who accept this division, contend that it does not preclude the possibility
of uniform authorship of both prophecies, though they believe that vv. 1921 were not written by Obadiah.6
In contradistinction to those who contend that the book of Obadiah
constitutes more than one prophetic unit, there are scholars who view the
entire chapter as one literary unit. Allen was a proponent of the unitary
nature of the book, stressing its theological backdrop. He argued that the
author of Obadiah, similar to the author of the book of Lamentations,
viewed the destruction as a consequence of Gods wrath on the day of
the Lord, but that God allowed the survival of a remnant of Israel in
deference to their right to a capital city and a homeland; conversely, the
nations who attacked Jerusalem would face retribution. Therefore, Allen
asserts a natural progression throughout the book. The prophecy opens
with an oracle concerning Edoms downfall and then proceeds to depict
the crimes of Edom on the day of the Lord. Thereafter, the scope widens
to portray the destruction of the nations and the rehabilitation of the
nation of God. In the prophecys second part too, Obadiah continues to
emphasize Edom over the other nations. To corroborate the books
cohesion, certain scholars discerned structural phenomena that encompass
all elements of the book. Allen also elucidated an afnity between the
rst and nal verses (1 and 21) that forms an inclusio. The inversion of
5. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, p. 213; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 237.
6. Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 296; A. Weiser, Introduction to the Old
Testament (trans. D.M. Barton; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), p. 248
(English).

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

212

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

Israels situation that is stressed at the conclusion of the prophecy (v. 21)
reects the manifestation of the mightiness of Gods dominion, and this
constitutes the concrete articulation of Gods declaration at the outset, in
v. 1.7 Cogan tended to this view as well. He underscored the afnity
between vv. 1 and 21, asserting that one theoretical framework embraces
the entire book that opens with a call for war to be waged against Edom
(v. 1) and concludes with an illustration of the judgment that will be
meted out in Mount Esau.8 Cogan also pointed out the literary device of
interconnectedness between many of the chapters verses. According to
this structure, some sequential verses feature a common word.9 Snyman
attempted to prove that the book was deliberately redacted to accord with
its overall chiastic structure. Though he admits the works lack of
cohesion, he would highlight the calculated outcome of the book.10
Renkema too, in his comprehensive commentary on Obadiah, downplayed the importance of the divergences between the segments.11 Raabe,
in his extensive exegesis in the Anchor Bible series, exposited the
relationship between the two parts through the use of terms and concepts
common to the chapters various segments.12 Recently, Jenson has
determined that the book should be read as a unied whole.13
2. The Various Segments of the Book of Obadiah according to their
Historical Background
Several of the assertions in support of the books cohesiveness are
unconvincing. The interconnectedness of the books verses, suggested by
Cogan, does not encompass all its components and pertains, at times, to
shared words that are overly commonplace. Even the afnity between the
rst and nal verses is quite general. Furthermore, the contention that the
book should be read in its current form is not credible in this case. This is
7. L.C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 135-36; Barton, Joel and Obadiah, p. 118.
8. M. Cogan, Obadiah, Introduction and Commentary (Mikra Leyisrael; Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem: Am Oved and Magnes, 1992 [Hebrew]), p. 4.
9. Cogan, Obadiah, p. 5.
10. S.D. Snyman, Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah, ZAW 101 (1989), pp. 59-71.
11. J. Renkema, Obadiah (trans. B. Doyle; Historical Commentary on the Old
Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), p. 38.
12. P.R. Raabe, Obadiah (AB, 24D; New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 18-19
13. P.P. Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary (LHBOTS, 496;
New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), p. 6.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance

213

a cogent assertion in cases where the text at hand represents an obviously

unied coherent unit, for examplea story with a dened, explicit plot
whose nal form, rather than the process of its formation, can constitute
the subject of scholarly scrutiny. In our case, we lack primary information
that would allow us to determine whether before us is one or several
prophecies or a collection of prophecies; therefore, the very assertion of a
nal product that moreover should be read sequentially, demands
substantiation. Despite the weakness of the various scholarly premises
regarding the unity of the book of Obadiah, and notwithstanding the fact
that the theoretical development within the book indicated by scholars is
to some extent uneven, the movement within the chapter is unmistakably
sequential. Evidently, the book, in its present form, was designed to be
read consecutively as it lacks opening and concluding formulae. Even
if we were to accept some of the claims advocating unity between the
disparate segments of the book, the very signicant discrepancies
between the chapters two sections reasonably support the assertion of the
chapter not as one literary unit but as a composite of two prophetic units.
It is difcult to fathom how in one unit of prophecy the nations will be
Gods emissaries that execute the judgment meted out to Edom, while in
the same prophecy Edom stands accused alongside the other nations.
Neither does the fact that Israel will take part in the judgment of the
nations in the second part comport with its passive role in the rst section.
Therefore, I concur with the opinion rst espoused by Wellhausen, of a
distinction between vv. 15a and 16-21 and vv. 1-14 and 15b.14 I also agree
with Wellhausens view that v. 15a depicts the day of the Lord for all
the nations and appertains to vv. 16-21, while v. 15b that addresses Edom
in the second person, as do vv. 10-14, appertains to vv. 1-14.15
Of the scholars who accepted this division, there were those who
believed that the material should be attributed to additional authors. Many
view vv. 19-21 in disassociation from vv. 15a and 16-18, due mainly to
14. However, it is not due to the disparate natures of the two partsthe rst historical
and the second eschatologicalthat I accept Wellhausens division. On this point I agree
with Thompson, who claims that that many prophets combine these elements in their
works; see J.A. Thompson, The Book of Obadiah: Introduction and Exegesis, in The
Interpreters Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1956), VI, pp. 857-67 (859).
15. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, p. 213; Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, pp. 3-4.
However, other scholars did not view the differences between the two parts of v. 15 as
signicant. See Raabe, Obadiah, pp. 200-201. Ben Zvi explains the shift between the
parts; see E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (BZAW, 242;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), pp. 174-175; Renkema, Obadiah, p. 185.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

214

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

the fact that vv. 19-21 are written in prose while the rest of the chapter is
in poetic form.16 Rudolph and Wolff further assert that v. 20 assumes
dispersion in the exile, a situation that is, in their view, incompatible with
the foregoing verses eyewitness account of the destruction. However,
Allen is correct in that Obadiahs witnessing of the destruction does not
necessarily obviate his observation of the Jews dispersal in the exile at
the end of the sixth century BCE.17 The distinction between prose and
poetry is likewise not sufciently conclusive to establish diverse authorship of the verses. Contrary to this overworked assertion, there is no
reason why one author cannot write poetry as well as prose.18
While the division of vv. 15a and 16-21 into two oracles is not
defensible in my view, I accept Sellins division of vv. 1-14 and 15b into
two separate oracles. He views the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE as
the backdrop to vv. 10-14 and 15b, while vv. 1-9, which parallel Jeremiah
49, predate the destruction.19 It is improbable that vv. 1-9, which criticize
Edom for its pride alone, without relating in any way to the actual damage
inicted by Edom on Judah, were uttered after the destruction.20 This
16. Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, p. 16; Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 296.
According to Rudolph, only vv. 19-20 are a late addition, while a reconstructed version of
v. 21 was the books originals ending. This opinion is also held by Wolff, Obadiah and
Jonah, p. 22.
17. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, p. 135.
18. It should be noted that even though vv. 19-21 may be identied as prose, they still
maintain poetic rhythm. A similar claim was made by Thompson regarding the prose
sections in Jeremiah. He claims that the distinction made in the book of Jeremiah between
prose and poetry is overly discriminating, and many of the prose sections in the book
should be classied as elevated prose. See J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah
(NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 46. A similar claim was made previously by
H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW, 132; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973),
pp. 228-34.
19. D.E. Sellin, Das Zwlfprophetenbuch (KAT, 12/1; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1929), pp. 274-77.
20. Many scholars following Wellhausen, who suggested that vv. 1-9 are from the
fth century and reect the Arab incursions into Edom. See Wellhausen, Die kleinen
Propheten, p. 214. In his opinion the oracle reects a current historical situation. Others,
however, believe that it is a prognostication of future events. See, e.g., O. Eissfeldt, The
Old Testament, An Introduction (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 1965),
p. 403. Ben Zvi agrees that the topic of the pericope is arrogance but places it nonetheless
after the events of 586 BCE, during the Persian period. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical
Study of the Book of Obadiah, pp.69, 228-29. This is apparently due to his belief that
Edom is not the actual nation from the south of Judah; Edom in his opinion is a symbol for
all the nations, see pp. 68, 230.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance

215

argument pertains to Jeremiah 49 as well. I therefore concur with scholars

who maintain that this prophecy, in Jeremiah 49 as well as in Obadiah
1-9, reects the pre-destruction period, predating allegations of Edomite
complicity in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE.21
In light of the above, it can be surmised that Obadiah, following the
superscription the vision of Obadiah (v. 1), is divisible into three
separate oracles: the rst part, vv. 1-9; the second part, vv. 10-14 and 15b;
and the third part, vv. 15a and 16-21.22 The three oracles indicate three
time periods that, though proximate, manifest different historical features.
Verses 1-9 reect the pre-destruction period, the end of the sixth century
BCE. Verses 10-14 and 15b indicate the events of the destruction of
Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Presumably, they were composed during this time
or shortly thereafter. Verses 15a and 16-21 reect a slightly later period,
during which neighbor nations of Judah appropriated various territories
within Judah, and they articulate Jewish hopes of restoration to those
areas. This oracle was apparently recorded in the post-exilic period,
following the repatriation of Jews to Judah in the wake of the Edict of
Cyrus. These Jews were distraught over the foreign encroachment into
lands that were Judean before the destruction.23
Beyond the historical assertions underpinning this division, I will strive
to provide substantive, thematic grounds for this tripartite division of the
prophecies. Obadiahs topic is Edoms sins and its judgment. The three
segments reect three different grievances against Edom.

21. See, e.g., W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet
Jeremiah Chapters 2652 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 378;
Y. Hoffman, Jeremiah (Mikra Leyisrael; Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Am Oved and Magnes,
2001 [Hebrew]), p. 810; J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 3752 (AB, 21; New York: Doubleday,
2004), p. 333. Carroll explains that the hostility towards Edom in Jer. 49 is moderate
in relation to other prophetic texts because it is a redacted piece, drawing on other
material; see R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah, A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1986), p. 802.
Thompson posits the events of the sixth century as the background of Jer. 49; see
Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, p. 720.
22. This is the division advocated by Sellin, Das Zwlfprophetenbuch, pp. 274-77.
23. For a similar approach, see G. Fohrer, Die Sprche Obadjas, in Studia biblica et
semitica.Theodoro Christiano Vriezen qui munere professoris theologiae per XXV annos
functus est, ab amicis, collegis, discipulis dedicate (Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen,
1966), p. 83. However, contrary to the opinion advocated in the present study, Fohrer
assigns vv. 1-9 to 850 BCE.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

216

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

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

Verses 1-9 elucidate Edoms sin and the consequent allotted judgment
that is its due. The judgment according to these verses is the nations war
against Edom (vv. 5-9)the sin is more obscure. Many scholars believe
that the judgment depicted in these verses is a consequence of the
Edomites participation in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple,
elaborated in detail in vv. 10-14.24 It is more reasonable, however, that the
sin of which Edom is accused in these verses is that of pride, and its
judgment will be its downfall, according to the principle of lex talionis,
measure for measure.25 The verses imply that the Edomites took special
pride in two things, the rst being their strength and fortications that led
them to imagine themselves impregnable to attack (v. 3). Furthermore,
Edom is indicted on account of its pride in its wisdom (vv. 7b and 8b).
The fact that many of the verses elaborations appear additionally in Jer.
49.7-22, serves as a basis for the perception that the indictment against
Edom centers exclusively on its pride. The prophecy in Jeremiah denes
no other charges against Edom other than its pride in its wisdom and
military valor.26 Since these verses in Obadiah are but a different formulation of the prophecy in Jeremiah, there is room to extrapolate regarding
the autonomy of the verses vis--vis the rest of the chapter in Obadiah
too.27 In the same way that the prophecy in Jeremiah does not refer to
Edomite participation in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem and
24. Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 305; Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah,
Jonah and Micah, p 153; R.L. Troxel, Prophetic Literature: From Oracles to Books
(Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), p. 102.
25. Fohrer, Die Sprche Obadjas, p. 86. Others do not see the motif of arrogance as
the sin in this oracle. See Rudolph, JoelAmosObadjaJona, p. 306. Allen too, sees the
motif of arrogance in Obadiah merely as a description intended to heighten the impression
of Edoms downfall; see Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, p. 147 n.
17. For the principle of lex talionis in prophetic literature, see Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin
and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis (SBLMS, 27; Chico:
Scholars Press, 1982), and Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel
(VTSup, 97; Leiden: Brill, 2001).
26. W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), II, p. 1230; Hoffman, Jeremiah, p. 810.
27. There are three basic opinions regarding the relationship between Obad. 1-7 and
Jer. 49.9-22. Some regard Obadiah as the source, some consider Jer. 49 the source, while
others claim that a third source, unavailable to us, is the provenance of both texts. For a
summary of the various possibilities, see J. Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book
of Twelve (BZAW, 218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), pp. 61-74; Raabe, Obadiah, pp. 22-31;
Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah, pp. 99-109.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance

217

indeed precedes the events of the destruction, so vv. 1-9 in the prophecy
of Obadiah depict the pre-destruction reality. Scrutiny of the oracles contents corroborates this premise. A fundamental theme in these verses is
the principle of measure for measure. Juxtaposed against Edoms pride
(v. 3a), the prophet predicts its downfall (v. 2); against its conception of
impregnability due to its lofty geographic setting, the prophet avows, in
Gods name, that it will be brought down low (v. 4). According to the
principle that judgment is rendered measure for measure, we can infer
that the sin addressed by the prophet in vv. 1-9 is the sin of pride.
The sin of arrogance, which furnishes grounds for Obadiahs indictment of Edom, is a known theme in biblical prophecy where it is reprised
differently in a variety of contexts, vis--vis an assortment of nations.
First, as already noted, this is the contention of Jer. 49.16 against Edom,
in the prophecy analogous to Obadiah. In Isaiah 10, the prophet avows the
destruction of Assyria on account of its two sins: its aspirations to destroy
Judah and its pride (Isa. 10.12). Criticism of Assyrias pride appears
too in Ezek. 31.3, 10. A range of prophets discussed the pride of other
nations and their rulers: Moab (Isa. 16.6; 48.29), Babylon (Isa. 47.8),
Tyre (Ezek. 28.2), Nineveh (Zeph. 2.15), Belshazzar (Dan. 5.23). At
times, the nations arrogance concerns their military prowess (e.g. Isa.
10.13); at other times it is directed against the God of Israel (Isa. 10.11;
14.13-14). Wisdom can also be a basis for arrogance as demonstrated in
Isa. 10.13 regarding Assyria that confronted the people of Israel and God.
The charge of arrogance, directed at various nations, is related to the
biblical conception of the absolute supremacy of God over humanity
according to which human pride is perceived as opposition to the
conception of Gods supremacy.28
Edoms sin in the second part of the book, vv. 10-14 and 15b, is, in
contradistinction to the sin of arrogance in vv. 1-9, its participation in the
devastation of Jerusalem and Judah in 586 BCE. Ezekiel 25.12-14, Lam.
4.22, Psalm 137 and 1 Esd. 4.45 are all instructive regarding Edoms
complicity in the ravaging of the city.29 Indeed, the second part of
28. See Barton, Joel and Obadiah, pp. 137-38. This topic was extensively studied by
D.E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament
(Pittsburgh Theological Series, 6; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975), esp. pp. 19-67. See also
B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (Studies in Biblical Theology, 3; London:
SCM Press, 1967), pp. 88-89.
29. Bartlett claimed that Edom was falsely accused; see J. R. Bartlett, Edom and the
Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C., PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 13-24. This opinion was not accepted

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

218

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

Obadiah evinces a second application of the principle of measure for

measure. One of Edoms sins is How could you stand at the passes,
to cut down () its fugitives? (v. 14). In similar terms, Obadiah
promises Edom: and you shall perish () forever. Assuming that
v. 15b appertains to vv. 1-14, as proposed by numerous scholars, the conclusion of this segment perfectly encapsulates the measure for measure
principle: As you did, so shall it be done to you; your conduct shall be
requited. This sentence is irrelevant to the rst section of Obadiah, which
does not elaborate the acts of the Edomites toward Judah but rather their
self-conceit alone. Thus two different applications of the principle of
measure for measure are herein demonstrated: the humiliation of Edom
as comeuppance for their pride in the rst part, vv. 1-9, and a second
application of this principle in the avowed perishing of the Edomites in
retaliation to their cutting down the fugitives of Judah (v. 10). This sin
of the Edomites toward Judah, their abetting of the attack on Judah in
586 BCE, is depicted exclusively in other sources, among them Ezek.
25.12-14.
The third part, vv. 15a and 16-21, continues the threat of retribution
against Edom introduced by the second part (vv. 10-14 and 15b), though
through a doubly modied perspective: rst, the accused in this section
are all the nations (vv. 15a, 16, 19b) alongside Edom (vv. 18, 19a, 21).
The extension of culpability to all the nations elicits the expectation of
treatment of their sin. Indeed, this treatment is reprised in v. 16, where the
principle of measure for measure is applied for the third time: That
same cup that you drank on my Holy Mount shall all nations drink
by the scholarly consensus. Against this view, see B. Glazier-McDonald, Edom in the
Prophetical Corpus, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is
Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (Archaeology and Biblical Studies,
3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), p. 24; B. Dicou, Edom, Israels Brother and Antagonist:
The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story (JSOTSup 169; Shefeld: Shefeld
Academic Press, 1994), pp. 186-87. Cresson believes that Edom took an active role in the
destruction of Jerusalem in the events of 587 BCE; see B.C. Cresson, The Condemnation
of Edom in Postexilic Judaism, in J.M. Erd (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the
New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring (Durham: Duke
University Press, 1972), p. 143. Bright suggested that they joined the Babylonian troops;
see J. Bright, A History of Israel (OTL; London: SCM, 1972), p. 329. Myers claimed that
Edom provided direct or indirect assistance to the Babylonians; see J.M. Myers, Edom
and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C., in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies
in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1971), p. 386.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance

219

evermore, drink till their speech grows thick, and they become as though
they had never been. The charge in the third part, however, is different.
In this section, the main crime for which the prophet indicts Edom and the
other nations is the appropriation of lands that belonged to Judah.30 The
prophet describes the settlement of Edomites in the Negev31 and the
Philistines in the Shephelah (coastal strip).32 In addition to the territories
previously enumerated, the verse determines that the eld of Shomron as
well as Gilead will also be restored to Israel. Regarding Gilead, we are
told that Benjamin will inherit it, though the verse does not specify from
whom it will be repossessed. Does the prophet indicate Ammon or Moab?
Neither does the verse inform us from whom the eld of Shomron will be
reclaimed, though it is apparently indicating, according to 2 Kings 17, the
inhabitants exiled by Assyria from Babylon to this region. Indeed, there
are attestations to the development and growth of the satrapy of Samaria
from the late Iron Age III and the Achaemenid period.33 This situation
will be reversed and Israel will reoccupy these lands, as proclaimed by v.
17: The House of Jacob shall dispossess those who dispossessed them.34
The indictment of the neighboring nations on account of their appropriation of Judean lands following the destruction applies explicitly to
Edom and to additional unspecied peoples in Ezek. 36.5 and in Joel 4.2
30. On the borders of Yehud in the Persian period, see E. Stern, The Province of
Yehud the Vision and the Reality, in L.I. Levine (ed.), The Jerusalem Cathedra (3 vols.;
Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1981), I, pp. 9-21; C. E. Carter, The Emergence
of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup, 294;
Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1999); J.W. Wright, Remapping Yehud: The
Borders of Yehud and Genealogies of Chronicles, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.),
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 6789.
31. For the Edomite settlement in the south of Judah, see, e.g., W.F. Albright, A Brief
History of Judah From the Days of Josiah to Alexander the Great, BA 9 (1946), pp. 1-20;
A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel
with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era
(332 BCE70 CE), (Tbingen: Mohr, 1988), pp. 1-6.
32. For the Shephelah as an area outside Yehud, see Carter, The Emergence of Yehud
in the Persian Period, pp. 90-99.
33. For a summary of this point, see G.N. Knoppers, Revisiting the Samarian
Question in the Persian Period, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the
Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), pp. 269-70
34. This is according to the MT that reads , their possessions. However, the
LXX and the Peshitta and Vulgate read apparently , their possessors. This reading
is attested also in the Murabbaet manuscript. Verses 19-20 spell out the territories that
will be retaken by Judah, thus supporting, I believe, the MT version.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

220

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.2 (2014)

and possibly in Joel 4.2. In Joel 4.4, the reproof is directed at Philistia,
Tyre and Sidon.
This being the case, these verses introduce a third accusation against
Edomthe appropriation of Judean lands following the destruction, one
that is shared with other nations. As in many cases involving the
application of the measure for measure principle (e.g. Joel 4.8), here too
Israel will be the one to exact retribution from the nations for what they
had wrought. This principle, thrice articulated in Obadiah, is manifested
here in the double use of the root : (The
House of Jacob shall dispossess those who dispossessed them). The
allegation that the nations appropriated Judahs patriarchal lands is an
outcome of the occupation and destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and is
dated later than the second prophecy.
Obadiahs message is thus composed of three disparate prophecies,
each articulated in a different political reality. The rst prophecy, vv. 1-9,
conveys the indictment of Edom, prior to the destruction and before it
struck at Judah during the events of 586 BCE. In this oracle, the prophet
accuses Edom of pride. The second prophecy, vv. 10-14 and 15b,
indicates Edoms actions during the destruction itselfits participation in
the destruction of Jerusalem. The third prophecy reects the postdestruction period, during which these nations encroached upon the lands
that were Judahs before the destruction, from the south, west, north and
east.35 The prophet formulates three separate accusations, each corresponding to a different time period: arrogance, the destruction and ruin of
Jerusalem, and the appropriation of Judean land.
4. The Compilation of Obadiah
From a historical perspective, it should be stressed that the three oracles
are not necessarily separated by lengthy periods of time. There is no
reason not to assume that the rst prophecy was written shortly before the
destruction, the second prophecy during the event itself, and the third a
few years thereafter. It is thus indeed possible that one author composed
all three prophecies or that he wrote the last two, adopting the rst from
Jeremiah into his piece. The more interesting and important question is
35. Kasher has demonstrated how contradictions in the book of Ezekiel should not be
attributed to different authors but to a change of the prophets mind on some central
concepts. See R. Kasher, Remnant, Repentance and Covenant in the Book of Ezekiel,
Beth Mikra 44 (1999), pp. 15-34.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015

ASSIS Structure, Redaction and Signicance

221

that of the literary afnity between the various oracles. Is Obadiah an

assortment of oracles concerning Edom from different periods, or is it one
work composed of three disparate oracles? As noted, the book contains no
indications of opening or concluding passages between the three prophecies. That said, it is clear that the book was conceived in relation to three
varying time periods with distinctive historical contexts. How then should
the books composition be explained?
I would hypothesize that the various segments were not written as three
separate units but rather each segment was appended to its predecessor.
Thus, the rst prophecy was written rst, before the destruction. Following the destruction, the author updated his work, appending the second
prophecy, vv. 10-14 and 15b to vv. 1-9. Now Edom stood accused not
only of arrogance but also of active action against Judah. Moreover, now
it seems that Edoms arrogance has been articulated in practice, through
its antagonistic behavior toward Judah during the destruction. Over time,
the Edomites, in conjunction with other nations, gradually encroached
upon Judean lands, adding, in the post-destruction era, an extra nuance to
the charges against Edom, hitherto implicated in the destruction.
Before us, therefore, are diverse oracles written during several, closely
related time periods. It appears to me that what is manifested here is an
action of prophetic revision, in light of the diplomatic and political
transitions that occurred. The second prophecy does not annul the rst,
nor does the third annul the secondinstead it augments it. Thus, while
the nal product constitutes one work, this work was written in three
different stages, having been twice updated in view of changed circumstances. This, on the one hand, explains the prophecys cohesion, the
shared formal characteristics, and the absence of the standard openings
and conclusions that are qualities of prophetic units, while on the other
hand, accounting for the explicit unevenness between the segments that
reveal it as one work written in the course of three historical situations.
The diverse historical backdrops rule in favor of a multi-phased composition, though the unity of the work is conveyed through the consistent
use of the principle of measure for measure in each of the three oracles.
The prophet applies this principle in all three prophecies: in each
prophecy, the prophet depicts a different sin of Edom and in each he
methodically anticipates its judgment with an additional application of
measure for measure.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on January 11, 2015