off stragglers, and rejoiced in the calamity of Judah. Nothing is said of the tote.l destruction of the city and the temple, nothing of the people recovering their lost home; they are supposed to be still occupying their own country (vers. 17-19), and thence extending their kingdom. Now, we read in the Old Testament of three, or perhaps four, occasions on which J eruealem was taken. The first capture by Shiehak, in the reign of Reho- boam (1 Kings xiv. 25; 2 Chron. xii. 2), was not attended with such evils as are noted in our prophecy, and took place at a time when the Edomites, being subject to Judah, could not have acted in the manner specified. The second occasion belongs to the reign of J ehoram, when the Philistines and Arabians (the latter being a loose designation of the roving tribes of the wilderness and the inhabitants of the country south of Jndma) invaded Judah, plundered much treasure from the house of the king, and carried away his wives and all his children eave his youngest son, Jehoahaz (2 Chron. xxi. 16, 1'7; comp. 2 Kings viii. 20, etc.). The description is brief, and further details are wanting; but it can scarcely be doubted that other captives were taken besides the royal family ; and that if the pa.lace of the king was sacked, the city and its inhabitants could not have got off scatheless. Amos (i. 6, 9, 11) is probably alluding to the same event when he speaks of the injuries perpetrated by the Philistines, Phmnicians, and Edomites; and Joel (iii. 3-6), when he complains that the Phmnicia.ns sold the Jud!llans into captivity to the sons of the Grecians, and (iii. 19) foretells the desolation of Egypt and Edom for their violence against the children of Judah in their (the Jews') land. It is objected that "the house of the king," in 2 Chron. xxi. 17, does not mean the royaJ palace, but only the camp where was the king's temporary a.bode, beca.UBe in the following chapter we read, " The band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest" children. But this proves nothing; the sons may have been killed in the camp (though the account does not say so), and the invaders may have gone on to Jerusalem, now left ungua~ded, and plundered it. Nor is it likely that they wonld have found much substance in a temporary camp. It is t.rue that the Edomites are not expressly named among the allied peoples who took part in this raid; but they may well be included in the vague term "Arabians;" and at any rate the latter could not have attacked Judah without their consent, which they were ready to give at this particular time, when they had just recovered their freedom from the rule of David's line, and were glad of an opportunity of vengeance. Of the animosity and active hostility of Edom a further proof is afforded by Ps. lxxxiii., composed, perhaps, in the time of Hezekiah, where among the nations confederate against Israel a.re mentioned" the tabernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites." The third occasion when Jerusalem suffered at the hands of enemies we.s when Joash King of Israel defeated Amaziah, and brake down the wall of the city (2 Kings xiv. 8, etc.; 2 Chron. xxv. 17, etc.). But this cannot be the catastrophe to whioh Obadiah refers, as he calls the invaders strangers viii INTRODUCTION TO
and foreigners, and describes the calamity &B much greater than the pe.rtial disaster then incurred. The fourth capture of Jerusalem is its final destruction by the Ohaldee.ns. Now, the le.nguage of Obadiah does by no means adeque.tely depiot this terrible catMtrophe. There is no mention of Aseyriane or Babylonians. The utter destruction of the city and temple, and the dissolution of the 1..-i.ngdom, are nowhere stated or implied. Compare our prophet's words with those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel describing the overthrow, and how ta.me and insufficient they seem in the face of such utter ruin l Could any trne patriot have said only thus much, and have omitted so many points which added intensity to the dise.ster P What are the strongest expressions used P The fatal time is called thrice, "the day of their calamity; " twice, "the day of distress ; " once, " the day of their destruction" and "disaster," when "foreigners entered the gates, and cast lot.s upon J ernsalem, and carried away her eubste.nce." Pillage and rapine are intimated, but nothing more. Where is any similar reproach to that of the psalmist, "Remember, 0 Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jernsalem, who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof I" (Ps. cxxxvii. 7)? Could Obadiah have failed to reoa.ll this cruel cry of the Edomitee in detailing their offences against hie people, if he were referring to their conduct at the Chaldean invasion? Then, again, there is no trace in our prophecy of any wholesale deportation of the people or of the desolation of the land._ The nation is regarded as still seated in its own country, and adding to its possessions (ver. 17); not as returning from captivity. These considerations seem to point to the conclusion that- Obadiah refers, not to the final destruction of Jerusalem, but to some previous calamity; and none that we are acquainted with coincides with the expressions with which he describes it, except the capture by the Philistines and .Arabians in the time of Jehoram, which may possibly simplify the chronological difficulty by affording a terminus a quo, espe- cially if any reason could be found for regarding this event as recent when Obadiah wrote. But if we regard this calamity of J ernealem as the event which the prophet has in view, we cannot, of course from this fact alone, settle the disputed qnestion of his date. It is plain that the language employed in vere. 11 and 16 implies that the event is passed; and onr Authorized Version, by a. mistranslation of the intervening passage, emphasizes this inference. Thus in vers. 12, etc., we have, " Thou shouldest not have looked on the day of .thy brother; . . . neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah," etc. It is certain that this rendering is grammatically wrong, e.nd that al with the fa.tnre can only be prohibitive; the words, therefore, ought to be translated," Do not look," etc. (M~ l1rl8yi;, Septuagint; Non despicies, Valgate; "Ne intuearis,'' Mont.). Thie rendering makes the reference future ; and it is said that, if Obadiah were speaking of a past event, he would not give an eightfold injunction not to do something which had THE BOOK OF OBADIAH. l:x