TEXT [Commentary]
C. The Cause for Edom’s Defeat (1:10-14)
10 “Because of the violence you did
to your close relatives in Israel,[*]
you will be filled with shame
and destroyed forever.
11 When they were invaded,
you stood aloof, refusing to help them.
Foreign invaders carried off their wealth
and cast lots to divide up Jerusalem,
but you acted like one of Israel’s enemies.
12 “You should not have gloated
when they exiled your relatives to distant lands.
You should not have rejoiced
when the people of Judah suffered such misfortune.
You should not have spoken arrogantly
in that terrible time of trouble.
13 You should not have plundered the land of Israel
when they were suffering such calamity.
You should not have gloated over their destruction
when they were suffering such calamity.
You should not have seized their wealth
when they were suffering such calamity.
14 You should not have stood at the crossroads,
killing those who tried to escape.
You should not have captured the survivors
and handed them over in their terrible time of trouble.
NOTES
1:10 close relatives in Israel. Lit., “your brother Jacob.” The charge of violence against kin comes to the fore. The reference to Jacob builds on the story of Jacob and Esau in Gen 25:19-26. As the descendant of Esau, Edom had a long history of enmity against Israel (cf. Joel 3:19).
1:11 When they were invaded. The construction points to a specific occasion (lit., “In the day that . . .”). During the time of greatest need, these near relatives deserted their Israelite kinsmen. The Hebrew noun yom [TH3117, ZH3427] (day) occurs 10 times in vv. 11-14. The repetition hammers home the seriousness of Edom’s crimes against its brother. For Jacob, it was a day when foreign invaders entered Jerusalem, a day of misfortune, destruction, and distress, a day of disaster, and a day of trouble. The concentration on Edom’s crimes in the day of their relative’s need forms a thematic connection with the final verses, which tell of the Day of the Lord (1:15-21).
Foreign invaders. Jerusalem’s attackers are called both zarim [TH2114B, ZH2424] (strangers) and nakerim [TH5237A, ZH5799] (foreigners). The former term lays stress on those who are distant, whereas the latter indicates ethnic differentiation. The NLT simply combines the two ideas into one concrete idea.
wealth. While the Hebrew noun could mean “strength,” “power,” or “army,” contextually the sense of strength must lay in the city’s wealth, since it is that which is carried off as booty (cf. 1:13).
1:12 You should not have. The same Hebrew construction occurs eight times in vv. 12-14. The repetition emphasizes the seriousness of Edom’s unethical behavior. The construction itself may be construed differently depending upon one’s understanding as to whether the occasion with which these verses are concerned has occurred, is taking place, or is yet to happen. If the time is past, this phrase may be understood as “do not,” with the prophet vividly reliving the tragic events he is describing (Allen) or as “you should not have” (KJV, NRSV, NLT). If the time is present and the prophet is an eyewitness of what is taking place, it can be translated “do not,” expressing urgent emotive prohibition (Laetsch). If the time is future, the words could be understood either as “do not” (Fausset, Pusey) or “you should not.” Interestingly, Keil (1954:363) suggests that the time issue may be viewed as all- inclusive: “The warning in 1:12-14 is only intelligible on the supposition, that Obadiah . . . regards this as an event that not only has already taken place, but will take place again.”
The construction ’al [TH408, ZH440] + prefix conjugation normally means “oh please, do not”; hence translations embracing the idea of “you should not” have been often maligned. Yet Finley (1990:366) observes that although this translation has drawn severe criticism, “In the final analysis very little difference may exist between the two interpretations.” The NLT is best understood as indicating that the prophet imagines himself observing the debacle that overtook Judah and Jerusalem in the Babylonian crisis.
gloated. The force of the verb ra’ah [TH7200, ZH8011] (see) varies with the context. The sense here demands either “disdain” (NIV) or a reference to the act of looking with satisfaction at someone’s misfortune, hence “gloat.” The Edomites’ feelings, as their forces joined in on the triumph over the covenant people, are reminiscent of the sentiment in several psalms (e.g., Pss 54:7; 112:8; 118:7; cf. Isa 52:8; Mic 7:10). A similar reaction may be noted in the Moabite Stone (line 4): “(Chemosh) caused me to look in triumph over my enemies.” (For text and translation see H. Donner and W. Röllig 1966:1.33; 2.168.)
when they exiled your relatives to distant lands. Lit., “In the day of your brother, the day of his misfortune.” The force of the continual reiteration of the phrase “the day of” is cumulative. “His misfortune” (nakro [cf. TH5235, ZH5798]) provides a wordplay on “foreigners” (nakerim [TH5237A, ZH5799]) in v. 11. The NLT translates the sense of the passage accurately.
rejoiced. The Hebrew verb carries with it the nuance of gleeful joy or merriment, hence, “to proclaim one’s joy without reserve” (Keil 1954:364). As Waltke observes, “The root samakh [TH8055, ZH8523] denotes being glad or joyful with the whole disposition” (TWOT 2.879). Here it involves a totally malicious glee over Judah’s misfortune (Raabe 1996:179).
should not have spoken arrogantly. Edom’s reprehensible conduct, previously called gloating and rejoicing, is shown to be even more flagrant. The Hebrew phrase says that they enlarged their mouths, hence the translation “jeered at,” or “crowed over.” Such conduct is indeed loathsome but is also in keeping with Edom’s character. Thus, Allen (1976:157) remarks, “The attitude of arrogant superiority revealed in this gloating and taunting sounds like a deliberate reminiscence of the description of Edom’s mentality in 1:3; Edom’s pride was there used as a contrast to emphasize their coming fall.”
1:13 calamity. Three more aspects of the day of Jerusalem’s and Judah’s distress are singled out: Edom entered Jerusalem’s gate and added to the plundering of the city, gloated over the disaster that was overtaking it (cf. 1:12), and carried off its remaining wealth as booty (cf. 1:11). The thrice-repeated term “disaster” (’ed [TH343, ZH369]) lies behind the word translated calamity in NLT.
should not have seized their wealth. The enigmatic Hebrew verbal form here should be read as the energic tishlakhannah (2nd masc. sg.) rather than the MT tishlakhnah [TH7971, ZH8938] (3rd fem. pl.). There is no need to emend the consonantal text as several have suggested (see further Allen 1976:157).
1:14 stood at the crossroads. Lit., “stood at the break”—i.e., the place where the roads divide. Although Rudolph (1971:305) makes a case for this as a reference to the narrow entrances into Edomite territory, given the known fact of Jerusalem’s fleeing refugees (2 Kgs 25:4-5), it seems easier to understand that Edom stationed itself at the major crossroads to cut off fleeing Judeans.
killing. The verb here (lit., “cut off”) gives the reason for the prophecy that Edom itself will be cut off (cf. 1:9-10). In choosing this wording, Obadiah once again displays his literary ability in playing on ideas and repetition.
those who tried to escape. The noun here (palit [TH6412, ZH7127], “escaped one”) anticipates Zion’s deliverance mentioned in v. 17 (peletah [TH6413, ZH7129], “escape”). A similar play on the concept of escape and deliverance occurs in Joel (cf. Joel 2:3 with Joel 2:32). Likewise, the term “survivors” (sarid [TH8300, ZH8586]) designates that which remains—hence, a survivor or escapee (cf. Josh 10:20). Obadiah will build upon this idea to emphasize the total annihilation of Edom; there will be no survivors (sarid 1:18; cf. 2 Kgs 10:11). The noun is used theologically of Israel’s remnant, preserved by God and restored to the land of promise (cf. Isa 1:9 with Joel 2:32). Obadiah’s use of these two nouns that also occur in Joel may be deliberate.
terrible time of trouble. Obadiah repeats the idea emphasized in v. 12 (beyom tsarah [TH6869, ZH7650]) to express Judah’s disastrous situation.
COMMENTARY [Text]
Obadiah now catalogs the precipitating causes for Edom’s punishment. Edom’s overt sins against God’s people included (1) failing to aid them at the time of the invasion and gloating over their misfortune (1:11-12), (2) participating in the looting of Jerusalem (1:13), and (3) the ambush and delivery of Jerusalem’s refugees into captivity.
The question arises as to the precise time of these despicable activities (see Introduction). Many suggest the time of Jehoram (ninth century BC), when a coalition of Arabs and Philistines invaded Judah and took away both the royal family and goods (2 Chr 21:8-17; 22:1). Scholars who defend this date find supporting scriptural data in passages such as Pss 79; 83; Joel 3:19; and Amos 1:6-8, 11-12, in the canonical position of Obadiah among the preexilic Minor Prophets, and in the failure of Jeremiah to include verses 10-14 in his prophecy against Edom (Jer 49:7-22). While the scriptural references may point to a long-standing preexilic hostility between Edom and Israel, they by no means prove that Obadiah is therefore a preexilic prophet. The canonical position of Obadiah is more likely due to associated themes, stitch phrases, and words. (See the insightful discussion in Cassuto 1973:1-6.) Jeremiah’s “failure” to mention Obadiah 1:10-14 rests upon the assumption that Jeremiah depended upon Obadiah, a view that has failed to gain widespread acceptance (see the discussion in Watts 1969:29-33). The question remains as to whether the events of Jehoram’s day really fit Obadiah’s prophecy, and even if they do, would they mean that Obadiah is reporting matters as an eyewitness or merely as a commentator on past events?
Others opt for the time of Ahaz (735–715 BC), when Edom joined a coalition of nations in their concerted hostility against Judah (2 Chr 28:16-21; cf. 2 Chr 29:8-9). But while Joel’s prophecy can be harmonized neatly with these events, the data in Obadiah are not so easily identified with them, particularly since there is no clear indication of the capture of Jerusalem at this time.
The views that link Obadiah with events during the invasion of Judah (2 Chr 24:23-24) in the reign of Joash (835–796 BC) or that relate Obadiah to the capture of Jerusalem by Jeroboam II in the time of Amaziah (796–767 BC), together with open hostilities between Judah and Edom (2 Kgs 14:7-14), are unconvincing. Edom’s role in the time of Joash is uncertain at best, and the invaders in Amaziah’s day were fellow Israelites, not foreigners.
Accordingly, most commentators decide for a date for these events around the time of the fall of Jerusalem, with Obadiah as an eyewitness. The Babylonian invasions of 597 BC and 586 BC clearly resulted in the plundering of Jerusalem, the deportation of its population, the slaughter of its citizens, the flight of its refugees, and the razing of the city (2 Kgs 24:13-16; 25:1-21; 2 Chr 36:15-21; Jer 39:1-10; 52:4-30).
Of particular significance are the accounts of Edom’s conduct at this time. There is evidence of its participation as an ally in a coalition of states in ancient Palestine against Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:3; 40:11); yet it was later accused of taking vengeance on Judah (Ezek 25:12) and of delivering the Israelites “over to the sword at the time of their calamity, the time their punishment reached its climax” (Ezek 35:5, NIV; cf. Lam 1:17). Edom was equally guilty at this time of rejoicing in Jerusalem’s destruction (Ps 137:7; Lam 2:15-17; 4:21; Ezek 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; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:13; 32:29; 35:3-4, 7-9, 11, 14-15; 36:7).
All of this is in harmony with a series of recent finds that indicate that Edom had increased its presence in the eastern Negev as early as the seventh century BC. Indeed, a whole line of fortifications was constructed to guard against such incursions and the continual Edomite menace (see Beit-Arieh 1996:28-36).
Although final certainty as to the connection of Obadiah to any particular historical occasion is lacking, the most likely event would be the Babylonian invasions of Judah and the capture of Jerusalem in the early sixth century BC, sometime before Nabonidus’s capture of Edom in 553 BC. If, as seems likely, Obadiah was an eyewitness to these events, he doubtless viewed all of this as the culmination of a long series of hostile activities for which kinsman Edom could expect the severe judgment of God.
Whatever the date of Edom’s hostility, all such activities described here are termed khamas [TH2555, ZH2805] (violence) against God’s people. The word speaks of a relentless cruelty born of hatred. People filled with hate are said to breathe out violence (Ps 27:12). The Scriptures warn against harboring hatred in one’s heart (Lev 19:17; cf. 1 John 2:9, 11, 15; 4:20). It is simply the case that believers who nourish hatred in their soul can neither fulfill the righteous standards of Christian morality nor experience the full love of Christ in their lives. Rather, they will find that deep-seated hatred will only eat at the soul like a cancer until their Christian joy and usefulness for Christ are diminished.
Believers are to love that which is good (Amos 5:15; Rom 12:9) and to hate evil and every wrong course of action and attitude (Pss 97:10; 119:104, 128) and thus to fear the Lord (Prov 8:13). Even though they may expect to be hated because of their stand for Christ (Matt 10:22; Mark 13:13), they may take assurance in the knowledge of greater blessing for it (Luke 6:22). Indeed, they are enjoined to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors (Matt 5:43-45) and so fulfill the injunction of Christ to “love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you” (Luke 6:27-28).