19People from the Negev will occupy
the mountains of Esau,
and people from the foothills will possess
the land of the Philistines.
They will occupy the fields of Ephraim and Samaria,
and Benjamin will possess Gilead.
20This company of Israelite exiles who are in Canaan
will possess the land as far as Zarephath;
the exiles from Jerusalem who are in Sepharad
will possess the towns of the Negev.
21Deliverers will go up on Mount Zion
to govern the mountains of Esau.
And the kingdom will be the LORD’s.
Original Meaning
THE BOOK CLOSES with a different style, in contrast to the preceding sections. It is completely in the third person and has long sentences with little verbal variation. It mainly consists of a list, with little expansion. Some also detect numerous secondary expansions or glosses. Because of the stylistic differences, some suggest that this derives from a different hand.1 While this may be so, there has not been sufficient study of ancient writing techniques from Israel or its surroundings to be able to categorically say what is appropriate for the period and what is not. Most claims are based on contemporary Western practices rather than being grounded in this period. More than one hand is possible, but a better established, objective methodology for determining such things needs to be developed.
Whatever the prehistory of the text, this last section had numerous ties with the preceding context. The opening Hebrew grammatical form (waw-consecutive) regularly indicates continuation from the previous passage.2 The specific verbal form (waw-consecutive + perfect), which occurs twice in verse 19, while odd in this location, parallels the same form of the same verb in verse 17a, and “Mount Esau” occurs twice here (vv. 19, 21), echoing verse 8. Mount Zion (v. 21) picks up from verse 17. Finally, Yahweh ends the book, just as he began it.
Conceptually, these concluding verses relate to the preceding section, expanding and explaining what is meant by it (esp. v. 17). While this does not prove that the work comes from one hand, it is hard to imagine the two parts existing as autonomous entities completely separate from each other. At the very least, one of the sections is written with full knowledge of, and dependence on, the other, and this is how it is presented to its hearers/ readers.3
A glance at the textual apparatus of the standard Hebrew text and a study of the commentaries indicate that interpretations of these verses are divergent and many.4 Taking the text at face value, paying attention to the various syntactic features, moves toward providing an understandable text, and William of Occam’s principle that the simplest of several principles is the best will be followed here.
Verse 19 lists various people who possess, or dispossess (see v. 17 for a discussion of the verb), peoples or places. The first verb has two subjects, (lit.) “the Negev” and “the foothills,” each acquiring a direct object, “Mount Esau” and “the Philistines” respectively, both marked by the regular Hebrew accusative indicator. The verb is implied rather than duplicated for the second pair (though the NIV makes it explicit).
The form of the first clause exactly parallels that of the second half of verse 17. The “Negev” is a synecdoche representing its inhabitants (cf. NIV “the people of”), as did all of the geographical names functioning as verbal subjects, since people rather than locations possess land. The Negev is a dry region geographically adjacent to Edom to its west (cf. Num. 21:1; Judg. 1:9), in the vicinity of Arad and Beersheba. It is the part of Judah most easily able to convey inhabitants to its neighboring territory. Mount Esau/Edom is the only territory among those listed that is not included within Israel’s traditional territorial boundaries (Deut. 2:4–5). Rather than retaking what was originally hers, Judah is applying talion, repaying Edom for her inappropriate actions (vv. 10–14; cf. the tie with Amos 9:12, see comments on Obad. 17).
The “foothills” (“Shephelah”) lay to the east of the Mediterranean coastal plain and are the western approach to the central highlands of Judah. At times they are designated as having two parts, that of Israel in the north (Josh. 11:1–3, 16) and that of Judah in the south, occupying a strip of about ten by fifty miles running southwest from Gezer (Deut. 1:7–8; Josh. 10:40; 11:16; 12:8; Judg. 1:9). It was the natural location to move against the Philistine pentapolis, which lay on the coastal plain immediately to its west, dispossessing its people and retaking land that was part of Judah’s traditional territory (e.g., Ex. 23:31; Num. 34:6; Josh. 15:45–47, where they were listed as belonging to the foothills; implied in Gen. 15:18–21). This same promise is made in Zephaniah 2:4–7. While some of its cities were previously conquered by the Babylonians, they are still inhabitable and inhabited during Obadiah’s period. The Philistines, while facing frequent wars with Israel (e.g., 2 Kings 18:8), Assyria, Egypt (Jer. 47:1), and Babylon, did not disappear as a result of any of these conflicts. By the time of the Persian acquisition of the territory in 539 B.C., the Philistine population was assimilated with its occupiers and neighbors, and by the conquest by Alexander the Great in 333 B.C., all that remained was the name “Palestine.”5
The second Hebrew verb in verse 19 does not supply an expressed subject in relation to the first two direct objects, “the fields of Ephraim and Samaria.”6 These territories are farther north, in what was previously Israelite territory. Ephraim’s tribal territory stretched from the Mediterranean just north of the Philistine territory into the central highlands. As the major tribe in the north, its name is synonymous at times with the entire northern kingdom (e.g., Isa. 7; Jer. 31:9, 18, 20).7 Though the text does not indicate those who take this territory, the logical repossessor of this territory is the “house of Joseph” or the broader “house of Jacob” (Obad. 18). The former is appropriate since Ephraim is one of Joseph’s two sons (Gen. 41:52; 46:20).
“Samaria” was the former capital of Israel and was conquered, along with the whole northern kingdom, by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., showing that Obadiah was written after that date (see introduction). This northern territory did regain some measure of autonomy under the Persians after 539 B.C., but it maintained a distinction from Judah in the south (cf. 2 Kings 17:29, where the Samaritans were condemned for syncretistic worship practices; see numerous New Testament passages, including Matt. 10:5).
The third direct object (“Gilead”) will be dispossessed by Benjamin. Gilead lies northeast of the Dead Sea and of the territory inhabited by Benjamin, whose tribal territory lies just north of Jerusalem and south of that of Ephraim (Josh. 18:11–28).8 Benjamin has several historical ties with the area (e.g., Judg. 21:8–14, where Israel battles Jabesh Gilead and Benjamin stole their women for wives; 1 Sam 11:1–11, where Saul, a Benjamite, defeats the Ammonites on behalf of Jabesh Gilead; 2 Sam. 2:8–11, where one of Saul’s sons becomes king over the area) and is the closest to reclaim this area that was originally part of the territory of Reuben, Gad, and half-Manasseh (Josh. 13:8–13). Other prophets also mention its restoration to Israel (Jer. 50:19; Mic. 7:14; Zech. 10:10).
Verse 20 is the most difficult in the book to interpret. The number of geographical and ethnic terms indicates that it is a continuation of the register of reoccupation from the last verse, but the form is distinct from what precedes, and much of the interpretation is tentative at best. A literal translation of the Masoretic Text is: “Now the exile(s) of this army/fortress are for the Israelites who are Canaanites as far as Zarephath, and the exile(s) of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad, they would possess the cities of the Negev”; this appears to have several textual difficulties.
The opening Hebrew letter of the verse (we) is a conjunction that can join sentences when attached to an initial verb, but tends to separate them while attached to a noun starting the sentence (as here). These “circumstantial” forms indicate a period contemporaneous with the preceding period.9 At the same time that the (re)possessions of verse 19 are taking place, the activities of verse 20 are going on. The two halves of the verse each begin with the same term, gālut (NIV “exiles”). It can mean either the people involved (as per the NIV; Isa. 20:4; 45:13; Jer. 24:5; 28:4; 29:22; 40:1; Amos 1:6, 9) or the state of exile (2 Kings 25:27; Jer. 52:31; Ezek. 1:2; 33:21; 40:1). The former understanding is preferable here since the term is the subject of the only verb in the sentence, which is plural. Exile to Babylon either in 597 B.C. (2 Kings 25:27//Jer. 52:31; Jer. 24:5; 28:4; 29:22; Ezek. 1:2; 33:21; 40:1) or 586 B.C. (Jer. 40:1) is the most common referent of the noun, though two other earlier groups are also referred to by the term—an unidentified group who is taken by the Philistines and by Tyre and is handed over, probably as slaves, to Edom (Amos 1:6, 9), and a group from Cush/Ethiopia exiled by the Assyrians (Isa. 20:4). The Babylonian exiles seem the best subjects for this verse.
The meaning of the remaining geographic/ethnic terms in the verse is fairly clear, even though their function might not be. “Canaanites” (without a definite article, similar to “Philistines” in v. 19) reside along the eastern Mediterranean from what is now south Syria and Lebanon (including Byblos), Sidon (cf. Gen. 10:15; 1 Chron. 1:13), and Tyre in the north, down into Israel including the Galilee, comprising most of the territory settled by Israel during the Conquest. Egyptian texts extend Canaan as far south as Gaza, and numerous biblical and extrabiblical texts refer to its northern extensions (e.g., Josh. 13:4; Judg. 1:31–32; cf. Matt. 15:22 where “Canaan” parallels “Syrophoenician” in Mark 7:26).10 Composed of a mixture of ethnic groups, it is in constant tension with Israel since both occupy the same land.
“Zarephath” is a coastal town between Tyre and Sidon, so it is part of Canaan. It served as a refuge for Elijah when the famine he announced showed the superiority of Yahweh over Baal, Canaan’s storm god (1 Kings 17:8–24; Luke 4:26). Hearers/readers would call this episode of God’s deliverance to mind when they encounter the location in this prophecy. The town appears to have marked the northernmost boundary of the Canaanites in this listing.
“Jerusalem” is the capital of Judah. Its name first appears in Egyptian execration texts from the early second millennium B.C., as well as in the Amarna letters from some four hundred years later as one of the Canaanite city states.11 First encountered in the Bible as a Canaanite site (Josh. 10:1–4), it was captured by Judah in the period of the Conquest (Judg. 1:8), but must have been resettled, since David retook it (2 Sam. 5:6–7). It was David’s capital, identified as “the city of David” (2 Sam. 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:7). It continued as the capital of Judah throughout the divided monarchy, being captured and looted by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
“Sepharad” is an enigma, with numerous suggestions as to its location. Early versions identify it with Spain; a few more recent commentators suggest Hesperides, a site in North Africa; a city located in western Media (what is today Iran; cf. Neo-Assyrian texts); or Sardis in western Turkey. Since Assyrian and Babylonian exiles from all their captured territories, including Jerusalem, were widely scattered (see 2 Kings 16:9; 17:6; 25:5–21; 1 Chron. 5:26; Isa. 20:4; Amos 5:27), any of these sites is a possibility, though the latter two suggestions appear to have more merit. Since many of the exiles are said to be taken to the east, option 3 is attractive, though many recent scholars prefer Sardis because of strong ties between Persia and the Lydians, whose city Sardis is.12
What is of primary importance for the passage, however, is not the starting point but the destination of the returnees. They come back to the ancestral holdings of Israel, including the southern cities of the Negev, just as others of their brothers settle to the far north, in Zarephath. This anticipates the return under Zerubbabel and Ezra (Ezra 2; 8). Though the Negev is not mentioned in connection with this return, both Jerusalem and the towns of Judah are (2:1). This implies the inclusion of the Negev towns as well.
While the identifications are relatively straightforward, the grammatical structure into which they are placed is not. The second word of the sentence (“company” in NIV) is textually defective if not corrupt. “Company of” (haḥêl) reflects a form of a word that has already been encountered twice as “wealth” (vv. 11, 13, ḥêlô, “his wealth,” derives from ḥayil, “wealth; troop, company”). Haḥêl, is interpreted as a definite article (“the”) plus a masculine singular construct form of the noun. If so, the form is written defectively, meaning lacking a vowel letter (as the first word in the verse is missing one) since the construct form of the suggested noun always has a middle “y,” which is not found here.13 This suggestion is a possibility, but a difficulty is that a construct form does not generally occur with a definite article as this word appears to do.14 The article is fairly certain, since the Hebrew practice of also attaching one to a following demonstrative pronoun is followed (hazzeh; i.e., “the this”). If this is the correct interpretation, in spite of the errant definite article, the demonstrative pronoun points back to those mentioned in verse 19, giving those identified there as the Benjamites, those of the foothills and of the Negev the more general title “Israelites.” Raabe suggests that “Israelites” is added to make sure that the careless reader does not think that the Philistines, who also suffered exile (Amos 9:7), are included in those returning in Obadiah 20.15
The Hebrew describes the Israelites as “who are Canaanites.” This is a puzzling, and unique, identification, which is most usefully reread as “who dispossess the Canaanites,” the exact form of the only existing verb in this verse.16 This interpretation is consistent with the activities of these two verses. It also provides a semantic, as well as structural, parallel to the second half of the verse. Another possibility, adopted by the NASB, adds a single prefixed preposition of one letter, resulting in “who are among the Canaanites as far as Zarephath.” The exiles thus intermix with, but are not identical to, the Canaanites. This indicates that the returning exiles do not in fact have very far to return; their exile is relatively local. This reading makes the entire first part of the verse the subject of the verb, which occurs toward the end.
Attention in verse 21 finally is directed back to the center of Judah. Jerusalem (here “Mount Zion”) is its capital and, as such, is the former site of the thrones of its kings and also of its God. “Deliverers” or saviors (cf. Deut. 22:27; Judg. 3:9, 15; Isa. 19:20) first ascend on the mountain to liberate it, and from there they serve as governors or rulers (cf. “judges,” Judg. 2:16–18 and passim) over Mount Esau, Obadiah’s unique term for Edom (Obad. 8–9, 19). Freedom from oppression is won for beleaguered Israel, and one of the oppressors, Edom, is herself subjugated.
The new rule surpasses the former one for justice and equity, as well as a sure control over the territory, since this time Yahweh himself exercises kingship. The NIV’s “kingdom” is ambiguous, more readily indicating the territory over which the king exercises sovereignty (“realm”). This term, however, refers to the act of ruling and the status of one as king.17 While all of the earth is Yahweh’s territory (Ex. 19:5), he now retakes his position as sovereign (cf. Ps. 22:27–28), not only over Judah and Israel but also over Mount Esau, and indeed over all of the nations. While Israel is yet in exile, her King promises that he is on his way back to his throne.
Bridging Contexts
EXILE AS FOREIGN POLICY. The Assyrians and Babylonians pursued a foreign policy of deportation in order to control their subjects. When they defeated a people and placed them into a vassal relationship with their conquering overlords, parts of the population, especially the nobility and the skilled artisans, were uprooted from their native land and resettled elsewhere.
While this policy may have some punitive effect for opposing their power, these enemy nations had other means for punishing the ringleaders. This is visible on the famous limestone wall reliefs of the capture of Lachish from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh. There the common folk are being led away from the city into exile, while the leaders are impaled on stakes outside the city walls, and others are flayed.18 One of the main reasons for this policy is to stem any underground insurgency against their overlordship. If those with leadership abilities are resettled among strangers far away from their homeland, it is difficult to conspire with those of like mind to restore the homeland. Also, any conspiracy is difficult to bring to fruition if the conspirators are so far removed from their homeland that it is doubtful that they ever see it again.
The plan of Yahweh is to stem and reverse this harsh practice. When the Babylonians fell to the Persians in 539 B.C., their vassals reverted to new masters. The Persians, however, had a different foreign policy as regards their subjects. They allowed them to return home, rebuild their religious and economic infrastructure, and thus not only be psychologically better off but also financially so. This made it easier for them to supply the tribute on which any empire depends.
This new policy is reflected in 2 Chronicles 36:23 and Ezra 1:2–4, which records Cyrus’s release of the people to return to Jerusalem. An actual inscription from Cyrus has been found and published. Although a self-vaunting propaganda piece, it does confirm the biblical account, not by mentioning the name of “the LORD, the God of heaven” as the one giving him rule (2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:2), but he does claim leave from Marduk, the chief Babylonian deity: “I returned the gods to the sacred centers … whose sanctuaries had been abandoned for a long time.… I gathered all the inhabitants and returned (to them) their dwellings.”19 It is this practice of returning exiles to their homelands, which is reflected in Obadiah (see also Amos 9:12). There it is promised, but in Ezra and Nehemiah, and in Haggai and Zechariah, it is coming to pass.
Contemporary Significance
REFUGEES, EXILES, AND the homeless. The exile of Israel from her homeland looms large in the theology of the Old Testament. It is distressing to realize that exile was a deliberate domestic policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian leadership. “How could someone be so cruel?” As a practical construct, however, it has little impact on us. What is closer to home, since it is so frequently in our news magazines and papers and on our television, is the problem of refugees. While often couched in neutral sounding euphemisms such as “ethnic cleansing,” this same practice of uprooting or eradicating those who are religiously, ethnically, or in some other way different is used as a deliberate policy by nations or groups such as Serbia, Somalia, and Sudan.
By definition of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” The numbers are staggering, even though they are not in the forefront of the minds of most of us, since they are the results of conflicts about which we know little since they do not impinge on our “national interest.” As of January 2000, the total number of refugees exceeded twenty-two million, which is the equivalent of one in every twelve people in the United States, one in every 2.7 people in Britain, and one in every 1.3 people in Canada.20
Even this geographic dispossession may not seem like a big deal to many of us, because Western culture is becoming increasingly mobile. Our ties are formed around our place of work or the immediate family, and any sense of connection to extended family or a specific location has been eroded. Through much of history and in much of the rest of world, however, this has not been the case. Connections and roots in a community are what provide meaning and support, and a severing of these roots deprives people of what gives them identity. In many cultures one is not complete when alone; selfhood ties to community. Deprivation of the latter has profound effects on the former.
Another kind of dispossession that is more prevalent in the English-speaking world is homelessness. Those in the United States who must, at least temporarily, sleep on the streets or in shelters at some time during their lives are estimated to be as high as twelve million.21 While common causes of homelessness include poverty and mental illness, a decade-old Ford Foundation study indicates that among homeless women and children, 50 percent are in such a state because they are fleeing domestic violence and abuse.22
This is not a phenomenon which is happening “out there”; domestic violence is also prevalent in the church.23 Although there are no demographic studies done of homelessness among Christians, they most likely join this population for the same reasons as do others, and in proportional numbers. The church must take a public stand on behalf of these modern-day exiles and demand the cessation of practices, especially within its own community, that lead to this situation.
A traditional conservative approach to this sort of issue is one of quietism: Our interest is to be directed toward things above, not to things of this earth. Social involvement is seen as part of the liberal agenda, and evangelicals must steer clear of that. But both the Old and New Testaments affirm that “the earth is the LORD’s,” all things and everyone included (Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:26), and humanity has been mandated to look after it (Gen. 1:29; 9:1). The Sinai covenant is a means for society’s supporting the helpless, widow, orphan, and alien. If they do not, Yahweh himself will be their support (Ex. 22:21–24; Deut. 10:18). As Yahweh takes the part of his exiled people in Obadiah, will he not do the same for his dispossessed creatures today?