The Prophet Obadiah, expounded by Charles Paul Caspari [pp. 226-240]

by Charles Paul CasparZ.
positive hostility. The question at once arises, what historical
fact is here intended? and was it past or future at the time of
the prophet? Three different opinions are here possible, and
have been actually maintained:-1. That the event referred to
was the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and that it
is described as past. 2. That it was the capture by Nebuchadnezzar, but the description is prophetic; the event lay yet in
the future. 3. That it describes one of the previous captures
of Jerusalem, or calamities that befel its inhabitants before the
final overthrow from incursions of hostile invaders, e. g. that
recorded 2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17, or that 2 Chron. xxv. 23, 24, or
that 2 Chron. xxviii. 17, 18. Of these suppositions only the
first is inconsistent with the conclusion, to which we have
already come, as to the period when Obadiah lived. Caspari
adopts the second view stated above, and argues from the
strength of the expressions employed, that nothing less than
the utter overthrow of the city, as it took place under the
Chaldeans, can be intended. That this was still future to the
prophet, and not past, he considers as established, 1. by the
exhortations, verses 12-14, which seem to be most naturally
explained on the supposition of the actions being not yet performed;* and 2. by the general terms in which the prophecy,
is couched and the absence of all that is specific and definite; "strangers" and "foreigners" destroy Jerusalem, the
"nations" are summoned for the punishment of Edom. The
Chaldeans are not once named, as it seems probable that they
would have been, had this been written after their commission
of the atrocities referred to. The use of the prophetic preterite in the case of events really future, but conceived of and
represented by the prophet as past, is frequent and well known.
There is no more difficulty in assuming this to be the case in
verses 11 and 16, than in verses 3, 6, 7, where all admit it.
Those, whose principles will not suffer them to believe in the
reality of any supernatural prediction, cannot of course
embrace this view. But it is hard to see why even thus they
need find any more difficulty here than they do with those pas * In order to appreciate this argument the Hebrew must be consulted, which
reads, Look not-rejoice not-speak not proudly, &c.; not as in our version,
Thou shouldst not have looked, &c.
1852.]
231