INTRODUCTION
1. Background
Edom, established in the region around Mount Seir as far back as patriarchal times (cf. Ge 36), was a small kingdom that inhabited the Transjordanian highlands. Edom was well-established in the area south and east of the Dead Sea by the thirteenth century B.C. In the period of the monarchy, David brought Edom under subjection; relations were often hostile from then onward. Of particular interest in the context of Obadiah’s work are two questions relating to Edom: (1) When might the hostility between Edom and Judah have produced the kind of Edomite perfidy expressed in vv.10–14? (2) When in Edom’s history were Obadiah’s words fulfilled? The first question will be dealt with in the commentary at v.14, while the latter question is addressed here.
Despite periods of subjugation to Judah, there is clear evidence that Edom still constituted an independent monarchy about 594–593 B.C. (cf. Jer 27:3), and it provided at least partial refuge to Judah’s fugitives then (cf. Jer 40:11). Although Ammon and Moab, like Judah, were subsequently subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar (c. 582; cf. Eze 21:18–20, 28), no reference is made to Edom, which may therefore have followed Jeremiah’s counsel to submit (Jer 27:6–7). Edom’s continued existence in the sixth century is attested by excavations at Ezion-geber. Edom also figures in OT writings from the Exile, which bear witness to its continued existence (La 4:21–22; Eze 25:12–14; 35; Da 11:41).
By 312 B.C., it is certain that Petra was occupied by the Nabataeans, a nomadic Arabic tribe. There is evidence that this transition to Arabic influence was already established in the fifth century. Ammon and Moab are cited as enemies of Judah’s interests in the time of Nehemiah (c. 444–432; Ne 2:10, 19; 4:3, 7; 6:1–15; 13:1–2, 23). Edom, however, is not named among Judah’s traditional opponents, being replaced by the Arabs who played a dominant role under Geshem (Ne 2:19; 4:7: 6:1–2; cf. 2Ch 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7). A similar transition is evident at Ezion-geber, where Arabic names replace Edomite names on the fifth-century site, which was controlled by the Arabs during the Persian period (late sixth to the fourth centuries).
The destruction of Edom may therefore be located tentatively in the latter half of the sixth century. This is corroborated by Malachi, who described as past history the reduction of Esau’s “mountains into a wasteland” and “his inheritance of the desert jackals” (c. 450, Mal 1:3–4; cf. Eze 32:29), though the prophet envisaged a continuing identity and national striving by Edom, even in exile (Mal 1:4–5).
2. Authorship and Date
Nothing is known of the author of Obadiah. The name, which means “servant of the LORD,” is given to at least twelve other OT characters, none of whom seem obviously to be the author named in the book. Most attempts at correlation founder on the inability of scholars to date the book with certainty.
The date for the book of Obadiah continues to be much debated. The prophecy is clearly a response to a time when Jerusalem was overrun by foreign armies, a sack in which the Edomites were understood to have in some way collaborated (see v.15). If it was the 586 B.C. destruction under Nebuchadnezzar, and if Edom herself came under Nabataean control by the fifth century B.C., the date of the book is best left sometime after the 586 invasion of Zion.
EXPOSITION
I. The Message From the Lord (v.1)
1 Obadiah’s prophecy opens with the formal announcement of a message from the Lord “about” or “against” (cf. Ps 137:7) Edom, a pattern repeated in the following lines. “Edom” represents an alternative name of “Esau,” the brother of Jacob (Ge 36:1, 8, 43; cf. Ob 6, 8–9, 18–19, 21). It also denotes the descendants of Esau (Ge 36:9, 16–17; cf. 36:31, 43), whose blood relationship with Israel is invoked repeatedly in the OT (Nu 20:14; Dt 23:7; Am 1:11; Mal 1:2; cf. Ob 10, 12); and it describes the land inhabited by them (Nu 20:23; 21:4; 34:3; cf. Ob 18–21).
The “message” (GK 9019) is evidently a supernatural revelation, being “from the LORD,” corroborated by the prophecy’s description as a “vision” (GK 2606; cf. Hab 1:1; 2:2–3). Such revelation was mediated primarily through the prophets. The plural “we” might indicate a prophetic group—perhaps including the believing community to which the revelation was to be mediated.
An “envoy” (GK 7495) is normally a human ambassador, sent to represent the authority of those whom he served. Verse 1 points to an envoy who represents one of the combatants (“let us”).
The dual thrust of v.1 indicates two levels at which human history moves. The Lord is the ultimate mover, but there is also an international political alliance, motivated only by callous self-seeking (cf. vv.5–7). Even nations serve the overriding purposes of a God who sovereignly shapes human affairs through countless envoys of his own (cf. Ps 104:4). The “nations” are deaf to this realm, in which they serve unconsciously (cf. Isa 45:4–7).
II. The Abasement of Edom (vv.2–9)
A. Edom’s Character (vv.2–4)
1. Edom’s future smallness (v.2)
2 This verse introduces Edom’s abasement, which is stressed by “small” and “despised.” Edom’s smallness is qualitative, corresponding to its despicable and debased character.
2. Edom’s present pride (vv.3–4)
3–4 “Pride” (GK 2295) is derived from a verb meaning “to boil up, seethe”; the root of this word occurs three times in the account of Esau’s squandered birthright. The essence of this “pride” is insubordination, rooted in an inordinate self-estimation: the proud man rejects authority, whether from God or another human being, and arrogates it to himself.
Edom’s pride is grounded in its geographical location “on the heights,” from which it draws its sense of security and self-sufficiency. Edom’s natural defenses were imposing. Its main centers of civilization were situated in a narrow ridge of mountainous land southeast of the Dead Sea. This ridge exceeded a height of 4,000 feet throughout its northern sector, and it rose in places to 5,700 feet in the south. The frontiers of this lofty plateau were formed on the west by the Arabah, to which the land dropped over 4,000 feet within the space of a few miles. The northern border was similarly defended by the deep canyon of the Wadi Zered, and to the south the precipitous walls of the Wadi Hismeh mark the abrupt descent of the tableland to the desert. In addition to these natural fortifications, Edom was strongly defended by a series of Iron Age fortresses, particularly on the eastern frontier where the land descended more gradually to the desert.
Such was Edom’s refuge “in the clefts of the rocks” (so SS 2:14; Jer 49:16), whose austere environment might well foster thoughts of invulnerability. “Sela” (see NIV note on v.3) is also the name of an Edomite settlement captured by Amaziah (c. 800–783, 2Ki 14:7). It is commonly associated with the subsequent Nabataean capital, Petra, whose name also signifies “rock” (cf. Mt 16:18).
Edom’s sense of security “deceived” it. Although virtually impregnable to human forces, Edom was still utterly vulnerable before the wisdom and power of God. Edom’s deceived pride is expressed in the confident question “Who can bring me down?” It is echoed in the unanticipated answer: “I will bring you down,” a blunt statement that embodies the heart of the prophecy.
B. Edom’s Calamity (vv.5–9)
1. Edom’s ransacking (vv.5–6)
5–6 As “thieves” plunder a household, so “grape pickers” strip a vineyard. Yet in both cases they leave at least a pittance that escapes detection and despoliation. By contrast Esau will be “ransacked” with a terrible thoroughness that leaves nothing (cf. vv.8–9; Jer 49:9–10). This will be the work of the Lord’s own judgment, from which nothing can remain “hidden.” Whereas the Lord consistently promised to “leave” a remnant for Jacob, no such promise is extended to Edom.
2. Edom’s entrapment (v.7)
7 Edom will be deceived by its “friends”; this deception is the expression of calculated hostility as indicated by the verb “overpower” (GK 3523). “Deceived” epitomizes the treachery evoked by its juxtaposition to “friends.” This deception is accompanied by rejection from its “allies,” whose covenant loyalty is presupposed, when the Edomites seek help from or refuge with those allies. It is appropriate that Edom should be denied help and refuge as it had done to its brother Jacob’s “survivors” (vv.10, 12, 14).
The third line is obscure in Hebrew. The meaning “they will make your bread a trap” yields good sense if “your bread” is interpreted as a synecdoche (i.e., a part for the whole): they make the friendship expressed and ratified when they ate your bread a trap.
3. God’s initiative (vv.8–9)
8–9 “Declares the LORD” marks the opening of a new section, reverting to the perspective of God’s initiative in the impending destruction of Edom. “In that day” frequently looks forward to a specific time appointed by God in his sovereignty, when he will intervene in human history in judgment and salvation. Both Edom’s “wise men” and their “men of understanding” the Lord would destroy. The failure of Edom’s traditional wisdom (cf. 1Ki 4:30; Job 1:1; 2:11; 4:1; Jer 49:7; La 4:21) amplifies further the theme of deception. Ultimately, Edom was deceived because the Lord gave her up to deception.
The term “Teman,” generally taken to describe a region in the northern sector of Edom, clearly speaks of the population of “Edom” as a whole. No certainty exists regarding the historical outcome of this prophecy concerning Edom’s demise at the hands of the “nations,” but a great “slaughter” is in view.
III. The Charge Against Edom (vv.10–14)
A. The Reason for the Charge (v.10)
10 The noun “violence” (GK 2805) denotes both moral wrong and overt physical brutality (cf. Hab 1:2), both of which had characterized Edom’s relations with Israel. This goes back to the very origins of the two nations, in the hatred of Esau for his brother Jacob (Ge 27:40–41). This hatred emerged again in Edom’s hostility to Israel after the Exodus (Ex 15:15; Nu 20:14–21; Dt 2:4; Jdg 11:17–18); and Edom is numbered among Israel’s “enemies . . . who had plundered them” before they were defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:47–48). It is against this background of aggression that David’s later campaigns are also to be understood (2Sa 8:13–14; 1Ki 11:15–16; 1Ch 18:11–13; Ps 60). All this culminated in Edom’s exultation over the destruction of Jerusalem (Ps 137:7; La 4:21–22; Eze 25:12; 35:5, 15; 36:5; Joel 3:19).
B. The Explanation of the Charge (vv.11–14)
1. The charge defined (v.11)
11 The equating of Edom with the “foreigners” is intimated in the first two lines; the equality is stated in the last line. The correlation of these subjects, however, involves a definite contrast, based on the word “aloof,” which differentiates sharply between the conduct of Edom and that of the rapacious “strangers.” The latter actually “entered” Jerusalem and cast “lots” for its conquered property and probably for its citizens (cf. Joel 3:3; Na 3:10), while Edom did not participate in this looting (see also v.13). However, in the sight of God, there is little distinction in moral accountability between overt sin and an inner bias toward that sin that permits it to go unchecked (cf. Mt 5:21–32).
2. The charge repeated and amplified (vv.12–14)
The main emphasis of these verses is on Edom’s hostile attitudes rather than on its physical violence at Jerusalem.
12 The initial Hebrew verb means to “look on” (GK 8011). Its connotations are varied, and either the sense of contempt (“look down on”) or exultation (“gloat”) is drawn from the context and parallel verbs. The verbs “rejoice” (GK 8523) and “boast” (GK 1540 & 7023) betray the perverted and reprehensible values of this typical enemy of Israel, for whom covenant loyalty to a brother meant nothing.
13 This verse echoes the description of the “foreigners” (v.11), attributing their conduct directly to Edom. However, v.11 has identified Edom with the foreigners only in intent, not explicitly in action; and it is at this level that Edom is accused of active participation in the sack of Jerusalem. While moving closer to participant status, Edom’s historical role was still primarily an attitudinal one (“look down”).
14 The distinction between action and intent is virtually obliterated here since the verb “wait” (GK 6641) echoes the one action predicated clearly of Edom in v.11—“stood aloof.” The verse describes Edom’s treatment of Judah’s “survivors,” thereby corroborating the impression of detachment from the main scene of action in the city, since the “fugitives” would be fleeing away from the city. However, it also qualifies this detachment sharply, for it is accompanied by outright aggression against those fugitives.
The central concern of these verses is with the “day” that befell the people of Judah. This is portrayed as a major tragedy by the foreboding epithets that are applied to it and repeated with the crushing weight of a death knell (cf. Zep 1:14–16). “Trouble” (GK 7650; also v.12) and “destruction” (v.12; GK 6) both point to a national catastrophe of major proportion. Can we identify a specific catastrophe when Jerusalem was invaded, its property plundered, its people enslaved or slaughtered on a wide scale, and at the same time Edom participated as a mocking bystander and as a collaborator with the foreign invaders? Six periods in the history of Jerusalem and Judah present themselves for consideration, of which the last one (586 B.C.) corresponds to these criteria most closely (for a survey of the other five, see EBC, 7:350–51).
When this final invasion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians occurred, following Jehoiachin’s previous capitulation to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C., Edom still existed as an independent nation. On both occasions the city suffered seizure of its “wealth” and wholesale deportation of its population (2Ki 24:13–16; 25:4–17; 2Ch 36:18, 20). In 586 the city was virtually burned to the ground, including the temple (2Ki 25:9–10; 2Ch 36:19), and many of its inhabitants were massacred (2Ki 25:8–21; 2Ch 36:17; cf. Jer 6:1–9:22; Eze 4:1–7:27). There is specific reference to unsuccessful “fugitives” in the account of the king’s escape with his retinue (2Ki 25:4–5). Of particular significance are the accounts of Edom’s conduct at this time. It seems to have participated as an ally in a coalition of Palestinian states against Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:3; 40:11); yet it was later accused of taking vengeance on Judah (Eze 25:12) and of delivering the Israelites “over to the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time their punishment reached its climax” (Eze 35:5; cf. La 1:17). Edom was equally guilty at this time of rejoicing in Jerusalem’s destruction (Ps 137:7; La 2:15–17; 4:21; Eze 35:11–15; 36:2–6); and it is therefore at this time that the prophetic announcements of Edom’s annihilation reached a climax (Jer 9:26; 25:21; La 4:21–22; Eze 25:13; 32:29; 35:3–4; 7–9, 11, 14–15; 36:7).
IV. The Day of the Lord (vv.15–21)
A. The Judgment of Esau (vv.15–18)
15–16 The “day of the LORD,” a theme of great significance in Israel’s eschatology (cf. ZPEB, 2:46–47), gives final definition to the preceding references to a “day” in Obadiah. Edom’s and Judah’s downfall both constitute elements in the pattern of this “great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Joel 2:31). It signals the climactic establishment of God’s rule in human history and, as such, brings judgment on all those enemies who oppose his dominion. Such a judgment engulfed apostate and rebellious Israel, most notably in the falls of Samaria and Jerusalem; it descended subsequently on “the nations” (those not bowing to God’s sovereignty). This “day,” then, defines the destiny of Edom and the nations in both vv.1–9 and vv.15–21. After the nations have had their “day” on the Lord’s holy mountain, his “day” will come, with none to oppose its thrust. This “day” is, in the first instance, promised in terms that admit a preliminary fulfillment within history for the faithful remnant of Israel; and it is from this hope of restoration and blessing for a “holy” people that Obadiah derives his promise of “deliverance” and conquest for the “house of Jacob” (vv 17–21).
The opening line of v.15 therefore constitutes the core of Obadiah’s prophecy, providing a theological framework for the preceding verses: the localized disasters befalling Edom and Jerusalem are not merely isolated incidents in a remote and insignificant war, for they mark the footsteps of the Lord himself as he approaches to set up a “kingdom that will never be destroyed” (Da 2:44). And the following verses are essentially a commentary on the implications of that impending “day.” Verse 15 accordingly sets forth its guiding principle of retaliation: “As you have done, it will be done to you.” The actions perpetrated by the nation addressed will correspond precisely to those perpetrated on her.
Verse 16 demonstrates the same equivalence as v.15 of past and future action (“drank,” “will drink”; GK 9272). The metaphor of drinking is commonly used of the experience of judgment and humiliation (cf. Hab 2:15–16). Judah’s suffering on God’s “holy hill” in Jerusalem has been described as past in vv.10–14; for Edom and the nations, their suffering is still future at the time of Obadiah’s prophecy.
17–18 “Mount Zion” denotes the place of God’s rule in Jerusalem. It is therefore rendered “holy” (GK 7731) by his presence, and it demands a corresponding holiness of its inhabitants. As the visible expression of God’s sovereign holiness, Mount Zion becomes the source of judgment on human sin (e.g., Isa 31:9; Joel 3:16; Am 1:2–2:16); and it is the final locus of God’s judgment on the citizens of Judah (e.g., Isa 10:12; La 2:1–8; 4:2–16; Mic 3:12; cf. Ob 11–14, 16). However, the Lord’s kingly rule is expressed equally by his salvation, which also emanates from Mount Zion (e.g., Pss 20:2; 53:6) and which restores to it the “holy” character consonant with his presence there. Obadiah’s announcement of salvation belongs to this tradition.
“Deliverance” (GK 7129) implies escape from danger and widespread destruction (cf. Ge 14:13; Jdg 12:4–5; Ob 14). It is applied most consistently to God’s gracious preservation and purification of a remnant in Israel particularly after the Fall of Jerusalem (cf. Ezr 9:8–13; Isa 4:2; 10:20; et al.). The final line expresses the outworking of this restoration. “Possess” (GK 3769) is associated preeminently with Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land (e.g., Ex 6:8; Dt 3:8; 4:1, 22; et al.). Israel succeeded in this conquest because she obeyed the Lord, who entered the battle on behalf of his people and dispossessed the enemy before them. Israel therefore forfeited her control of the land through her subsequent disobedience; the prophets, however, held out to the nation the hope of repossessing the land on the same condition of an obedient and militant faith (e.g., Isa 54:3; 57:13; 60:21; 61:7; Eze 36:12; Am 9:12; cf. Gal 3:29; 1Pe 1:4); and it is to this hope that Obadiah appealed in expectation of a “holy” community that would be able to appropriate it (cf. vv.19–21).
In keeping with the military associations of v.17, the “house of Jacob” is to annihilate the “house of Esau.” The destructiveness of fire consuming stubble forms a repeated image of the relentless judgment predicted here (e.g., Ex 15:7; Isa 10:17; Joel 2:5; Mal 4:1). This prophecy will revive an earlier subjugation of Edom under Saul, David, and their successors, a yoke Edom later threw off. Edom’s final submission is therefore still anticipated by the prophets (cf. Nu 24:18; Isa 11:14; Eze 25:13–14; Am 9:12). As in Isa 11:13–14, it will be accomplished by a reunited Israel—intimated by the parallel terms “Jacob” and “Joseph” (cf. Pss 77:15; 80:1; 81:4–5; Jer 3:18). Unlike the house of Jacob, the house of Esau can expect no “deliverance,” no remnant; as the Edomites had thought to plunder and possess the land of Israel, cutting off its “survivors,” so it will happen to them.
Verse 18 marks a progression in the judgment of Edom. The Lord had enlisted the heathen nations to eradicate Edom from its homeland in “the mountains of Esau” (cf. vv.8–9); now, however, his own people of Israel were to cooperate with him in destroying Esau altogether. Historical events support this progression. Edom was displaced from its country east of the Arabah in the sixth and fifth centuries, in a period of Judah’s weakness; this was therefore executed by foreigners, culminating in Nabataean possession of that territory. In the same period the surviving Edomites were settling west of the Arabah, in the Negev (cf. Eze 35:10, 12; 36:2, 5). The postexilic region of Judah extended no farther south than Bethzur, north of Hebron. Hebron itself and the neighboring towns were all occupied by Edomite populations (cf. 1Esd 4:50; 1Mc 4:61; 5:65; Jub 38:8–9); and, by the end of the fourth century, their territory had acquired the Hellenistic name for Edom: Idumaea (i.e., Edom-aea).
However, the fortunes of Judah were revived under the Maccabees (c. 168–63 B.C.), and this era saw a resurgence of Jewish aspirations to possess its former lands. The Idumaeans were defeated in 166 B.C. by Judas Maccabaeus (cf. 1Mc 5:3, 65). Under John Hyrcanus (135–104 B.C.) this conquest of the Idumaeans was completed (c. 125 B.C.), and they were compelled to submit to circumcision and to full observance of the Jewish law. They continued to haunt the Jews, however, for the family of Herod the Great was of Idumaean descent; but, eventually, they were consumed by the house of Jacob and lost their national identity and autonomy.
B. The Occupation of Edom (vv.19–21)
19–20 Not only the term “possess" (see comment on vv.17–18), but also the ethnic and geographical references recall Israel’s conquest of Canaan. The “Negev” was not always to be the home of the Edomites, dispossessed as they were from their own “portion,” the “mountains of Esau” (cf. Dt 2:4–5); rather the reverse would be true. The “foothills,” the low-lying region separating the Judean hills from Philistia, would extend itself westward. Even the northern territories of Ephraim and Samaria, lost to Assyria during the preexilic period, would again be part of Israel. Benjamin, the small tribe virtually absorbed by Judah in historic times, was to move east and north into Transjordan and possess the lush highlands of Gilead, while exiles in Canaan (note the antiquated name with its Exodus and Conquest overtones) and from Jerusalem would expand north to the Lebanese coast at Zarephath and south to the Negev.
“Sepharad” is not definitely identified but may refer to Sardis in distant Lydia; if so, it reflects an early colony of Jewish exiles (ZPEB, 5:342) who, with more local refugees, were expected to inherit portions of the Holy Land. In short, the land seen by Obadiah as promised to a reunited Israel in “the day of the LORD” is the land originally given to the Twelve Tribes. It was the inalienable bequest of the Lord to Abraham and his descendants (Ge 13:14–17; 26:2–5; 28:13–15), and neither Edomite treachery nor Assyrian-Babylonian dispersion could keep God’s promises from their fulfillment.
The term “exiles” (GK 1661) is applied predominantly to the deported population of Judah after 586 B.C. (e.g., 2Ki 25:27; Isa 45:13; et al.). Such an application is clearly appropriate to the qualification “from Jerusalem”: no other major deportation from that city is known, and that background is most suitable to the events described in vv.10–14. The “Israelite exiles” would therefore be the survivors from the northern kingdom of Israel, from which they were deported after the fall of Samaria (cf. 2Ki 17:6, 18, 20, 23; 18:11). On this evidence, not only Israel but also Judah had been destroyed as an independent nation; and Obadiah’s prophecy is proclaimed with heroic faith to “the poorest people of the land” (2Ki 24:14; 25:12, 22–24; Jer 40–44), during an era of destitution and weakness in the exilic or postexilic period.
21 Verse 21 reiterates the theme of conquest, expressed in the verb “govern” (or “judge”; GK 9149). The noun “deliverers” (GK 4635) has similar connotations of military victory (cf. Hab 1:2; 3:13, 18). This conquest finds its source in Judah and specifically in its capital, “Mount Zion.” The ultimate goal of the conquest had been to unite Israel, with centralized worship in the temple (Dt 12:1–28) and with centralized rule in dynastic monarchy (Dt 17:14–20; 2Sa 7). These were not to have autonomous functions, for they were the visible institutions of the theocracy through which the Lord himself was to rule as “king over Jeshurun” (Dt 33:5). Obadiah’s vision of Mount Zion restored to its destined leadership of nations is grounded in these promises. It presupposes the existence of a nation obedient to its theocratic calling, which will “serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him” (Lk 1:74–75; cf. v.17). And it finds its consummation in the true realization of that theocracy.
The “LORD” is indeed Israel’s “king from of old” (Ps 74:12). He is in reality “the living God, the eternal King” (Jer 10:10), “the great King over all the earth” (Ps 47:2, 7). But the day is coming when that kingdom will be acknowledged universally, when every knee shall bow. It will be said to Zion, “The LORD, the King of Israel, is with you” (Zep 3:15); and they will say among the nations, “The Lord reigns” (Ps 96:10). Edom will be set aside, with “every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2Co 10:5); “And the kingdom will be the LORD’s” (cf. 1Co 15:24–28; Rev 11:15; 12:10; 22:1–5).