16Just as you drank on my holy hill,
so all the nations will drink continually;
they will drink and drink
and be as if they had never been.
17But on Mount Zion will be deliverance;
it will be holy,
and the house of Jacob
will possess its inheritance.
18The house of Jacob will be a fire
and the house of Joseph a flame;
the house of Esau will be stubble,
and they will set it on fire and consume it.
There will be no survivors
from the house of Esau.”
The LORD has spoken.
Original Meaning
ATTENTION NOW TURNS from Edom, the oppressor of God’s people, to the people of Judah themselves. Here we see another surprising twist (cf. comments on vv. 11, 15). Judah desires to hear words of comfort that her time of suffering is over (Isa. 40:1–2) and that she will be restored to her former position. Restoration is indeed promised (vv. 17, 19–21), but there is a subtle reminder that Judah’s suffering has also been her due. Her oppressors are indeed wrong and bear the consequences, but Israel herself is not without sin.
Verse 16 continues to address an unidentified “you,” still using second-person forms. This provides a tie with the previous context and explains why numerous interpreters see Edom still as the addressee.1 But a problem with this interpretation is that this verse contains only one of two plural forms out of forty second-person forms in the book.2 The other plural has as its subject the nations (v. 1), but since they are part of the other half of the comparison in verse 16, they cannot be the subject here. Since Edom is in every other instance addressed by a singular, the grammatical subject here must be someone else. Judah best serves as that subject.3
The rhetorical function of a marked shift of grammatical number would have attracted the attention of the original hearers, since such a shift indicates that a change is on its way. The surprise comes when they realize that they, the people of God, are the ones now addressed. Instead of Mount Esau as the subject (vv. 8, 9, 21), attention is now brought to “my holy hill,” specifically named “Mount Zion” in the next verse. It is holy since it holds the temple, the residence of God himself (cf. Isa. 56:7; Ezek. 20:40; cf. Ps. 15:1; 43:3). Association with this site is much stronger for Judah, since Zion is its capital, than it is for Edom, whose only explicit foray within its gates is in this prophecy (Obad. 13). To find oneself the topic of conversation in the middle of a condemnation of the enemy must have brought Judah up with a start. A similar rhetorical function occurs in Amos 5:1–2, where the rhythmic cadences of the funerary chant attract the attention of passers-by. When stopping to see who has died, they are informed that the funeral is for them.
Obadiah makes a comparison between Judah, who had already drunk, and all of the nations, who will drink. “Drinking” can be used literally for the consumption of liquid, especially wine and strong drink (e.g., Gen. 9:21; 1 Sam. 1:15; Jer. 35:5, 6, 8, 14), so it can easily accompany revelry and carousing (cf. Ex. 32:6; 1 Sam. 30:16). This is how those who see Edom as the subject take the verb here: a drunken celebration of the fall of Jerusalem (cf. v. 13). But this literal use does not fit the rest of the verse, where all nations drink continually and to oblivion, since they are not directly involved in Jerusalem’s downfall. These last two occurrences show the metaphorical aspect of the verb, where the (cup of the) wrath of God, his judgment, is drunk (e.g., Job 21:20; Isa. 51:17; Jer. 25:16, 28; Hab. 2:16).4
If the first of these verbs of drinking in this verse is literal and the following two are metaphorical, there would then be a contrast between Edom and the nations. This goes against the use of the comparative adverb “just as.” If the first verb is also metaphorical, however, it refers to Judah having already suffered God’s wrath for disobedience. As they suffer, in like manner the nations, of which Edom is a part, also suffer. The adverb then serves its regular comparative function.
From the context, the fourth verb in the sentence also deals with drinking, but an exact rendition is problematic.5 The final result for Edom is oblivion. Just as some alcoholics drink nonstop until they are psychologically gone, so the nations will experience the wrath of God until they are physically gone. Judah survives her ordeal. She is exiled, but she will return from her exile (cf. Ezra, Nehemiah). The nations, in contrast, will not survive.
This contrast, shown by “but,” is spelled out in verse 17. Where “their fugitives” (pelîṭāyw; v. 14) had fled, there will now be deliverance and escape (pelêṭâ; Gen. 32:8; 45:7; Joel 2:32) from that wrath. Judah has already been there and does not need to return.
The next clause, “and it will be holy,” is problematic since its referent is unclear. It is difficult for “Mount Zion” to be the subject since it is in a prepositional phrase. Also Hebrew has a noun “a holy place/thing” (qōdeš) rather than a predicate adjective (so NIV; qādôš). As deliverance is on Zion, so a holy place, a sanctuary, a rebuilt temple will also be on it in due course.6
God’s holy city will be restored, and so will be his people, “the house of Jacob.” “House,” in addition to its literal, physical usage, also refers to those who live in a house, a family (e.g., Gen. 7:1; 17:27), or descendants of a family group, a dynasty (e.g., Isa. 7:2). The name “Jacob” is a reminder of Obadiah 10, where Jacob suffers under Edom. In contrast, now it will be restored to its original patrimony. While verse 10 refers to the southern kingdom of Judah, here the entire nation of Israel, both the north and the south, is meant, as shown by the use of the phrase in other passages (e.g., Gen. 46:27; Ex. 19:3), and also its parallel with the “house of Joseph” in Obadiah 18, a designation of the northern tribes (e.g., Gen. 46:27, where this is part of the “house of Jacob”). What each Israelite originally possessed returns to his control, not this time through inheritance from a father (cf. Gen. 15:4), nor through dispossessing others, as is often done through military action (e.g., Deut. 2:12; Isa. 54:3; Amos 9:12, of Edom).7
In verse 18, the sweeping changes that affect Edom are pictured in a metaphor of fire and flame flashing through a dry stubble field. The nation, called alternatively “Jacob” and “Joseph” (see comment on previous verse), acts as a single unit, as indicated by the singular verbal form here in contrast to the plural of the last verse. Tinder dry conditions of a harvested field are familiar to the audience, and the effect of a fire on it is undoubtedly well known, so the image is immediately appreciated (see also Ex. 15:7; Isa. 5:24; Nah. 1:11). The reunited twelve tribes will at a future date be a fire that consumes the “house of Esau.”
While the name “Esau” is familiar in this book (vv. 6, 8, 19, 21), the combination “house of Esau” occurs nowhere else in the Bible. It was minted by Obadiah to provide a formal counterpart to the other two houses in the verse and as a play on the fraternal relationship between Esau and Jacob. Here is another example of talion, where what goes around comes around (see comments on v. 15): Edom will suffer what Judah has suffered at her hand.8 The next sentence expounds the metaphor using plural forms (“they will set them on fire and burn them”) rather than the singulars of the NIV. Each individual Edomite, any potential survivor, is annihilated. Unlike Judah, which has survivors, even if Edom betrays them (Obad. 14), Edom herself has none.
The readers/hearers are again reminded in a prose statement why they can depend on the sayings here recorded—“because” (not in the NIV) they are from Yahweh himself. This fourth mention of the divine speaker marks the boundary of the third message as the previous mentions also did (vv. 1, 8, beginning points; vv. 4, 18, ending points).
Bridging Contexts
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES. As parents, we want to protect our children. When danger looms, we jump in to save them from harm. As they mature, however, there needs to be a point where parents step back and let the chips fall where they may, especially if the impending harm is due to their own bad choices. The maturing process does not mean just getting older, but also getting wiser, and this involves not only the ability to make one’s own decisions, but also the ability to live with the consequences. When parents step in too quickly with car repair payments, erasing all debts, or providing bail, children do not learn the logical consequences of reckless driving, profligate spending, or illegal behavior. The result of this parental intervention is partially shown by high teenage driving accident death rates,9 record high consumer debt among all age groups, and a sixfold increase in violent crime arrests among teenagers over the three decades up to 1994.10
Nations need accountability as well, and Edom receives that because of her bad choices. She was using her relative power to show active hostility against neighbor Israel when that nation was being beaten down by Mesopotamian forces. While Edom might not have been able to disturb Israel significantly in one-on-one interactions, she acts much like the cowardly bully who is antagonistic only when there is overwhelming power displayed against the weaker victim.
What logical consequences face the church and the nation today? Does a lack of moral integrity among church leaders not have the consequent result of showing that morality is irrelevant? Does a high jail term of forty years for Jim Bakker’s financial fraud but governmental support for abortion not have the consequence that we treat money as more important than people? Does governmental financial support of unwed mothers and a tax penalty against married couples, as compared to domestic partners, not logically support parenting without marriage? Does even the use of euphemistic words such as “ethnic cleansing” and “racial profiling” instead of “genocide” and “racism” not logically lead to downplaying the severity of these, and other, issues that are of extreme importance for human life and dignity?
While this list cannot be exhaustive or even adequately representative, it illustrates that the church, like all individuals, needs to examine its words and actions as carefully as possible for potential results before they are spoken or done (cf. Prov. 6:1–5; 17:27, 28; 29:20).
Some today in the climate of ethical relativism question the morality of saying that God will punish in wrath.11 This is not a scriptural perspective, however. All peoples are expected to have a moral code by which they live and by which they are judged (cf. Amos 1:3–2:3 and other prophetic oracles against foreign nations). As they seek to annihilate Israel and Judah, so they are themselves eradicated (e.g., Isa. 17:14; Jer. 46:28; Zeph. 1:18).
Contemporary Significance
ACCOUNTABILITY. The old adage that “might makes right” is blatantly and biblically false, as evident from bullies, whether in school playgrounds or in international affairs. While the stronger might be able to get away with things for a while, all recognize that there is wrong that is intrinsically wrong, even if someone in power is able to get away with it. This is evidenced as I write by the extradition of the former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to stand trial before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, in a similar way to the trials of Nazi war leaders in Nuremberg half a century ago. It is not true that “what is right is what I can get away with.”
The church needs to be constantly aware of this problem as it takes its stand as the prophetic conscience of the state. While Israel is a theocracy, with the idea of the prophets holding kings responsible to the national constitutional foundation of the covenant, so today’s state needs a prophetic voice. While the U.S. constitution calls for a system of checks and balances between the branches of government, the church needs to be ready and willing to bring a theological perspective to bear on what is constitutionally a secular enterprise. Both foreign and domestic policy need to be scrutinized biblically, and decision-makers need to be held accountable to standards derived from concepts of equity and justice rather than just national economic well-being.