Obadiah 1

OF the author of this shortest book in the Old Testament we have the briefest possible account. His name was Obadiah—there the record ends. The book contains historical (not prophetic) allusions to the capture and destruc- tion of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans and the consequent captivity, and therefore must have been written subsequent to that event, yet how long after cannot be certainly determined by any evidence external or internal. The tone of the passage (verses 11-14) implies that those events connected with the fall of Jeru- salem were then recent.

His subject is one—a prophecy concerning Edom. The posterity of Esau, otherwise called Edom, founded this kingdom at a very early period. They manifestly had their land under cultivation before the Hebrews entered Canaan. They appear repeatedly in the scenes of Jewish history during the reign of David, and more especially after the revolt. The early antipathy which brought Esau out with four hundred armed men to intercept Jacob on his return from Padanaram to Canaan, though sometimes kept down under the pressure of conscious in- ability to do his brother harm, yet seems never to have been fully suppressed. As said by Amos (1:11), “he cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he nursed his wrath forever.” This enduring hatred seized its opportunity when Jerusalem fell before the Chaldean power, and broke forth, not only in most unfraternal words, but in most cruel deeds. This was the special occasion of the prophecy here recorded. Other prophets have predicted the fall of Edom, some of earlier date —e.g., Isaiah and Joel—and some contemporary, or of later date—e.g., Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Mal- achi, and the writer of Psalm 137. (See Isa. 21:11; 34; Joel 3:19; Jer. 49:7-22 [closely parallel]; Ezek. 25:12-14; Mal. 1:3, 4.) H. C.

The opening section of Obadiah is repro- duced, frequently with verbal exactness, in a prophecy against Edom found in the forty- ninth chapter of Jeremiah. The resemblance is too close to allow a doubt of the relationship. The only question is, which is the parent and which the child, unless, indeed, they should prove to be brothers. In Obadiah the ideas appear in a natural order and logical progres- sion, making a harmonious and compact pic- ture, while in Jeremiah they are reversed in sequence, broken off from one another, mingled with other matter, and so deprived of their cumulative and orderly significance. Thus verses 1-4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of Obadiah correspond to verses 14-16, 9, 10, 7, 8 in Jeremiah, where the omission of all reference to the folly of trusting perfidious allies (Obad. 7) leaves the ridicule of Edom’s pretended wisdom without definite justification. Therefore, if the one is directly dependent on the other, we are forced to the conclusion that Obadiah is the original, and that Jeremiah has borrowed from him, just as in the prophecies against Moab (Jer. 48) he in- corporates elements from the older oracles em- bedded in Isa. 15, 16 and Num. 21, 24.

The motive is not the gratification of national spite, nor is the aim to either warn or edify the Edomites. The seer speaks out of the need of his own heart and to the hearts of his people. What creates his vision and compels its utter- ance is an indestructible sense of the eternal justice and fidelity, and of the Divine destiny of Israel in building up the kingdom of God on earth. The tragedy of Edom is but a part in the great drama. It is therefore presented on a vast stage, and has the world’s history for its background. Very real and concrete to the prophet, no doubt, are the antagonisms of Israel and his enemies, but none the less really and consciously, even if in a fashion grand be- yond his conceptions, it is the collision of uni- versal forces and everlasting principles, that is embodied in them. Limited and material the presentment of those issues may be, but they carry in their bosom the consummation of the ages. Within the rivalry of Edom and Israel there was wrapped the eternal antithesis of truth and falsehood, good and evil, and the vision of an earthly kingdom on Mount Zion is finding its fulfilment in the silent, slow, but sure advent of the kingdom of God and of our Christ. Elmslie.

We may briefly dismiss any late date for Obadiah by appealing to his place in the canon. This argument has indeed often been pressed too far; but we may at least say that the Jews, in their arrangement of the minor prophets, have drawn a definite line of separation between those who wrote before the Babylonian exile and those who wrote after it; and that this was a matter upon which their information could not have been insufficient. They have also evidently attempted some sort of arrangement of the earlier prophets among themselves, and have placed Obadiah among those who wrote in the reign of Jeroboam II. His exact place was, however, probably fixed by the words of Amos 9 12, where God promised that Israel should possess the remnant of Edom. Of this prophecy Obadiah’s predictions seemed an enlargement, and without meaning to settle his exact date, which possibly they did not know, they placed him where his matter admirably fitted in. In Hosea and Amos we have Israel’s punishment, but the latter ends with the promise of restoration, and the subjugation of Edom, his inveterate foe. It seemed, then, natural to place at the head of the roll those prophets whose subject was the fate of Israel herself; and subsequently one who foretold the subjugation of a people with whom the Israelites were ever at war, and their final supremacy. R. P. S.

Analysis of the Contents. The prophet is conscious of a military movement among the nations. It is instigated by Jehovah, directed against Edom, and will result in its downfall and humiliation. Spite of the strength of their rocky fastnesses, they shall be defeated and their wealth plundered. Trusted allies shall betray them, and so with all their vaunted wisdom and might the children of Esau shall be caught in the snare of their own selfish policy and utterly destroyed (verses 1-9). The cause of their doom is the wrong done to their kinsmen, the Israelites, whom they abandoned in their dire extremity, aiding their foes, rejoicing in their calamity, sharing in the pillage, cutting off the fugitives and selling them into slavery (verses 10-14). For the Divine judgment, now complete on Israel, must pass on to his heathen enemies and requite their injuries. In the general retribution the rescued people of Jehovah shall dwell safe and holy on Mount Zion, regain their old possessions, burn up Edom like stubble, overflow into the lands of the surrounding peoples, establish a strong government in Zion, and then “the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” (verses 15-21). Elmslie.

1. Thus saith the Lord God.** This is a formula claiming Divine authority for the whole prophecy.

2. Behold.** Verses 2-9 contain the denunciation of Edom; verses 10-14, the cause of the denunciation; verses 15, 16, an expansion of the denunciation; verses 17-21, a declaration of the glories of Zion, following upon the fulfilment of the denunciation.

3. The word translated “rock” is, in the original, selah, and by it the prophet probably designates Selah, which was the name of the Edomite capital, the city whose site was afterward occupied by Petra, a word of similar import. Selah was situated on either side of a deep ravine, which runs winding like a stream through precipitous and overhanging cliffs, for a distance of not less than a mile and a half. The cliffs are honeycombed with caverns, and in these caverns, reached by artificial means of access, the Edomites dwelt. The buildings which at present exist on the ground at Petra are not the work of the Edomites, but of their successors, the Nabathaans. B. C.

The phrase, “Thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high,” has in modern times received a very striking confirmation from the personal visits and examination made by a large number of travellers—Burckhardt among the earliest; Dr. Edward Robinson among the most accurate and reliable. They and others have found on the site of ancient Petra a vast amount of ruins of the homes of both the living and the dead, especially along the face of an immense gorge or chasm, where the perpendicular rock, several hundred feet in height, was improved for temples, sepulchres and private residences, chiselled from the rock itself. The massive grandeur of these ruins aids us to appreciate the description, “Thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high.” It also accounts for the pride and vain confidence felt by the men of Edom in the military strength of their fastnesses, and evinces the pertinence of the Divine Word, “Though thou lift thyself high as the eagle, and set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down.” How vain it must ever be for even the loftiest and mightiest of men to defy the Almighty, or count themselves above the reach of His retributions! H. C.

3,4. Adversity may harden instead of softening and subduing. Multitudes pass through it and are none the better. They are unyielding, unsubmissive, impenitent. They grow bitter in spirit, and accuse the God of heaven. In such a case the return of prosperity, or the gift of it, is no blessing. The heart gets haughtier than ever, and God is defied (Obad. 3, 4). Orr.

5,6. These supposed cases—the thieves, the night-robbers and the grape-gatherers—all have the same object—viz., to show that the spoiling of Esau would be unsparing. The interjected exclamation—“How art thou cut off!”—implies that the desolation of Esau would be more dire than that wrought by thieves and night-robbers. The latter, compelled by fear to make short work, are wont to seize what comes first to hand till they have enough for present want, or, as the case may be, all they can carry away; and so may leave some valuables behind. Grape-gatherers leave gleanings. But Esau’s wealth will be carefully searched out. Those who shall come to spoil him will find all his hidden stores. The exclamation in verse 6 corresponds in form of statement precisely to that thrown into the middle of verse 5. H. C.

7. Those confederates were probably Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon, with whom the Edomites joined in resisting Nebuchadnezzar; but these failed them, probably turned against them; and even their friends who were at peace with them and ate their bread deceived them in their hour of trial. “To no quarter could the Idumeans look for aid. Their allies, their neighbors, their very dependents, so far from assisting them, would act treacherously toward them, and employ every means, both of an open and covert nature, to effect their ruin.” Anon.

8. The Idumeans confided not only in the natural strength of their country, but in the superiority of their intellectual talent. That they excelled in the arts and sciences is abundantly proved by the numerous traces of them in the Book of Job, which was undoubtedly written in their country. They were indeed proverbial for their philosophy, for the cultivation of which their intercourse with Babylon and Egypt was exceedingly favorable, as were likewise their means of acquiring information from the numerous caravans whose route lay through their country, thus forming a chain of communication between Europe and India. Henderson.

10. The fraternal relation in which Edom stood toward Judah is still more sharply defined by the name Jacob, since Esau and Jacob were twin brothers. The consciousness that the Israelites were their brethren, ought to have impelled the Edomites to render helpful support to the oppressed Judeans. Instead of this, they not only revelled with scornful and malignant pleasure in the misfortune of the brother nation, but endeavored to increase it still further by rendering active support to the enemy. The hostile behavior of Edom arose from envy at the election of Israel, like the hatred of Esau toward Jacob (Gen. 27: 41), which was transmitted to his descendants and came out openly, in the time of Moses, in the unbrotherly refusal to allow the Israelites to pass in a peaceable manner through their land (Num. 20). Delitzsch.

The shame and the “cutting off forever” would be distinct, and might be somewhat widely separated in time. The form of the prophetic statement admits this distinction; the facts of history fulfilled it. The shameful defeat came from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar; the final overthrow was postponed into the early ages of the Christian era.

12-14. The picture of Edom’s violence and cruelty is presented to the prophet, and, as his eye traverses the canvas, he exclaims, “Do not look,” “do not rejoice,” “do not enter,” “do not deliver,” as he sees each group so engaged. The words are addressed to Edomites by way of apostrophe on what he sees them doing before his face, not as a warning against their so doing in the future. The representations of the prophetic vision are necessarily exempt from the relations of time.

15. The day of the Lord. The time when Jehovah will exhibit His majesty by judging and recompensing; whether the general and final day, or a particular and shortly approaching day. “The day of the Lord,” in its inferior signification, is always typical of “the day of the Lord” in its higher signification, and usually, as here, throws forward the prophet’s thought to the final day. That there would be a special day of the Lord was first revealed to and by the prophet Joel. B. C.

“The day of the Lord” is His time for retribution, declared here to be “near upon all the heathen.” It came soon by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar “As thou” (Edom) “hast done to Jerusalem, so shall it be done unto thee; thy reward” (the sort of treatment thou hast shown to others) “shall come back upon thine own head.” (See page 390.)

16. These allusions to drinking are explained by the usage of the prophets. When they bore predictions of dire calamity, they were said to carry a cup filled with a mixture which represented the wrath and vengeance of the Almighty. The ground passage is Ps. 75: 7, 8: “But God is the judge, He putteth down one, and setteth up another; for in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture: but the dregs thereof—all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out and drink them.” To Jerusalem Isaiah said (51 : 17) : “Stand up, thou who hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of His fury.” In Jer. 25 : 15-33, this figure is carried out fully : “Take the wine-cup of this fury at Mine hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send thee to drink it.” So also Jer. 49 : 12, in a passage very closely parallel to this of Obadiah. With this view of the sense of this figure, it seems necessary to refer the first clause—“ye who have drunk on My holy mountain”—to the Jews themselves. They had taken their turn in drinking from this cup of retributive justice ; now all the heathen—Edom among them—must follow. These guilty heathen nations must drink copiously, for the word rendered “swallow down” is strong—shall guzzle down, as men who love it, and suck out the very dregs with keenest relish. And this shall be the end of them—their cup of national annihilation.

17. Over against the final fate of those oppressive and wicked nations, Mount Zion stands in the strongest contrast. Turning now to promises for the people of God, the prophet portrays the victory given to Zion’s side. Mount Zion shall be delivered, and, best of all, “shall become holy.” This will secure her forever against such fearful calamities, for these come only as needful discipline to cleanse her from her sins. H. C.

The remainder of the prophecy (verses 17-21) declares the glories of restored and triumphant Zion, which will consist in (1) the restoration from captivity, (2) the annihilation of the Edomites and their absorption by the Jews, (3) the universal expansion of the Jewish kingdom, (4) the reign of Jehovah.

18. The house of Jacob . . . and the house of Joseph. The united remains of the two tribes and of the ten (cf. Isa. 46 : 3). The overthrow of Edom, hitherto spoken of, to be accomplished by other hands than those of the Jews, and to be effected before the restoration from the captivity, was probably wrought by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 583 B.C., five years after the capture of Jerusalem. Malachi refers to some such overthrow, and points to the fact that the Israelites had been able to re-establish themselves in their country, while the Edomites could not do the same in theirs, as a proof of Jehovah’s love for Israel (1 : 2, 3). The destruction threatened in this verse is to be the work of the Jews themselves, the house of Jacob and Joseph being the instruments by which Esau is finally to be annihilated. This was wrought by Judas Maccabeus and John Hyrcanus, of whom the first defeated the Edomites, B.C. 160 (1 Macc. 5 : 3), and the last utterly crushed them, B.C. 130.

19. The prophet sees the enlargement of Israel on all sides after the destruction of their enemies. This enlargement takes the form of an apparent overflow of Israelitish conquerors and settlers, southward, westward, eastward and northward.

21. Saviours. Such as Zerubbabel, who led back the Jews from their captivity ; the Maccabees, who executed vengeance on Edom ; and all who, by delivering the chosen people, are types of the great Deliverer. The judges are designated saviours or deliverers throughout the Book of Judges. “Under the saviours the Saviour is concealed” (Hengstenberg, Keil). On Mount Zion, as being the throne of judgment, whence dominion was to be exercised over the mount of Esau. “As the mountains of Esau represent the heathen world, so mount Zion, as the seat of the Old Testament kingdom of God, is the type of the kingdom of God in its fully developed form” (Keil). The kingdom shall be the Lord’s. A promise of the Messianic times, when Jehovah should be exclusively the object of worship ; and when His kingdom should no longer be cooped up within the present boundaries of Judah, but should be spread throughout the world. “There is a grandeur about the promise,” says Rosenmüller, “which prevents us from referring it to the times of Zerubbabel or of the Maccabees.” Its truer fulfilment began when it appeared “that God was no respecter of persons, but in every nation,” Israelite or Edomite, Jew or Gentile, “he that feared Him and wrought righteousness was accepted by Him” (Acts 10 : 35). And it will be fully accomplished only when “the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.” B. C.

The passage teaches that the princes reigning on Mount Zion shall rule over Mount Esau ; “the elder shall serve the younger,” or rather, in the much broader sense, the people who stand with God shall bear sway over all the realms and peoples of the earth. The wicked shall no more bear rule ; “the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He is Governor among the nations.” This is the great truth in which the whole Book of Obadiah culminates—a glorious truth indeed !

THE position of the Book of Jonah among the minor prophets is remarkable. It is not a prophecy, but a narrative. Unlike all the other members of the group, it does not contain the utterance, or a collection of the utterances of a prophet. With the exception of the words, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” it is from beginning to end the recital of a prophet’s self will and ignorance, and his discipline and correction by God. Elmslie.

The narrative bears not the least trace of being a vision, or an allegory, or a parable, or a tale of old-time tradition. From beginning to end it is simple, straightforward, nobly honest and self-condemning, especially considered as written by Jonah of himself—in short, in every respect bearing the best internal evidence of truth. Then further, the book has worthy moral objects—e.g., to set forth the peril of fleeing from the path of duty, however rough or even dangerous that path may be; also, the ways of God’s discipline to bring His wandering servants back, and the tenderness of His pity and forgiving love toward them despite of their sins; and yet further, the principles on which God deals with nations, even the heathen, whether in judgment when they sin, or in sparing mercy when they repent. Such objects as these are great and good enough to entitle the Book of Jonah to a place in the sacred canon; or we might go farther back and say, sufficiently important to justify God in making those arrangements of His providence which constitute His part in these scenes of Jonah’s history. But more than all, Jonah is distinctly recognized, in both the Old Testament and the New, as an historical and not a fictitious person. In Old Testament history, 2 K. 14 : 25 distinctly refers to this Jonah, the son of Amittai, in these words: “He (Jeroboam II.) restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the Word of the Lord God of Israel, which He spake by the hand of His servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, who was of Gath-Hepher.” This city was assigned to the tribe of Zebulon (Josh. 19 : 13), so that Jonah’s residence was within the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. He is thus located, precisely as to

place, and proximately as to time, not later than the early part of the reign of Jeroboam II. (reigned n.c. 825-784). In the New Testament, the proof to the point that Jonah was a real and not a fictitious character is complete. (See Matt. 12 : 39-41 ; 16 : 4.) The Lord Jesus most distinctly refers to Jonah as the subject of a sign—i.e., of a miracle—as having been three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, and as having preached to the people of Nineveh, under which preaching they repented; and finally, He definitely compares Himself with Jonah: “Behold, a greater than Jonah is here.” Now if, despite of these testimonies to the contrary, men insist that Jonah is to be accounted a fictitious character, they may say the same with equal reason of the queen of Sheba and of the wise Solomon. H. C.

Everything in the book itself has the appearance of a straightforward statement of facts, just as much so as the earlier narrative of the Book of Ruth. The persons and places mentioned are historical, and all the circumstances have the local color suitable to the period. Nothing but the peculiar character of the miracle it describes has given rise to the contrary opinion. No one in ancient times, so far as we are informed, ever doubted the literal truth of the story. Here the synagogue and the church are at one. The apocryphal Tobit refers to Jonah as a historical personage (14 : 4), and Josephus recites the full details of the miraculous preservation as a genuine record of facts (Antiq. IX., x., 2). And, besides, we have the explicit attestation of our Lord given on two separate occasions. No rational explanation can be given of the Saviour’s words, that does not imply the literal verity of the Old Testament narrative. Chambers.

The narrative is simple and consistent; its truth is endorsed by the express testimony of our Saviour, and the objections simply resolve themselves into a disbelief in miracles at all. One needless difficulty has been raised by the use of the word “whale” in our version of the New Testament in place of the “great fish,” as it is correctly given in the old; and then the climate of the Mediterranean and the anatomy of the whale are triumphantly appealed to in disproof of the whole story. But idolatry itself bears witness in the worship of Dagon to the fact, which naturalists have proved, that there are sharks in the Mediterranean quite capable of swallowing a man whole. On the other hand, we find incidental allusions which no impostor would have dared to insert. The prophet’s three days’ journey through the city is not only now known to be consistent with the vast area covered by the scattered houses and gardens of the great cities of the East, but has been confirmed by the space over which the remains of Nineveh extend. The prophetic character of the book, though its form is narrative, is seen in the use made of it by our Lord, as an example of repentance in a heathen nation, and a sign of His own three days’ abode in the earth. Nay, “the sign of the prophet Jonas” must have been, even without an interpretation, a striking emblem of the resurrection, the doctrine of which is clearly implied in one passage of Jonah’s “prayer to God out of the fish’s belly:” “The earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast Thou brought up my life from corruption, O Jehovah, my God.” P. S.

The miraculous ingredient forms the very warp and woof of the composition, and cannot by any possibility be detached without the literary demolition of the piece. Nevertheless, the fact that the mechanism or marvel of the supernatural are not dwelt upon or at all elaborated proves that the miraculous is not the prime interest or theme, but simply the machinery or vehicle of a didactic purpose. And in like manner the historical is not an object in itself, but is subordinated as means to end to subserve the ethical and religious teaching, which is the supreme motive and final aim of the book. Elmslie.

It is perhaps a part of the simplicity of Jonah’s narrative, that he relates these great miracles as naturally as he does the most ordinary events. His mind is fixed upon God’s providence, and he relates God’s acts as they bore upon His providential dealings with him. He tells of God’s preparing the east wind which smote the palmchrist in the same way in which he speaks of the supernatural growth of the palmchrist, or of God’s providence in appointing that the fish should swallow him. He mentions this, which was in the order of God’s providence; he nowhere stops to tell us the “how.” How God converted the Ninevites, how He sustained his life in the fish’s belly, he tells not. He mentions only the great facts themselves, and leaves them in their mysterious greatness. Pusey.

The interest of the writer is mainly fastened upon the prophet’s own personal history and feelings in relation to his mission and its consequences. The reader’s attention is directed, not so much to the repentance of Nineveh, as to the spiritual schooling of Jonah himself. The dominant purpose of the book appears in fact to be a didactic one, having for its object to expose and rebuke in the person of Jonah the tendency to bigotry; to show to the members of the theocratic commonwealth, not only that “in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him,” but also that Jehovah has a tender, compassionate care for every living man; and that as Israelites themselves have continually to own their indebtedness to the Divine forbearance and forgivingness, they ought to sympathize in, and be willing to help forward, the like mercy displayed to any of their fellow-men. And we are led to conclude that it is this didactic purpose which mainly constitutes its prophetic character, and explains the fact of its having found a place among the prophetic, and not in the historical books. The Jonah here portrayed, unamiable as he is, is, however, no other than the Elder Son in our Lord’s parable, who “never at any time transgressed his father’s commandment;” and as the character has in all ages been apt to reappear among God’s people, it was an object worthy of Divine inspiration that it should be thus plainly and emphatically rebuked. The remarkable result has been, that no other part of the Old Testament displays in so lively a manner “the kindness of God toward man” (His φιλανθρωπία, Tit. 3 : 4) without respect of persons, or so strikingly illustrates the affinity (συγγένειον, as Theodoret happily phrases it) existing between the Old and New Dispensations. B. C.

After Jonah, the whole body of prophets took up his parable, and taught in the very plainest way that Jehovah was the God of the Gentiles also. To us this truth seems taught everywhere in the Old Testament, but Jonah was the first to teach it plainly and directly to the Jews; and he taught it unwillingly. And yet he acknowledges that it was no new truth; for the reason which he gives for his refusal to bear God’s message was that he understood in its fulness that proclamation of the Divine attributes made in Ex. 34 : 6, 7, and knew, therefore, that there was pardon even for Nineveh, if it repented (Jonah 4 : 2). R. P. S.

What one thing, indeed, could better have proved the world-calling of the covenant people than the mission of Jonah to the great Assyrian capital on the banks of the Tigris? In this little book the current of history and prophecy meet and coalesce. It has been justly called “a foreign-missionary book in the midst of the Old Testament; a Divine anticipation of the breaking down of barriers in the announcement of salvation.” Objecting to some parts of the story as fabulous does not explain the reason why such a story is told of the son of Amittai, a contemporary of the prophet Elisha. The fact of his inevitable and unalterable commission is but set in the stronger light by his reluctance to execute it. It was the Jew who resisted, the character that lacks no prominence in the sacred annals, even in those of the New Testament. It is the Israelite, the true son of Abraham, the man who has been lifted into the higher atmosphere of the national institutions, who finally yields and preaches the preaching that he is bidden. E. C. Bissell.

We have only to suppose the writer to have been Jonah himself, and then the whole composition assumes the character of a frank and self-humiliating confession; by the very act of penning it Jonah at once emerges out of his former character and appears to our view not only as a prophet, but as a remarkably humble and noble-spirited saint. For the self-humiliation of the penitent is made all the more striking, when he simply narrates the story of former folly and unworthiness, while he forbears all such expressions of self-disapproval as would tacitly serve as a justification of his present self. By writing as he has done, Jonah (supposing him to be the author) has exposed his character to the reprobation and even contempt of the great majority of his readers; grandly careless of what they would think of him, concerned only for the cause of God and His righteousness. B. C.—Here, then, is the key to the whole mystery of the character. Had Jonah never written the book we should say it would be hard to believe that he could have been a true prophet of God, and then it would be incredible that he could have been employed on such a mission. But his depth of repentance and faith is seen in the fact that he laid himself as a sacrifice on the altar of revelation. Hence the strange mixture in his conduct of the spirit of obedience and the spirit of selfishness. It is what is seen in the greatest saints—in David, in Simon Peter, in multitudes far below them; but the grace of God prevails over the infirmities and faults of a merely human character, and behind the distressing picture of inconsistency and moral weakness there comes out the overpowering sufficiency of Divine strength, making the sinner into the servant of God—the man who fled from Jehovah’s presence, His chosen witness. Redford.

The personal history of Jonah is brief and well known, but is of such an exceptional and extraordinary character as to have been set down by many German critics to fiction, either in whole or in part. The book, say they, was composed, or compounded, some time after the death of the prophet, perhaps at the latter part of the Jewish kingdom, during the reign of Josiah, or even later. The supposed improbabilities are accounted for by them in a variety of ways—e.g., as merely fabulous or fanciful ornaments to a true history, or allegorical or parabolical and moral, both in their origin and design. We feel ourselves precluded from any doubt of the reality of the transactions recorded in this book by the simplicity of the language itself; by the accordance with other authorities of the historical and geographical notices; above all, by the explicit words and teaching of our blessed Lord Himself (Matt. 12: 39, 41; 16: 4; Luke 11: 29). We derive additional arguments for the same conclusion from the history and meaning of the prophet’s mission. Dic. B.

In the case of Jonah, the miraculous element has, doubtless, had much to do with the persistent opposition to its authority. The whole of the modern critical school of Germany is actuated by a fierce hatred of the supernatural. Whatever cannot be brought under their scientific canons is to be rejected as mythical or fabulous. They must, however, explain the origin of the book which they attack. Generally speaking, their theories are as varied as their names. They are agreed only in the negations. When they attempt to build up, in a new form, that which they have destroyed, their weakness immediately reveals itself. Much of their so-called criticism is simply the application of an arbitrary standard to what they have failed to understand, and their want of sympathy with the higher intention of Scripture betrays itself in the shallow and unsatisfactory suggestions which they put forth, by way of removing difficulties and accounting for obstinate facts. Redford.

Aramaic words. The style is thought to bear traces of a “Chaldaizing element,” due, it is supposed, to the influence exercised by Chaldea upon the Hebrew language later in the Israelite history. The philological details on which this objection rests fail to substantiate it. Some of them are due to the fact that the writer, describing for the first time in the Old Testament an ocean voyage, uses the proper technical terms which he heard employed on the occasion: such are mallach, “salt-sea man,” for “sailor;” sephinah, “covered”—i.e., “decked,” for “vessel,” the more common term oniyyah being also used; rabh hachobhel, “chief of the sailors,” for “captain;” vayyochteru (most probably), “and they ploughed,” for “rowed hard.” We may recollect the parallel case of Luke, in his account of Paul’s shipwreck, employing a variety of nautical terms, which he had no doubt heard used when himself on shipboard at the very time. Again, he uses the word taam of the edict which was issued by the king and nobles; not a Hebrew word, but Aramaic; probably the very word used in Nineveh to designate such a decree. B.C.

That the book contains several Aramaisms—words, that is, akin to Syriac and Chaldee, but not belonging to pure Hebrew, proves nothing; for scholars are not by any means agreed whether these Aramaisms belong or not to the declining age of Jewish literature, or whether they may not have been the vernacular dialect of the country people. R. P. S.

With regard to the words adduced by the critics against an early date for Jonah, the following is Dr. Pusey’s summary of their evidence. “Out of these eight words or forms, three are naval terms, and, since Israel was no seafaring people, it is in harmony with the history that these terms should first occur in the first prophet who left the land on his mission by sea. So it is also that an Assyrian technical term should first occur in a prophet who had been sent to Nineveh. A fifth word occurs in Hosea, a contemporary of Jonah, and in a Psalm of David. The abridged grammatical form was Phœnician, not Aramaic, was used in conversation, occurs in the oldest proper names, and in the northern tribes. The seventh and eighth do not occur in Aramaic in the meaning in which they are used by Jonah.” The argument against the authenticity of the book on the ground of late forms in the language, therefore, entirely breaks down. Had it been composed after the time of the Captivity it would have been full of Chaldaisms, but, as it is, there is not one instance which can be made out.

To the Christian, who holds that the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ is above question, it will be an answer to all objections against the historical credibility of the Book of Jonah, that the use of it by the Saviour precludes the possibility of His regarding it in any other light than as an inspired work. Not only does He point to the facts of Jonah’s preaching and the repentance of the people of Nineveh, but He solemnly declares that in the day of judgment these facts will be remembered. He also uses the miraculous element and connects it immediately with the greatest miracle of Christianity, His own Resurrection. Plainly, therefore, it was no spurious book in the eyes of the Jewish Church of the Lord’s days; and He Himself sanctioned the popular view of its Divine authority. To some minds this overwhelming argument from the Christian point of view will stand in the place of all others. Redford.