Help PreviousNext

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

OB


OBADIAH

o-ba-di'-a (`obhadhyah, more fully `obhadhyahu, "servant of Yahweh"):

(1) The steward or prime minister of Ahab, who did his best to protect the prophets of Yahweh against Jezebel's persecution. He met Elijah on his return from Zarephath, and bore to Ahab the news of Elijah's reappearance (1 Ki 18:3-16).

(2) The prophet (Ob 1:1).

See OBADIAH ,BOOK OF .

(3) A descendant of David (1 Ch 3:21).

(4) A chief of the tribe of Issachar (1 Ch 7:3).

(5) A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:38; 9:44).

(6) A Levite descended from Jeduthun (1 Ch 9:16), identical with Abda (Neh 11:17).

(7) A chief of the Gadites (1 Ch 12:9).

(8) A Zebulunite, father of the chief Ishmaiah (1 Ch 27:19).

(9) One of the princes sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the law in Judah (2 Ch 17:7).

(10) A Merarite employed by Josiah to oversee the workmen in repairing the temple (2 Ch 34:12).

(11) The head of a family who went up with Ezra from Babylon (Ezr 8:9).

(12) One of the men who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10:5).

(13) A gate-keeper in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:25).

The name "Obadiah" was common in Israel from the days of David to the close of the Old Testament. An ancient Hebrew seal bears the inscription "Obadiah the servant of the King."

John Richard Sampey


OBADIAH, BOOK OF

Obadiah is the shortest book in the Old Testament. The theme of the book is the destruction of Edom. Consequent upon the overthrow of Edom is the enlargement of the borders of Judah and the establishment of the kingship of Yahweh. Thus far all scholars are agreed; but on questions of authorship and date there is wide divergence of opinion.

1. Contents of the Book:

(1) Yahweh summons the nations to the overthrow of proud Edom. The men of Esau will be brought down from their lofty strongholds; their hidden treasures will be rifled; their confederates will turn against them; nor will the wise and the mighty men in Edom be able to avert the crushing calamity (Ob 1:1-9). (2) The overthrow of Edom is due to the violence and cruelty shown toward his brother Jacob. The prophet describes the cruelty and shameless gloating over a brother's calamity, in the form of earnest appeals to Edom not to do the selfish and heartless deeds of which he had been guilty when Jerusalem was sacked by foreign foes (Ob 1:10-14). (3) The day of the display of Yahweh's retributive righteousness upon the nations is near. Edom shall be completely destroyed by the people whom he has tried to uproot, while Israel's captives shall return to take possession of their own land and also to seize and rule the mount of Esau. Thus the kingship of Yahweh shall be established (Ob 1:15-21).

2. Unity of the Book:

The unity of Obadiah was first challenged by Eichhorn in 1824, 1:17-21 being regarded by him as an appendix attached to the original exilic prophecy in the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC). Ewald thought that an exilic prophet, to whom he ascribed 1:11-14 and 19-21, had made use of an older prophecy by Obadiah in 1:1-10, and in 1:15-18 of material from another older prophet who was contemporary, like Obadiah, with Isaiah. As the years went on, the material assigned to the older oracle was limited by some to 1:1-9 and by others to 1:1-6. Wellhausen assigned to Obadiah 1:1-5,7,10,11,13,14,15b, while all else was regarded as a later appendix. Barton's theory of the composition of Obadiah is thus summed up by Bewer: "Ob 1:1-6 are a pre-exilic oracle of Obadiah, which was quoted by Jeremiah, and readapted with additions (Ob 1:7-15) by another Obadiah in the early post-exilic days; 1:16-21 form an appendix, probably from Maccabean times" (ICC, 5). Bewer's own view is closely akin to Barton's. He thinks that Obadiah, writing in the 5th century BC, "quoted 1:1-4 almost, though not quite, literally; that he commented on the older oracle in 1:5-7, partly in the words of the older prophet, partly in his own words, in order to show that it had been fulfilled in his own day; and that in 1:8,9 he quoted once more from the older oracle without any show of literalness." He ascribes to Obadiah 1:10-14 and 15b. The appendix consists of two sections, 1:15a,16-18 and 1:19-21, possibly by different authors, 1:18 being a quotation from some older prophecy. To the average Bible student all this minute analysis of a brief prophecy must seem hypercritical. He will prefer to read the book as a unity; and in doing so will get the essence of the message it has for the present day.

3. Date of the Book:

Certain preliminary problems require solution before the question of date can be settled.

(1) Relation of Obadiah and Jeremiah 49.

(a) Did Obadiah quote from Jeremiah? Pusey thus sets forth the impossibility of such a solution: "Out of 16 verses of which the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah's; of the eleven which remain, ten have some turns of expression or idioms, more or fewer, which recur in Jer, either in these prophecies against foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of Jeremiah's characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression which occurs elsewhere in Jer" (Minor Prophets, I, 347). (b) Did Jeremiah quote from Obadiah? It is almost incredible that the vigorous and well-articulated prophecy in Obadiah could have been made by piecing together detached quotations from Jer; but Jeremiah may well have taken from Obadiah many expressions that fell in with his general purpose. There are difficulties in applying this view to one or two verses, but it has not been disproved by the arguments from meter advanced by Bewer and others. (c) Did both Obadiah and Jeremiah quote from an older oracle? This is the favorite solution among recent scholars, most of whom think that Obadiah preserves the vigor of the original, while Jeremiah quotes with more freedom; but Bewer in ICC, after a detailed comparison, thus sums up: "Our conclusion is that Obadiah quoted in Ob 1:1-9 an older oracle, the original of which is better preserved in Jer 49." The student will do well to get his own first-hand impression from a careful comparison of the two passages. With Ob 1:1-4 compare Jer 49:14-16; with Ob 1:5,6 compare Jer 49:9,10a; with Ob 1:8 compare Jer 49:7; with Ob 1:9a compare Jer 49:22b. On the whole, the view that Jeremiah, who often quotes from earlier prophets, draws directly from Obadiah, with free working over of the older prophets, seems still tenable.

(2) Relation of Obadiah and Joel.

There seems to be in Joel 2:32 (Hebrew 3:5) a direct allusion to Ob 1:17. If Joel prophesied during the minority of the boy king Joash (circa 830 BC), Obadiah would be, on this hypothesis, the earliest of the writing prophets.

(3) What Capture of Jerusalem Is Described in Obadiah 1:10-14?

The disaster seems to have been great enough to be called "destruction" (Ob 1:12). Hence, most scholars identify the calamity described by Obadiah with the capture and destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 587 BC. But it is remarkable, on this hypothesis, that no allusion is made either in Obadiah or Jer 49:7-22 to the Chaldeans or to the destruction of the temple or to the wholesale transportation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to Babylonia. We know, however, from Ezek 35:1-15 and Ps 137:7 that Edom rejoiced over the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans in 587 BC, and that they encouraged the destroyers to blot out the holy city. Certain it is that the events of 587 accord remarkably with the language of Ob 1:10-14. Pusey indeed argues from the use of the form of the direct prohibition in Ob 1:12-14 that Edom had not yet committed the sins against which the prophet warns him, and so Jerusalem was not yet destroyed, when Obadiah wrote. But almost all modern scholars interpret the language of Ob 1:12-14 as referring to what was already past; the prophet "speaks of what the Edomites had actually done as of what they ought not to do." The scholars who regard Obadiah as the first of the writing prophets locate his ministry in Judah during the reign of Jehoram (circa 845 BC). Both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles tell of the war of rebellion in the days of Jehoram when Edom, after a fierce struggle, threw off the yoke of Judah (2 Ki 8:20-22; 2 Ch 21:8-10). Shortly after the revolt of Edom, according to 2 Ch 21:16 f, the Philistines and Arabians broke into Judah, "and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons." Evidently the capital city fell into the hands of the invaders. It was a calamity of no mean proportions.

The advocates of a late date call attention to three points that weaken the case for an early date for Obadiah: (a) The silence of 2 Kings as to the invasion of the Philistines and Arabians. But what motive could the author of Chronicles have had for inventing the story? (b) The absence of any mention of the destruction of the city by the Philistines and Arabians. It must be acknowledged that the events of 587 BC accord more fully with the description in Ob 1:10-14, though the disaster in the days of Jehoram must have been terrible. (c) The silence as to Edom in 2 Ch 21:16 f. But so also are the historic books silent as to the part that Edom took in the destruction of Jerusalem in 587. It is true that exilic and post-exilic prophets and psalmists speak in bitter denunciation of the unbrotherly conduct of Edom (Lam 4:21,22; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15; Ps 137:7; Mal 1:1-5; compare also Isa 34 and 63:1-6); but it is also true that the earliest Hebrew literature bears witness to the keen rivalry between Esau and Jacob (Gen 25:22 f; 27:41; Nu 20:14-21), and one of the earliest of the writing prophets denounces Edom for unnatural cruelty toward his brother (Am 1:11 f; compare Joel 3:19 (Hebrew 4:19)).

(4) The Style of Obadiah.

Most early critics praise the style. Some of the more recent critics argue for different authors on the basis of a marked difference in style within the compass of the twenty-one verses in the little roll. Thus Selbie writes in HDB: "There is a difference in style between the two halves of the book, the first being terse, animated, and full of striking figures, while the second is diffuse and marked by poverty of ideas and trite figures." The criticism of the latter part of the book is somewhat exaggerated, though it may be freely granted that the first half is more original and vigorous. The Hebrew of the book is classic, with scarcely any admixture of Aramaic words or constructions. The author may well have lived in the golden age of the Hebrew language and literature.

(5) Geographical and Historical Allusions.

The references to the different sections and cities in the land of Israel and in the land of Edom are quite intelligible. As to Sepharad (Ob 1:20) there is considerable difference of opinion. Schrader and some others identify it with a Shaparda in Media, mentioned in the annals of Sargon (722-705 BC). Many think of Asia Minor, or a region in Asia Minor mentioned in Persian inscriptions, perhaps Bithynia or Galatia (Sayce). Some think that the mention of "the captives of this host of the children of Israel" and "the captives of Jerusalem" (Ob 1:20) proves that both the Assyrian captivity and the Babylonian exile were already past. This argument has considerable force; but it is well to remember that Amos, in the first half of the 8th century, describes wholesale deportations from the land of Israel by men engaged in the slave trade (Am 1:6-10). The problem of the date of Obadiah has not been solved to the satisfaction of Biblical students. Our choice must be between a very early date (circa 845) and a date shortly after 587, with the scales almost evenly balanced.

4. Interpretation of the Book:

Obadiah is to be interpreted as prediction rather than history. In 1:11-14 there are elements of historic description, but 1:1-10 and 15-21 are predictive.

LITERATURE.

Comms.: Caspari, Der Prophet Obadjah ausgelegt, 1842; Pusey, The Minor Prophets, 1860; Ewald, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament (English translation), II, 277 ff, 1875; Keil (ET), 1880; T.T. Perowne (in Cambridge Bible), 1889; von Orelli (English translation), The Minor Prophets, 1893; Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, 1898; G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, II, 163 ff, 1898; Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, 1903; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 1903; Eiselen, The Minor Prophets, 1907; Bewer, ICC, 1911. Miscellaneous: Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, 33 ff; Intros of Driver, Wildeboer, etc.; Selbie in HDB, III, 577-80; Barton in JE, IX, 369-70; Cheyne in EB, III, 3455-62; Peckham, An Introduction to the Study of Obadiah, 1910; Kent, Students' Old Testament, III, 1910.

John Richard Sampey


OBAL

o'-bal.

See EBAL , 1.


OBDIA

ob-di'-a (Codex Alexandrinus Obdia; Codex Vaticanus Hobbeia): One of the families of usurping priests (1 Esdras 5:38) = "Habaiah" of Ezr 2:61; "Hobaiah" of Neh 7:63.


OBED

o'-bed (`obhedh, "worshipper"; in the New Testament Iobed):

(1) Son of Boaz and Ruth and grandfather of David (Ruth 4:17,21,22; 1 Ch 2:12; Mt 1:5; Lk 3:32).

(2) Son of Ephlal and descendant of Sheshan, the Jerahmeelite, through his daughter who was married to Jarha, an Egyptian servant of her father's (1 Ch 2:37,38).

(3) One of David's mighty men (1 Ch 11:47).

(4) A Korahite doorkeeper, son of Shemaiah, and grandson of Obed-edom (1 Ch 26:7).

(5) Father of Azariah, one of the centurions who took part with Jehoiada in deposing Queen Athaliah and crowning Joash (2 Ch 23:1; compare 2 Ki 11:1-16).

David Francis Roberts


OBED-EDOM

o'-bed-e'-dom (`obhedh 'edhowm (2 Ch 25:24), `obhedd 'edhom (2 Sam 6:10; 1 Ch 13:13,14; 15:25), but elsewhere without hyphen, "servant of (god) Edom"; so W. R. Smith, Religion of Semites (2), 42, and H. P. Smith, Samuel, 294 f, though others explain it as = "servant of man"): In 2 Sam 6:10,11,12; 1 Ch 13:13,14 a Philistine of Gath and servant of David, who received the Ark of Yahweh into his house when David brought it into Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim. Because of the sudden death of Uzzah, David was unwilling to proceed with the Ark to his citadel, and it remained three months in the house of Obed-edom, "and Yahweh blessed Obed-edom, and all his house" (2 Sam 6:11). According to 1 Ch 13:14 the Ark had a special "house" of its own while there. He is probably the same as the Levite of 1 Ch 15:25. In 1 Ch 15:16-21 Obed-edom is a "singer," and in 1 Ch 15:24 a "doorkeeper," while according to 1 Ch 26:4-8,15 he is a Korahite doorkeeper, to whose house fell the overseership of the storehouse (26:15), while 1 Ch 16:5,38 names him as a "minister before the ark," a member of the house or perhaps guild of Jeduthun (see 2 Ch 25:24).

Obed-edom is an illustration of the service rendered to Hebrew religion by foreigners, reminding one of the Simon of Cyrene who bore the cross of Jesus (Mt 27:32, etc.). The Chronicler naturally desired to think that only Levites could discharge such duties as Obed-edom performed, and hence, the references to him as a Levite.

David Francis Roberts.


OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST

The "obedience" (hupakoe) of Christ is directly mentioned but 3 times in the New Testament, although many other passages describe or allude to it: "Through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous" (Rom 5:19); "He humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil 2:8); "Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered" (Heb 5:8). In 2 Cor 10:5, the phrase signifies an attitude toward Christ: "every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."

1. As an Element of Conduct and Character:

His subjection to His parents (Lk 2:51) was a necessary manifestation of His loving and sinless character, and of His disposition and power to do the right in any situation. His obedience to the moral law in every particular is asserted by the New Testament writers: "without sin" (Heb 4:15); "who knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21); "holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Heb 7:26), etc.; and is affirmed by Himself: "Which of you convicteth me of sin?" (Jn 8:46); and implicitly conceded by His enemies, since no shadow of accusation against His character appears. Of His ready, loving, joyful, exact and eager obedience to the Father, mention will be made later, but it was His central and most outstanding characteristic, the filial at its highest reach, limitless, "unto death." His usually submissive and law-abiding attitude toward the authorities and the great movements and religious requirements of His day was a part of His loyalty to God, and of the strategy of His campaign, the action of the one who would set an example and wield an influence, as at His baptism: "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt 3:15); the synagogue worship (Lk 4:16, "as his custom was"); the incident of the tribute money: "Therefore the sons are free. But, lest we cause them to stumble," etc. (Mt 17:24-27). Early, however, the necessities of His mission as Son of God and institutor of the new dispensation obliged Him frequently to display a judicial antagonism to current prescription and an authoritative superiority to the rulers; and even to important details of the Law, that would in most eyes mark Him as insurgent, and did culminate in the cross, but was the sublimest obedience to the Father, whose authority alone He, as full-grown man, and Son of man, could recognize.

2. Its Christological Bearing:

Two Scriptural statements raise an important question as to the inner experience of Jesus. Heb 5:8 states that "though he was a Son, yet learned (he) obedience by the things which he suffered" (emathen aph' hon epathen ten hupakoen); Phil 2:6,8: Existing in the form of God .... he humbled himself, becoming obedient, even unto death." As Son of God, His will was never out of accord with the Father's will. How then was it necessary to, or could He, learn obedience, or become obedient? The same question in another form arises from another part of the passage in Heb 5:9: "And having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author (cause) of eternal salvation"; also Heb 2:10: "It became him (God) .... to make the author (captain) of their salvation perfect through sufferings." How and why should the perfect be made perfect? Gethsemane, with which, indeed, Heb 5:8 is directly related, presents the same problem. It finds its solution in the conditions of the Redeemer's work and life on earth in the light of His true humanity. Both in His eternal essence and in His human existence, obedience to His Father was His dominant principle, so declared through the prophet-psalmist before His birth: Heb 10:7 (Ps 40:7), "Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." It was His law of life: "I do always the things that are pleasing to him. I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things" (Jn 8:29,28); "I can of myself do nothing. .... I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (Jn 5:30). It was the indispensable process of His activity as the "image of the invisible God," the expression of the Deity in terms of the phenomenal and the human. He could be a perfect revelation only by the perfect correspondence in every detail, of will, word and work with the Father's will (Jn 5:19). Obedience was also His life nourishment and satisfaction (Jn 4:34). It was the guiding principle which directed the details of His work: "I have power to lay it (life) down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father" (Jn 10:18); "The Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (Jn 12:49; compare 14:31, etc.). But in the Incarnation this essential and filial obedience must find expression in human forms according to human demands and processes of development. As true man, obedient disposition on His part must meet the test of voluntary choice under all representative conditions, culminating in that which was supremely hard, and at the limit which should reveal its perfection of extent and strength. It must become hardened, as it were, and confirmed, through a definite obedient act, into obedient human character. The patriot must become the veteran. The Son, obedient on the throne, must exercise the practical virtue of obedience on earth. Gethsemane was the culmination of this process, when in full view of the awful, shameful, horrifying meaning of Calvary, the obedient disposition was crowned, and the obedient Divine-human life reached its highest manifestation, in the great ratification: "Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done." But just as Jesus' growth in knowledge was not from error to truth, but from partial knowledge to completer, so His "learning obedience" led Him not from disobedience or debate to submission, but from obedience at the present stage to an obedience at ever deeper and deeper cost. The process was necessary for His complete humanity, in which sense He was "made perfect," complete, by suffering. It was also necessary for His perfection as example and sympathetic High Priest. He must fight the human battles under the human conditions. Having translated obedient aspiration and disposition into obedient action in the face of, and in suffering unto, death, even the death of the cross, He is able to lead the procession of obedient sons of God through every possible trial and surrender. Without this testing of His obedience He could have had the sympathy of clear and accurate knowledge, for He "knew what was in man," but He would have lacked the sympathy of a kindred experience. Lacking this, He would have been for us, and perhaps also in Himself, but an imperfect "captain of our salvation," certainly no "file leader" going before us in the very paths we have to tread, and tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. It may be worth noting that He "learned obedience" and was "made perfect" by suffering, not the results of His own sins, as we do largely, but altogether the results of the sins of others.

3. In Its Soteriological Bearings:

In Rom 5:19, in the series of contrasts between sin and salvation ("Not as the trespass, so also is the free gift"), we are told: "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous." Interpreters and theologians, especially the latter, differ as to whether "obedience" here refers to the specific and supreme act of obedience on the cross, or to the sum total of Christ's incarnate obedience through His whole life; and they have made the distinction between His "passive obedience," yielded on the cross, and His "active obedience" in carrying out without a flaw the Father's will at all times. This distinction is hardly tenable, as the whole Scriptural representation, especially His own, is that He was never more intensely active than in His death: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished" (Lk 12:50); "I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again" (Jn 10:17,18). "Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God" (Heb 9:14), indicates the active obedience of one who was both priest and sacrifice. As to the question whether it was the total obedience of Christ, or His death on the cross, that constituted the atonement, and

the kindred question whether it was not the spirit of obedience in the act of death, rather than the act itself, that furnished the value of His redemptive work, it might conceivably, though improbably, be said that "the one act of righteousness" through which "the free gift came" was His whole life considered as one act. But these ideas are out of line with the unmistakable trend of Scripture, which everywhere lays principal stress on the death of Christ itself; it is the center and soul of the two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper; it holds first place in the Gospels, not as obedience, but as redemptive suffering and death; it is unmistakably put forth in this light by Christ Himself in His few references to His death: "ransom," "my blood," etc. Paul's teaching everywhere emphasizes the death, and in but two places the obedience; Peter indeed speaks of Christ as an ensample, but leaves as his characteristic thought that Christ "suffered for sins once .... put to death in the flesh" (1 Pet 3:18). In Hebrews the center and significance of Christ's whole work is that He "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (1 Pet 9:26); while John in many places emphasizes the death as atonement: "Unto him that .... loosed us from our sins by his blood" (Rev 1:5), and elsewhere. The Scripture teaching is that "God set (him) forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood" (Rom 3:25). His lifelong obedience enters in chiefly as making and marking Him the "Lamb without blemish and without spot," who alone could be the atoning sacrifice. If it enters further, it is as the preparation and anticipation of that death, His life so dominated and suffused with the consciousness of the coming sacrifice that it becomes really a part of the death. His obedience at the time of His death could not have been atonement, for it had always existed and had not atoned; but it was the obedience that turned the possibility of atonement into the fact of atonement. He obediently offered up, not His obedience, but Himself. He is set forth as propitiation, not in His obedience, but in His blood, His death, borne as the penalty of sin, in His own body on the tree. The distinction is not one of mere academic theological interest. It involves the whole question of the substitutionary and propitiatory in Christ's redemptive work, which is central, vital and formative, shaping the entire conception of Christianity. The blessed and helpful part which our Lord's complete and loving obedience plays in the working out of Christian character, by His example and inspiration, must not be underestimated, nor its meaning as indicating the quality of the life which is imparted to the soul which accepts for itself His mediatorial death. These bring the consummation and crown of salvation; they are not its channel, or instrument, or price.

See also ATONEMENT .

LITERATURE.

DCG, article "Obedience of Christ"; Denney, Death of Christ, especially pp. 231-33; Champion, Living Atonement; Forsythe, Cruciality of the Cross, etc.; works on the Atonement; Commentaries, in the place cited.

Philip Wendell Crannell


OBEDIENCE; OBEY

o-be'-di-ens, o-ba (shama`; hupakoe):

1. Meaning of Terms:

In its simpler Old Testament meaning the word signifies "to hear," "to listen." It carries with it, however, the ethical significance of hearing with reverence and obedient assent. In the New Testament a different origin is suggestive of "hearing under" or of subordinating one's self to the person or thing heard, hence, "to obey." There is another New Testament usage, however, indicating persuasion from, peithomai.

The relation expressed is twofold: first, human, as between master and servant, and particularly between parents and children. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that, will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place" (Dt 21:18,19; compare Prov 15:20); or between sovereign and subjects, "The foreigners shall submit themselves unto me: as soon as they hear of me, they shall obey me" (2 Sam 22:45; 1 Ch 29:23).

2. The Old Testament Conception:

The highest significance of its usage, however, is that of the relation of man to God. Obedience is the supreme test of faith in God and reverence for Him. The Old Testament conception of obedience was vital. It was the one important relationship which must not be broken. While sometimes this relation may have been formal and cold, it nevertheless was the one strong tie which held the people close to God. The significant spiritual relation is expressed by Samuel when he asks the question, "Hath Yahweh as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Sam 15:22). It was the condition without which no right relation might be sustained to Yahweh. This is most clearly stated in the relation between Abraham and Yahweh when he is assured "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice" (Gen 22:18).

In prophetic utterances, future blessing and prosperity were conditioned upon obedience: "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land" (Isa 1:19). After surveying the glories of the Messianic kingdom, the prophet assures the people that "this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of Yahweh your God" (Zec 6:15). On the other hand misfortune, calamity, distress and famine are due to their disobedience and distrust of Yahweh.

See DISOBEDIENCE .

This obedience or disobedience was usually related to the specific commands of Yahweh as contained in the law, yet they conceived of God as giving commands by other means. Note especially the rebuke of Samuel to Saul: "Because thou obeyedst not the voice of Yahweh, .... therefore hath Yahweh done this thing unto thee this day" (1 Sam 28:18).

3. The New Testament Conception:

In the New Testament a higher spiritual and moral relation is sustained than in the Old Testament. The importance of obedience is just as greatly emphasized. Christ Himself is its one great illustration of obedience. He "humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil 2:8). By obedience to Him we are through Him made partakers of His salvation (Heb 5:9). This act is a supreme test of faith in Christ. Indeed, it is so vitally related that they are in some cases almost synonymous. "Obedience of faith" is a combination used by Paul to express this idea (Rom 1:5). Peter designates believers in Christ as "children of obedience" (1 Pet 1:14). Thus it is seen that the test of fellowship with Yahweh in the Old Testament is obedience. The bond of union with Christ in the New Testament is obedience through faith, by which they become identified and the believer becomes a disciple.

Walter G. Clippinger


OBEISANCE

o-ba'-sans: It is used 9 times in the King James Version in the phrase "made (or did) obeisance" as a rendering of the reflexive form of (shachah), and denotes the bow or curtsey indicative of deference and respect. The same form of the verb is sometimes translated "to bow one's self" when it expresses the deferential attitude of one person to another (Gen 33:6,7, etc.). Occasionally the vow of homage or fealty to a king on the part of a subject is suggested. In Joseph's dream his brother's sheaves made obeisance to his sheaf (Gen 43:28; compare also 2 Sam 15:5; 2 Ch 24:17). But in a large number of instances the verb denotes the prostrate posture of the worshipper in the presence of Deity, and is generally rendered, "to worship" in the King James Version. In all probability this was the original significance of the word (Gen 24:26, etc.). Obeisance (= obedience) originally signified the vow of obedience made by a vassal to his lord or a slave to his master, but in time denoted the act of bowing as a token of respect.

T. Lewis


OBELISK

ob'-e-lisk, ob'-el-isk: A sacred stone or matstsebhah. For matstsebhah the Revised Version (British and American) has used "pillar" in the text, with "obelisk" in the margin in many instances (Ex 23:24; Lev 26:1; Dt 12:3; 1 Ki 14:23; Hos 3:4; 10:1,2, etc.), but not consistently (e.g. Gen 28:18).

See PILLAR .


OBETH

o'-beth (Obeth; Codex Vaticanus Ouben): One of those who went up with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:32) = "Ebed" of Ezr 8:6.


OBIL

o'-bil ('obhil, "camel driver"): An Ishmaelite who was "over the camels" in David's palace (1 Ch 27:30).


OBJECT

ob-jekt': Now used only in the sense "to make opposition," but formerly in a variety of meanings derived from the literal sense "to throw against." So with the meaning "to charge with" in The Wisdom of Solomon 2:12, the King James Version "He objecteth to our infamy the transgressing of our education" (the Revised Version (British and American) "layeth to our charge sins against our discipline"), or "to make charges against" in Acts 24:19, the King James Version "who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me" (the Revised Version (British and American) "and to make accusation").


OBLATION

ob-la'-shun: In Leviticus and Numbers, the King James Version occasionally uses "oblation," but generally "offering," as a rendering of qorban--a general term for all kinds of offering, but used only in Ezekiel, Leviticus and Numbers. the Revised Version (British and American) renders consistently "oblation." In Ezekiel (also Isa 40:20), "oblation" renders terumah, generally translated "heave offering." In some cases (e.g. Isa 1:13; Dan 9:21) "oblation" in the King James Version corresponds to minchah, the ordinary word for "gift," in the Priestly Code (P) "grain offering."

See SACRIFICE .


OBOTH

o'-both, o'-both ('obhoth, "waterbags"): A desert camp of the Israelites, the 3rd after leaving Mt. Hor and close to the borders of Moab (Nu 21:10,11; 33:43,14).

See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL .


OBSCURITY

ob-sku'-ri-ti: In modern English generally denotes a state of very faint but still perceptible illumination, and only when preceded by some such adjective as "total" does it imply the absence of all light. In Biblical English, however, only the latter meaning is found. So in Isa 29:18 ('ophel, "darkness"); 58:10; 59:9 (choshekh, "darkness"); Additions to Esther 11:8 (gnophos, "darkness"). Compare Prov 20:20, the King James Version "in obscure darkness," the English Revised Version "in the blackest darkness," the American Standard Revised Version "in blackness of darkness."


OBSERVE

ob-zurv' (representing various words, but chiefly shamar, "to keep," "to watch" etc.): Properly means "to take heed to," as in Isa 42:20, "Thou seest many things, but thou observest not" and from this sense all the usages of the word in English Versions of the Bible can be understood. Most of them, indeed are quite good modern usage (as "observe a feast," Ex 12:17, etc.; "observe a law" Lev 19:37, etc.), but a few are archaic. So Gen 37:11, the King James Version "His father observed the saying" (the Revised Version (British and American) "kept the saying in mind"); Hos 13:7, "As a leopard .... will I observe them" (the Revised Version (British and American) "watch"); Jon 2:8, "observe lying vanities" (the Revised Version (British and American) "regard," but "give heed to" would be clearer; compare Ps 107:43). Still farther from modern usage is Hos 14:8, "I have heard him, and observed him" (the Revised Version (British and American) "will regard"; the meaning is "care for"); and Mk 6:20, "For Herod feared John .... and observed him" (the Revised Version (British and American) "kept him safe"). In the last case, the King James Version editors seem to have used "to observe" as meaning "to give reverence to."

Observation is found in Lk 17:20, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation" (meta paratereseos). The meaning of the English is, "so that it can be observed," but the exact force of the underlying Greek ("visibly"? "so that it can be computed in advance"?) is a matter of extraordinary dispute at the present time.

See KINGDOM OF GOD .

Burton Scott Easton


OBSERVER OF TIMES

ob-zur'-ver.

See DIVINATION .


OBSTINACY

ob'-sti-na-si.

See HARDEN .



Placed in the public domain by SpiritAndTruth.org
Report corrections to contact@SpiritAndTruth.org
(Produced: Thu Nov 30 09:16:15 2000)

Help PreviousNext