Introduction

The Book of the Prophet Obadiah is the smallest work of Old Testament biblical literature. Its content consists of a vision concerning Edom. The essence of this vision lies in the prediction of Edom’s destruction and the proclamation of salvation on Zion. The prophet hears that a messenger has already been sent to the nations calling them to arise and go forth against Edom in war (Obad 1:7). The prophet perceives that Edom is now diminished and held in contempt (Obad 1:2), laid waste and plundered despite the inaccessibility of the rocky heights on which it dwells (Obad 1:3-6), and even driven to its borders (Obad 1:7). Edom’s former allies have become its enemies (Obad 1:7); the wise men of Edom are destroyed (Obad 1:8), its warriors are seized with fear and the entire people is brought to ruin (Obad 1:9). The cause of such grievous attack upon Edom is its transgression against Judah, namely its treacherous behavior toward a kindred people on the day of their distress (Obad 1:9-14). But for the prophet, Edom is not merely an enemy of Judah but also a representative of the pagan world hostile to God. Therefore, from judgment upon Edom the prophet turns to judgment upon all the pagan world (Obad 1:15-21). In the day of judgment, all nations, in the prophet’s depiction, “will drink and will swallow down and will be as though they had never been” (Obad 1:16). The house of Esau, the Edomites, will then be like straw burning in flame (Obad 1:18), while on Zion there will be deliverance, the house of Jacob will take possession of its inheritance (Obad 1:17), and the Kingdom of the Lord will be established (Obad 1:21).

Nothing is reported concerning the person of the Prophet Obadiah—neither in his book nor in the rest of biblical literature. Some scholars (Augustine, Coccejus) are inclined to consider even the name of the prophet itself to be merely a pseudonym rather than his actual name. However, there are no solid grounds for this. But there is equally no ground for identifying Obadiah the writer of the prophetic book with any other Obadiah mentioned in the Bible (2 Sam 1:13; 2 Chr 17:7), or for accepting as authentic the conflicting reports about Obadiah preserved in ancient literature.

It is very difficult to establish with precision the time of Obadiah’s life and the origin of his book, as the necessary evidence is lacking. In the absence of external testimony regarding the Book of Obadiah, the principal bases on which the question of its origin is decided are ordinarily: 1) the indications in Obad 1:10-14 concerning Edom’s conduct toward Judah at the time of Jerusalem’s capture by enemies, and 2) the fact of close similarity between Obadiah’s prophecy concerning Edom and the prophecy about the same people by Jeremiah (Jer 49:7-22). Yet even these data are of such a nature that they can be interpreted in various ways. In the first place, Jerusalem was plundered by enemies repeatedly: namely under Rehoboam (approximately 975–958) it was taken by the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonq (1 Sam 14:26; 2 Chr 12:2-4), under Jehoram (approximately 889–882) the Philistines and Arabs captured it (2 Chr 21:16-17), under Amaziah (approximately 839–811) the Israelite king Joash did so (2 Sam 14:13-17; 2 Chr 25:23-24); under Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah the city was seized by the Babylonians (2 Sam 24:1; 2 Chr 36:6-7; Dan 1:1-4). In the second place, the relationship of the Book of Obadiah to the similar passage Jer 49 can be understood in different ways. Hence, there exist in the literature on biblical dating very diverse opinions regarding the time of Obadiah’s origin. Some scholars regard the Book of Obadiah as the most ancient prophetic work (Hoffmann, Orelli, Cornely, Yungerov), while others assign its origin to the period of exile and the post-exilic era (the majority of modern scholars). Of these views, the one that appears most soundly based is that which connects Obad 1:10-14 with the fact of Jerusalem’s conquest under Nebuchadnezzar. The advantage of this view over the others is that it rests not on assumptions but on clear biblical testimony. The fact of the Edomites’ participation in the conquest of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans is noted in the Bible in several places and described precisely with those features that are emphasized in Obad 1:10-14.

The prophet calls the calamity of Jerusalem which he has in mind the “day” of Judah—a fateful day, a day of terrible catastrophe. According to the prophet’s description, Jerusalem was brought to the final extremity, so that lots were already being cast over it (Obad 1:11). The fate that befell Judah then is the fate destined in the day of judgment for all pagan nations and particularly Edom (Obad 1:15-16)—namely, destruction. Only in such terms could the prophet depict the conquest of Judea and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The prophet Ezekiel further directly charged the Edomites with delivering the sons of Israel into the hand of the sword “in the time of their calamity, at the time of their final destruction,” and with mocking, saying of the mountains of Israel: “They are desolate! They are given to us to devour!” (Ezek 35:5). In Lam 4:21 the Edomites are charged with rejoicing and being glad at Judah’s misfortune: “Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, O inhabitant of the land of Uz! The cup shall pass to you also; you shall drink it and be stripped naked.” Finally, in Ps 136 the conduct of the Edomites toward Judah’s distress on the day Jerusalem was taken is characterized thus: “Remember, O Lord, the sons of Edom in the day of Jerusalem, when they said, ‘Tear it down, tear it down to its foundation!’” The conduct of the Edomites at Jerusalem’s conquest is described in similar terms also in Obad 1:10-14: “You should not have looked with gladness—gloated over the sons of Judah on the day of their destruction and broadened your mouth on the day of their distress” (Obad 1:12).

Against the exposition of Obad 1:10-14 the usual objection is raised that the prophet does not speak in these verses of the destruction of the temple. But the center of the prophet’s discourse is not the conquest of Jerusalem, of which the destruction of the temple was the principal moment, but rather the conduct of the Edomites during this conquest. Therefore, the mention of the temple’s destruction was not necessary for the prophet. Attention is also drawn (Cornelius, Orelli, Yungerov) to the fact that neither in Obad 1:10-14 nor subsequently does the prophet name the Babylonians by name, and that in general the enemies of Judah in Obad 1:10-14 are called by him the indefinite “sarim”, “nachrim” (“foreigners”, “aliens” – Obad 1:11). In this some see an objection against attributing Obad 1:10-14 to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans. Yet by the same reasoning, the indefiniteness of the naming of enemies in the verses under consideration can be taken as an objection against every other interpretation of these verses as well. If the Chaldeans must be named, then the Syrians and Philistines must also be named. According to Nowack’s view, the Chaldeans are not named because by the time the book was written they had ceased to be a historical force.

Another explanation is possible: the enemies are so much in everyone’s view and so well known that there is no need to name them specifically. In any case, the relationship of Judah and Edom (Obad 1:10-14) fits no other historical moment as well as the moment of the hostile actions of the Edomites at the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, 586 BC, the year of Jerusalem’s capture, is the time before which the Book of Obadiah could not have appeared (the terminus a quo).

Besides the data contained in the content of the Book of Obadiah, scholars have long drawn upon, as noted above, the fact of close similarity between Obadiah’s vision concerning Edom and the prophecy about the same people by Jeremiah (Jer 49:1).

The question of the relationship between the Book of Obadiah and Jer 49 is resolved in very different ways. From this it follows that the relationship between the biblical passages in question is difficult to establish with complete certainty. Most reasonably, the similarity between the Book of Obadiah and Jer 49 can be explained by the hypothesis that they are dependent on a third, more ancient source. In any case, the disputed fact of close similarity between the Book of Obadiah and Jer 49, especially given the clarity of the data contained in the Book of Obadiah itself, cannot contradict the conclusion that the Book of Obadiah was written after Jerusalem’s destruction. To establish precisely which moment of the post-exile period the composition of the Book of Obadiah should be assigned to is impossible in the absence of clear evidence. If the closure of the canon is to be attributed to the era of Ezra and Nehemiah, then this time—namely the middle of the fifth century BC—is the terminus ad quem of the Book of Obadiah. Further indication can be drawn from the book’s content. The prophet speaks of Edom’s final destruction as a future event. But by analogy with other prophetic predictions, one must suppose that the immediate occasion for his speech about Edom’s future fate, Obadiah takes from circumstances contemporary to him: such an occasion was provided to the prophet by some devastation of Idumea that occurred in his time. The prophet considers this devastation as a presage and image of the final destruction destined for Edom in the future. In the era of the rise of the Babylonians and then the Persians, Idumea could be devastated repeatedly, since it inevitably had to be drawn into the wars of the Babylonians and Persians with Egypt. Moreover, from the sixth century, Idumea began to suffer from attacks from the south, from Arab incursions, who with time completely expelled the Edomites from their region and occupied Tyre in 312 BC. One of the attacks of the Arab nomadic tribes on Idumea could well have provided the occasion for Obadiah’s discourse.

The Book of the Prophet Obadiah thus belongs to the category of prophecies concerning the fate of foreign nations. Along with the great world monarchies—Assyria, Babylon, Egypt—Edom is a people on whom the prophets more frequently focused attention (cf. Isa 21:11-12; Jer 49:7-22; Ezek 25:12-14, 35 and others). This insignificant people, related by descent to the Hebrews, proud of the wisdom for which it had long been renowned, relying on the inaccessibility of the rocky heights on which it was settled, was always one of the most cruel and implacable enemies of the house of Judah. Hence Edom represents to the prophets a representative of the world hostile to the Kingdom of God, and in their thought concerning the triumph of this Kingdom is joined the thought concerning the defeat of Edom and judgment upon it (Isa 34:1). In revealing the future fate of Edom, Obadiah generally follows the other prophets. There are no peculiarities in the book’s content. Jerome, in characterizing the Book of Obadiah, rightly observes: “It is a minor prophet in the number of verses, not in its thoughts.” In the exposition of the book, biblical scholars note the force of expression, the vividness and purity of Hebrew language (Cheyne, Selbie, Baudissin). Condamine, not without reason, points out that throughout the entire Book of Obadiah the same device is employed—the use of synonymous expressions and even repetition of the same words (Obad 1:1-3). Moreover, Condamine finds in the Book of Obadiah consistent strophic structure throughout. These features of the book’s exposition, as well as the development of its content, give grounds to reject attempts by modern scholars (Nowack, Marti, Wellhausen) to deny the unity of the Book of Obadiah and to break it up into parts belonging to different authors and different eras.

1–9. The future destruction of the nation. 10–14. The reason for Edom’s punishment. 16–20. Judgment over Edom—a proclamation of judgment over the entire world. 21. Salvation on Zion.

Obadiah 1:1. The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom: A report we have heard from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent to announce to the nations: “Arise and let us go up against him in war! The words “the vision of Obadiah” (in the Slavonic, “Obadiahino”) form the inscription of the book. By the term chazon, “vision,” prophets designate not only revelations received in the form of vision or contemplation (Amos 7; Amos 8:1; Ezek 1 and others), but also revelations perceived in the form of a word (Isa 1:1). It is in this latter sense that the term “vision” is employed in the inscription of the Book of Obadiah. “Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom” (in the Slavonic, “Idumea”): not a different inscription of the book representing a later gloss, but the customary prophetic formula that precedes the speech of Jehovah or confirms the divinely revealed character of the following words of the prophet. “A report we have heard (schamanu) from the Lord and a messenger (zir) has been sent (schullach) to announce to the nations: Arise and let us go up against him in war.” Instead of the plural “schamanu” in the LXX and the Slavonic there is the singular: akohn hkousa, “I heard a hearing,” as also in Jeremiah XLIX (schamathi). The Hebrew text agrees with the Chaldee and Syriac; since the reading “schamanu” is more difficult than “schamathi,” it should be preferred to the latter, although some commentators (Knabenbauer) give preference to the LXX reading. The Hebrew zir the LXX translated as “perioch,” “enclosure”; Symmachus, the Syriac and Chaldee as “aggelian”; the Syriac-hexapla as “angustias”; and the verb “schullach” they punctuated as “schillach”; hence in the Slavonic “the announcement to nations, sent forth.” The relationship of the words “report we have heard” to what precedes is not entirely clear. Assuming that by the words “thus says the Lord God concerning Edom” God’s own speech is introduced, which begins only from verse 2, some commentators (according to Kaspar) consider the second half of verse 1 an introductory clause explaining the circumstances under which the prophet received the revelation. The prophet, they think, wishes to mark that he received the revelation concerning Edom at the moment when he learned of the intention of the nations to attack the Edomites. But the words “thus says the Lord” can also be understood in the sense of a general indication that the revelation communicated by the prophet was received from God. In such case, the end of verse 1 can be considered the beginning of the prophecy concerning Edom’s fate. The prophet speaks in the plural: “we have heard,” because he regards himself as a member of the Israelite people and as their representative. The content of the report heard by the prophet is that the nations are rising up against Edom with war. There is no need to understand the prophet’s mention of “a messenger sent to the nations” as referring to Nebuchadnezzar sending messengers to neighboring nations for the purpose of inciting them to attack the Edomites (Cornelius à Lapide) or to an Angel sent by God to the nations with the same purpose (Knabenbauer). The prophet’s expressions are figurative: war against Edom is inevitable; the prophet, as it were, sees a messenger sent by God, calling the nations to rise up against Edom. The words “Arise and let us go up” etc. are placed by the prophet in the mouth of the messenger, and do not represent an appeal by the Lord (Shedd).

Obadiah 1:2. Behold, I have made you small among the nations, and you are in great contempt. From verse 2 begins the speech of Jehovah proper. “Behold, I have made you small among the nations.” The Slavonic has “Behold, small have I made you among the nations.” Some refer these words “I have made you small” to the past of the Edomites and understand them in the sense of an indication that the Lord did not intend the Edomites to be a great nation, yet they, as appears from what follows (verse 3), presumed to this out of pride (Jerome, Ibn Ezra, Cornelius à Lapide, Bishop Palladius). “You, Edom,” paraphrases Jerome the words of the prophet, “being the smallest among the nations and few in number compared with other nations, speak haughtily beyond your strength.” But such understanding does not correspond to the facts of Edomite history (Numbers XX:15, 9; 2 Sam 8:20). By the words “Behold, I have made you small” is proclaimed a future which, because of its certainty, is represented as already past.

Obadiah 1:3. The pride of your heart has deceived you; you dwell in the clefts of the rocks, in your high place, and say in your heart, “Who will bring me down to the earth? Edom’s future humiliation will be particularly heavy for it because of its arrogance. “The pride of your heart has deceived you (hishshiecha)”: the LXX punctuated the last word as “hissiecha” (from “nasa”) and therefore translated it as “ephre se”; in the Slavonic, “the pride of your heart has lifted you up.” Edom’s pride flowed from its confidence in the inaccessibility of the rocky heights it inhabited. The mountainous Idumea abounded in caves, partly natural and partly artificial. In these caves lived the horites, the earliest inhabitants of Idumea (Gen 14:6; Deut 2:12), and later they were occupied by the descendants of Esau. By the words “behvej-sela,” “in the clefts of the rocks,” the prophet probably means to indicate the chief city of the Edomite kingdom, Sela, the later Petra. Even Pliny testifies to its inaccessibility, remarking: “It was a city surrounded by inaccessible mountains.” “In your high place”: the Hebrew “merom schivto,” with the suffix of the third person should be translated as “on the height of his place”; the LXX instead of “merom” read the participle form “merim” and therefore translated: “exalting his dwelling,” the Slavonic, “raising on high his dwelling.”

Obadiah 1:4. But though you make your nest as high as the eagle and though you set it among the stars, I will bring you down from there, says the Lord. In verse 4 the prophet expresses in strong language “the futility of hope to acquire strength and might apart from God.”

Obadiah 1:5. If thieves came to you, if robbers came by night, would they not steal only as much as they desired? If grape pickers came to you, would they not leave some grapes? Verses 5–6. Through a series of questions and comparisons in verses 5–6 the prophet depicts the extreme degree of devastation destined for Edom. As in verse 2, the coming devastation is spoken of as an accomplished fact on account of its certainty. “Would they not steal only as much...”: The LXX translate the Hebrew “ech nidmethah” as “pou an aperrifhV” (Slavonic: “how would you have been cast down”), reading instead of the verb “damach” (cf. Hos 4:6; Hos 10:7; Isaiah VI:6) the verb “ramah,” to cast down; the Syriac and Vulgate derive “nidmethah” from “dum” (to be silent); hence in the Vulgate, “how would you have been silent,” to be silent. More correctly the Hebrew “ech nidmethah” should be translated: “how are you laid waste,” and the expression should be seen as an exclamation interrupting the flow of speech. Hoonacker calls attention to the fact that this exclamation—“how are you laid waste”—does not fully harmonize with the sense of the questions in verse 5, since the questions are intended to express the thought that Edom would not be so “laid waste” if only thieves and robbers came to him. Therefore Hoonacker supposes that the exclamation “how are you laid waste” has accidentally been transferred from verse 6 to verse 5. Winckler thinks it necessary to transfer the words “ech nidmethah” to verse 4, while Marti omits them entirely. Yet in view of the lyric character of the speech, which allows for digressions in the development of thought, there is no special need for Hoonacker’s and Winckler’s supposition, and there are still fewer grounds for removing the words under consideration from the text. “Grape pickers”—probably thieves who steal grapes.

Obadiah 1:6. How thoroughly Esau has been searched! How his treasures have been discovered! The prophet speaks of Edom now in the third person, though this does not give reason, as Marti does, to consider verse 6 a gloss. “How thoroughly Esau has been searched”: instead of the name of the people, in verse 6 the prophet uses the name of the ancestor of the Edomites—Esau. Since “Esav” is taken in a collective sense, the predicate with it stands in the plural: “nechpesu” (from “chapas”), “have been searched”; in the Russian text the word “thoroughly” has been added. “How his treasures have been discovered,” “niveu rnazpunaj”: the prophet means not only caves generally, in which the Edomites hoped to hide, but also the places where they stored their treasures. The LXX understood “mazpunim” in the sense of “treasures” and translated the entire expression as “and his hidden things have been taken,” Slavonic, “and his treasures have been taken.” As is well known, Edom was renowned for its wealth: according to the testimony of Diodorus (XIX, 95), Petra was a principal point of trade between Syria and Arabia.

Obadiah 1:7. All your allies have driven you to the border; those at peace with you have deceived you and overcome you; those who eat your bread have laid a snare for you. There is no understanding in him! In verse 7 the prophet depicts the conduct of Edom’s allies toward it on the day of its distress. It is difficult to establish the precise meaning of the individual expressions in verse 7. “To the border (ad-haggevul) have they driven you (schilchucha) all your allies (kol anschej berithecha).” The LXX referred the words “kol an. berith.” to the following clause as the subject. The first supposition of verse 7 appears in the LXX as “even to the borders they sent you forth,” Slavonic, “even to the borders have they cast you out.” Scholars interpret the words of the prophet in different ways. In the opinion of some, the prophet wishes to say that the allies drive out the Edomite messengers asking for help to the border, that is, they send them away with nothing (Maurer, Keil), or that the allies, refusing the messengers, escort them with honor to the border (Kleinert). In the opinion of others, the prophet expresses the general thought that the allies will drive Edom to the borders of the earth, that is, take them into captivity (Chaldean), “will drive them not only from the cities but from the very borders of the land” (blessed Theodoret). According to Hitzig, the prophet’s thought is that the allies will drive out even those Edomite fugitives who will seek protection among them on the day of distress. Nowack and Hoonacker suppose that the words “to the border” should be referred to the end of verse 6, which will then read: “his treasures have been searched to the border,” that is, throughout the extent of the land. In view of the difficulty of understanding verse 7, Winckler instead of “ad-haggevul” proposes to read “ad-geval” (to Geval). But obviously nothing is achieved by such correction, just as by Cheyne’s correction, who instead of “ad-haggevul” reads “ir jerachmeel” (city of Jerahmeel), considering these words as a clarification of the preceding “anschej berithecha.” It appears that at the beginning of verse 7 the discourse is about the expulsion of the Edomites from their territory. “Have deceived you (hischschiecha)”: in the LXX “opposed you,” Slavonic, “resisted you.” “Those who eat your bread have laid a snare for you”: an approximate translation of the original, which reads “Lachmcha jasimu mazor thachtecha.” The Hebrew “lachmcha,” omitted in the LXX, should be rendered as “your bread”; the word “those who eat” has been added by Russian translators, while in the Slavonic the expression “those eating bread” is borrowed from the Vulgate. The Hebrew “mazor” in Hosea V means “wound”; the ancient translations render it also with the words “enedra” (LXX), “epidesiV,” “sundemoV” (Aquila), “insidiae” (Vulgate), that is, “deception, plots, destruction.” All the expression should then convey: “your bread they place a wound (plots) under you,” or, as in Aquila: “your bread they shall place in destruction.” The result is an unclear thought, which prompts commentators to suppose in the expression under consideration a corruption of the text and to supplement or correct it. The textual corrections proposed are diverse (cf. Marti, 234). Thus the Vulgate and Russian translation, as also Knabenbauer and Condamine, suppose that in the Hebrew text before “lachmcha” the word “ochelej,” “those who eat” (Vulgate: who eat with you) is omitted. The Syriac text makes the word “lactuncha” dependent on the preceding “anschej schlomecha” (men of peace, those living in peace) and renders: “men of your peace and your bread” (also Ewald, Maurer). Hoonacker proposes instead of “lachmcha” to read “lechimecha” and understand it in the sense: “your allies.” “There is no understanding in him”: in him, that is, in Edom. Apparently the exclamation expresses a conclusion from the relations to Edom described in verse 7: the prophet wishes to say that Edom, which prided itself on its wisdom, did not understand the hypocritical character of the friendship of its allies.

Obadiah 1:8. On that day, says the Lord, I will destroy the wise men from Edom and understanding from the mountain of Esau. Verses 8–9 contain a description of the distress destined for Edom. “On that day”: the word “day” is used by the prophet in a general sense—a time, a period. “I will destroy the wise men from Edom”: according to Job 2:11; Bar 3:22; Jeremiah XLIX Edom was renowned among the nations for its wisdom. “And understanding from the mountain of Esau”: in the LXX, in the Slavonic in the abstract sense—“and wisdom (sunestin) from the mountain of Esau.” The LXX translate verse 8 not in interrogative but in declarative form.

Obadiah 1:9. Your warriors, O Teman, shall be struck with fear, so that all on the mountain of Esau will be cut off by slaughter. Besides the loss of wisdom and understanding, the Edomites, even the bravest among them, will be seized with fear. “Teman”—the usual designation of the southern part of Idumea, sometimes denoting the whole of Idumea (Jeremiah XLIX:7; Jer 25:13). According to Jerome’s testimony, in his time there was also a city of Teman, located at a distance of five miles from Petra and having a Roman garrison. “So that all on the mountain of Esau will be cut off by slaughter (mikkatel)”: The LXX and Vulgate referred the word “mikkatel” to verse 10; therefore, at the beginning of verse 10 instead of one noun “za pritesneniye” (mechamos) in the Slavonic text one reads two—“by slaughter and impiety” (LXX: dia sfaghn kai thn asebeian). The rest of the clause in the Greek-Slavonic text is rendered more accurately than in the Russian, namely—“so that a man shall be cut off (Hebrew: ikkareth isch, Russian: all) from the mountain of Esau.”

Obadiah 1:10. Because of the violence done to your brother Jacob, shame shall cover you, and you shall be cut off forever. The cause of Edom’s destruction, according to the prophet’s words, is its oppression of Israel, a people related to it.

Obadiah 1:11. On the day when you stood aloof, on the day when foreigners were taking captive his wealth and strangers were entering his gates and casting lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them. In verses 11–14 the prophet more specifically points out Edom’s transgressions against Israel, while emphasizing Edom’s kinship with Israel, which aggravates the guilt of the former. “Foreigners were taking captive (schevoth) his wealth (chelo)”: the word “chel” in verse 13 of the Book of Obadiah is used in the sense of possessions, wealth, as understood by the Russian translators (cf. Isa 8:4). In this sense many commentators understand the word “chel” also in verse 11. Although the verb “schabah” (Russian: “take captive”) is ordinarily used with reference to the leading away of people, yet in 2 Chronicles XXI it is used also with reference to the seizure of possessions. Nevertheless, the LXX and Vulgate understand the expression in question of verse 11 as referring to the captivity of Judah’s army. “Casting lots for Jerusalem,” that is, for the division of the captives from Jerusalem and their possessions (cf. Joel 3:3; 2 Chronicles XXI:17). The Slavonic text of verse 11 represents a literal rendering from the Greek: “from that day you opposed them on the day when foreigners were leading away his strength, and strangers entered his gates and about Jerusalem cast lots, and you were like one of them.”

Obadiah 1:12. You should not have gloated over your brother on the day of his ruin; you should not have rejoiced over the sons of Judah on the day of their destruction and should not have enlarged your mouth on the day of distress. The prophet presents his reproval of Edom’s transgression in the form of admonition. “Gloat over the day of your brother,” that is, gloat over the day of your brother’s misfortune. “You should not have enlarged your mouth,” in Hebrew “tegdel pisha” (your mouth), that is, widen it “for mockery” at the misfortune (cf. Isa 57:4). It deserves attention that the prophet designates Judah’s distress through a series of synonyms: “on the day of his estrangement,” “on the day of their destruction,” “on the day of their distress,” and in verse 13—“on the day of his calamity”; the prophet clearly wishes to emphasize the exceptional severity of the catastrophe that befell Judah. In the Hebrew text the speech of the prophet in verses 12–14 refers to an “event already accomplished”; in the LXX and in the Slavonic—to an event “still to happen”: verse 12—“do not overlook the day of your brother,” verse 13—“do not enter the gates...do not overlook...do not take counsel,”—verse 14—“nor stand firm.”

Obadiah 1:13. You should not have entered the gate of my people on the day of their calamity; you should not have watched—even you—their affliction on the day of their ruin, nor should you have looted his wealth on the day of his distress. In verse 13 instead of the words “upon their misfortune” (beraatho) in the Slavonic (do not overlook) “their multitude”: the LXX apparently derived “beraatho” from “rab”—“many”; therefore they translated it as “their multitude.” “Nor should you have looted (al-thischlachnah) his wealth (bechelo)”: the Hebrew “thischlachnah,” representing the second person feminine plural, has no corresponding subject in verse 13; therefore it is considered corrupt; instead of “al-thischlachnah” it is proposed (Ewald, Marti) to read: “al-thischlach jad,” “nor stretch out your hand” (nor loot), as in the Russian translation. The LXX translated the Hebrew “al-thischlachnah bechelo” with the expression “and do not plot against their strength,” Slavonic, “and do not take counsel concerning their might”: “chel,” as in verse 11, is understood by the LXX and also by the Vulgate in the sense of “army.”

Obadiah 1:14. And you should not have stood at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives; you should not have handed over those of his who escaped in the day of distress. Not content with participation in the plundering of Jerusalem, the Edomites, as appears from verse 14, lay in wait for Jerusalem’s fugitives and killed them or handed them over to the enemy. “Nor should you have stood at the crossroads (al happerek)”: instead of the word “perek” some (Graetz) read “perez,” understanding it in the sense of “a breach in the wall,” but this sense does not fit the context. The LXX translated “perek” as “exit,” adding the pronoun “of theirs”; hence in the Slavonic—“nor stand firm at their exits.” By “crossroads” in verse 14 there is no need to understand specifically the roads leading to Egypt, where Judeans sought refuge from Babylonian captivity (Schnurrer): the prophet speaks in general of the roads near Jerusalem, as well as of the mountain passes (Marti) through which those fleeing from the enemy entering the city escaped. “Nor should you have handed over (vealthasger) the survivors (seridaj) on the day of distress”: in the LXX the expression reads—“nor shut in those fleeing from him on the day of affliction,” Slavonic, “nor shut in those fleeing from them in the day of grief.” The verb “sagar” means “to shut,” “to enclose,” and in the hiphil form—“to hand over,” “to deliver up”; the LXX translate “sagar” as “shut in” and in Amos 1:6. The prophet probably speaks of the handing over by the Edomites to the enemy of those Judean fugitives who were hiding in Edomite territory (Jer 40:11).

Obadiah 1:15. For the day of the Lord is near upon all nations: as you have done, so shall it be done to you; your treatment will return upon your own head. The prophet proclaims the coming of “the day of the Lord,” that is, the day of judgment, when Edom together with all nations shall receive retribution for its conduct toward the people of God (cf. Numbers XXIV:12–24; 1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 23:5-7). The prophet calls this day “near” because he expects the swift punishment of Edom, and every defeat of power hostile to God is part of that terrible moment of God’s judgment which shall be at the end of time. “Your treatment (gemulcha),” that is, “your deed,” your transgressions.

Obadiah 1:16. For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow down, and they shall be as if they had never been. “For as you have drunk (Slavonic: “Because like you have drunk”) upon my holy mountain.” Many commentators refer the words of the prophet to the Edomites and see in them an indication that the Edomites, at the capture of Jerusalem, held orgies on the holy mountain of the Lord, celebrating their victory (Cyril of Alexandria, Shedd, Knabenbauer). Correspondingly, the second half of the comparison—“so all the nations shall drink continually”—is also understood in relation to the Edomites, whereupon the word “drink” is given a figurative meaning: so all the nations shall drink “upon the mountains of Edom” (Koenig), that is, celebrate their victory and the defeat of the Edomites. Other commentators paraphrase the prophet’s thought differently: as you (Edomites) “drank” (held orgies) upon the holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink “the cup” of the wrath of the Lord (in Hoonacker’s interpretation). Apparently, the first half of the comparison in verse 16 should be referred not to the Edomites but to the Jews, and the entire expression should be regarded as figurative language, not as a description of a historical fact: 1) the verb “drank” is used in the plural, while the earlier address to Edom was in the singular (the LXX, however, read in verse 16 “he drank”—you singular); 2) in the second half of the comparison it says: “all nations “shall drink”; since in verse 15 Edom is included among all nations, it means the words “as you drank” are not spoken about Edom; 3) if the first half of the comparison is understood of the Edomites, then the relation of the second half to the first will be strained (“as you feasted, so all nations shall drink the cup of wrath”). Furthermore, the supposed thought in the second half of the comparison by some commentators—that all nations shall drink “upon the mountains of Edom”—is alien to the prophetic worldview. The entire expression of verse 16 should be understood thus: as you (Jews, more precisely—the inhabitants of Jerusalem) drank the cup of wrath upon the holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink this cup of wrath continually (Hebrew: thamid), with the result being their destruction. The expressions “drink” and “drink the cup” in Holy Scripture are often used in a figurative sense—to bear a heavy lot (cf. Jer 25:27-29; Ezek 23:36; Nah 3:11; Matt 20:22). Scholars who consider Obadiah the earliest prophet-writer suppose that the figurative expression “drink the cup” was first used by Obadiah and from him was borrowed by other prophets. In the Vatican codex of the LXX the words “all nations shall drink continually” are omitted; in the Alexandria and Sinai codexes instead of the Hebrew “thamid,” continually, there is “wine,” Slavonic (“all nations shall drink”) wine; it is thought that the LXX instead of “thamid” read “chemer” (Deut 32:14) or, used in later language, “themed,” denoting a particular kind of strong wine (Marti). “They shall swallow down”: the sense of the Hebrew “lau” is uncertain; the LXX translated it as “shall go down” (in the Slavonic “shall drink and descend”), reading perhaps instead of “velau” a similar “vpjardu”; modern commentators accept “lau,” as in Job 6:8; Prov 20:25, in the sense of “to be furious in speech” (Delitzsch), in the sense of “to swallow down,” as in the Russian text, or else read instead of “lau” the verb “nud” (cf. Isaiah XXIV:20; XXIX:9), “shall reel” (Wellhausen, Nowack). The translation accepted in the Russian text gives a thought not fully satisfactory.

Obadiah 1:17. But on Mount Zion there shall be those who escape, and it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess its inheritance. On the day of the Lord, the mountain of Zion will appear as a mountain on which there will be deliverance for the house of Jacob; the mountain will be an inviolable sanctuary. In addition, the house of Jacob will take possession of its inheritance (moraschehem), that is, its former territory. The LXX and Vulgate instead of “morascehchem” read “morischechem” and translated it “those who shall have been dispossessed,” “those who shall possess it”; hence, the end of verse 17 in the Slavonic reads: “and the house of Jacob shall inherit those who had possessed them.” Modern commentators prefer the LXX reading to the Masoretic text. Thus, according to verse 17, the saved house of Jacob shall take possession of those who possessed it, that is, shall have their territory: “shall take possession,” explains blessed Theodoret, “of your (Idumea’s) and other neighboring peoples’ land.” By “house of Jacob,” as in verse 4, the prophet calls Judah (cf. Nah 2:3).

Obadiah 1:18. The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, but the house of Esau shall be stubble; they shall burn them and consume them, and there shall be no remnant of the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken it. In verse 18 the prophet compares Judah and the house of Joseph, or Israel, to fire and flame (cf. Isaiah X:17; XXXIII:14), while Esau is compared to straw, wishing to express the thought of the might and superiority of the people of God before their enemies. The possession of the people of God of the inheritance (verse 17) will be, according to the sense of verse 18, such that other nations must either merge with it into one people or undergo destruction. The prophet indicates this by the example of Esau. “And there shall be no survivor (sarid) of the house of Esau,” Slavonic: “and there shall be no fugitive from the house of Esau”: the Hebrew “sarid” in some LXX manuscripts (Vatican) is translated as “fire-bearer,” which Jerome renders as “commissary,” “supplier of provisions,”—in others as “fire-bearer” (Alexander, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome); by both readings there is expressed the thought that all of Edom shall perish, even those who were with the army but did not directly participate in battle. In some LXX manuscripts the Hebrew “sarid” is translated as “having fled”; hence also in the Slavonic “and there shall be no fugitive from the house of Esau.”

Obadiah 1:19. Those of the Negev shall possess the mountain of Esau, and those of the Shephelah the land of the Philistines; they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria, and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. In verses 19 and 20 the thought expressed at the end of verse 17 is explained. The text of verses 19–20 is obscure and in the Russian is translated presumably. “Those of the Negev (vejarschu hannegev) shall possess the mountain of Esau (eth-har esav).” The designation “hannegev” (literally “dry land”), translated by the LXX as the proper noun Nageb, or as a common noun “wilderness” (cf. Gen 13:1; XXIV and others), was originally a “geographical term” and designated that part of southern Judea which in comparison with the rest of Palestine was without water. The border of the “negev” on the north was a chain of hills near Hebron or the mountain of Judah; on the south the “negev” extended to the plateau of Jebel el-Magrah, on the east to southern Ghor and the Arabah, and on the west to the sandy strip along the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. With the passage of time, the word “negev” came to designate already the “country of the south.” In the Book of Obadiah the word is used as a geographical term. The word “hannegev” in the Russian translation is taken as the subject of the verb “vejarechu” (“shall possess”), whereupon, in accordance with the plural “vejarechu,” it is rendered freely as the expression “those of the Negev.” Another subject of the same verb “vejarachu” Russian translators consider to be the word standing further “hashshephelah,” translating it as the expression “those of the Shephelah.” The LXX understood the Hebrew text in the same way, leaving the words “negev” (in Nageb) and “hashshephelah” (in the Shephelah and in the valley) without translation; hence in the Slavonic there is: “and shall inherit those in the Negev the mountain of Esau, and those in the Shephelah (LXX: those in the Shephelah) the Philistines.” According to the sense of the Russian and Slavonic texts, those Judeans who live (or will settle) in the southern part of Judea shall possess the mountain of Esau, that is, Idumea, while those settled on the plain shall subdue the Philistines. Modern commentators understand the text of verse 19 differently: namely, they consider the subject of “vejarachu” to be the words of verse 18: “the house of Jacob and the house of Joseph”; they regard “negev” and “hashshephelah” as the direct object of “vejarachu,” and the words “eth-har esav” (“mountain of Esau”) and “eth-pilischthim” (“Philistines”), as apposition to “negev” and “hashshephelah.” The first half of verse 19 in such case will be: “and shall possess (the house of Jacob and the house of Joseph) the Negev—mountain of Esau, and the Shephelah—Philistines” (Nowack, Wellhausen, Hoonacker; while the words “mountain of Esau” and “Philistines” are considered a gloss). The thought is clearer than according to the accepted text. The second half of verse 19 according to our text reads: “and they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria, while Benjamin shall possess Gilead.” “The land of Ephraim,” or according to the LXX: “the mountain of Ephraim”—that is, the same as the “land of Samaria,” that is, the territory of the ten-tribe kingdom. According to the Russian text, the subjects of the verb “shall possess” are the words standing in the first half of verse 19: “those of the Negev” and “those of the Shephelah.” The sense of the expression according to the Russian text is that the Judeans shall occupy the territory of the Israelite kingdom, while Benjamin, at the same time, shall possess Gilead, that is, the territory beyond the Jordan. It should be noted that the word “shall possess” after the name of Benjamin has been added by Russian translators; in the original it is not. In the second half of verse 19 the mention of Benjamin causes perplexity in view of the fact that the entire house of Jacob, including Benjamin, has already been mentioned earlier. The LXX eliminated this perplexity, regarding the word “Benjamin,” like the word “Gilead,” not as the subject but as the object of the verb “vejarschu” (shall possess); hence in the Slavonic the second half of verse 19 reads: “and they shall take the mountain of Ephraim, and the land of Samaria, and Benjamin, and Gilead.” The thought has become even more obscure. Modern commentators suppose that 1) the subject in the second half of verse 19, as in the first, should be considered the words of verse 19: “the house of Jacob” and “the house of Joseph”; 2) the words “land of Samaria” should be considered as apposition to the preceding—“land of Ephraim”; 3) instead of the name of Benjamin in the original text should be assumed the name of a land, in relation to which the word “Gilead” is apposition,—namely the name of the land beyond the Jordan (veabarhajarden). The second half of verse 19, in such case, will be read: “and shall possess the land of Ephraim—land of Samaria, and the land beyond the Jordan—Gilead” (Hoonacker). The prophet expresses the thought that the new theocratic kingdom will not only have the former boundaries but will be further expanded (cf. Isa 54:1). In doing so, the prophet indicates the expansion of boundaries separately for the house of Jacob (for the Jews) and for the house of Joseph (for the Israelites).

Obadiah 1:20. The exiles of this host of the sons of Israel shall possess the land of the Canaanites as far as Zarephath, and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the Negev. In verse 20 the unfolding of the thought of verse 19 concerning the expansion of the boundaries of the new theocratic kingdom continues. The text of verse 20 again raises certain perplexities and is rendered in our Russian translation presumably. “And the exiles (vegaluh) from the army (uchel hasseh) of the sons of Israel shall possess the land of the Canaanites as far as Zarephath.” In translating these words in the Russian text the pronoun “hasseh” is omitted; the verb “irschu,” “shall possess,” is added; the word “hachel,” like in the Vulgate, is understood in the sense of “army” (wherein it is assumed that “hachel” is only another spelling of “hachejl” of verse 11). The LXX, probably deriving “hachel” from “chalal,” translated it as “beginning,” and gave the expression a meaning different from the Masoretic text: in the Slavonic “and the beginning of this removal shall be to the sons of Israel.” Modern commentators (Shedd, Orelli, Condamine) ordinarily also understand “hachel” in the sense of “army.” But some give the word a different sense,—namely “fortress” (Hitzig), “sand” (according to Ewald, “chel = chol”; “the exiles from this sand,” that is, “from this shore”). The thought, however, in all the cases indicated becomes unclear; it is incomprehensible why the demonstrative pronoun “hasseh”—“this”—is added to the word “army,” and also why the removal of only the “army” is highlighted, when the entire people was removed. In view of this, Marti proposes to see in “hachel hasseh” a corrupted place name, from which the exiles were displaced. Hoonacker proposes instead of “hachel hasseh” to read “hachalah seh.” Considering “hachalah” as a participle (with the article) from the verb “chul,” used (Gen 8:10; Judg 3:25) in the sense of “to await,” Hoonacker translates the Hebrew words “vegaluth hachel-hasseh” as: “and the exiles, awaiting [return],” from the sons of Israel.” The prophet addresses those who, as he foresees, have not yet returned to their homeland and are awaiting this. The prophet then speaks separately of the sons of Israel and of the captives from Jerusalem. “The land of the Canaanites”: in the Hebrew text unclear “ascher kanaanim,” in the LXX: “the land of the Canaanites,” in the Vulgate “all places of the Canaanites.” The relative pronoun “ascher” (which), not understood in the present connection, gives reason for Nowack and Hoonacker to suppose that after “ascher,” corresponding to the second half of verse 20 (“who are in Sepharad”), in the original text there stood a designation of the locality where the captives dwelt, and further followed a verb, whose object was the word “canaan” (that is, Phoenicia, Isaiah XXIII:8). “As far as Zarephath”: Zarephath—a Phoenician city, located between Sidon and Tyre, known for the miracle performed there by the prophet Elijah, the resurrection of the widow’s son (1 Sam 17:17-23). “And the exiles (vegaluth) from Jerusalem, who are (ascher) in Sepharad (bisepharad), shall possess (irschu) the cities (eth araj) of the Negev.” The discourse is about captives from Jerusalem, living in Sepharad. It is said that they,—it is presumed—uniting with the house of Jacob, shall take possession of the southern cities. It is not known precisely what the prophet means by the name “Sepharad.” The LXX instead of this designation read: “as far as Ephrata,” Slavonic, “as far as Ephrata.” The Targum, the Syriac translation, Ephrem the Syrian, medieval rabbis, and some Christian commentators understood “Sepharad” in the sense of a distant land, namely Spain. In the Vulgate “bisepharad” is translated as “in Bosphorus,” and in the commentary Jerome reports that he learned of the identity of Saphara with Bosphorus from a Jew who assisted him in his studies. Modern commentators identify the designation “Sepharad” with the “Sparda” or “Spharda” mentioned in Persian inscriptions—the name of a people or region, understood as Media or the city of Sardis (Hitzig, Knabenbauer), or with Sparta (Keil), whose name could have been known to the Jews through the Phoenicians. Lenormant and Schrader identify “Sepharad” with the “Schaparda” mentioned in Sargon’s inscriptions, a region in the southeastern part of Media (Sayce, The land of Sepharad. Expositor’s Times. 1902, 4, 303). Hoonacker proposes to read instead of “Sepharad”—“Sepharah” and consider this designation a singular form of the Sepharvites mentioned in the Bible (2 Sam 17:24; XVIII:34) or Babylonian Sippar. Winckler and following him Marti identify Sepharad with “Separda” of cuneiform literature and regard it, having come into use from the time of Persian rule, as the designation of Asia Minor and, especially, Phrygia. “Cities of the Negev” (hannegev), in the Slavonic according to the LXX, “cities of the Negev.”

Obadiah 1:21. Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to rule the mountain of Esau, and the Kingdom shall be the Lord’s. “Saviors shall go up (moschilim) to Mount Zion (behar zion)”: as formerly, in the time of the Judges, the Lord raised up saviors for His people (Judg 3:9; 2 Sam 13:5; Nehem 9:27), so in the future He will deliver the people through the mediation of extraordinary men, while Edom shall be subjected to God’s judgment. Such saviors of the people, preparing the Kingdom of God, were Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Maccabees (Knabenbauer and medieval Catholic interpreters). Marti sees in the prophet’s expression “and they shall go up to Mount Zion, saviors,” an indication that these saviors will come not from Jerusalem but from the province, as the Maccabees came from Modein. The LXX, as well as Aquila and Theodotion, read the Hebrew “moschilim” (saviors) as “noschaim” or “muschaim” and therefore translated it as “being saved” and “saved” (Aquila, Theodotion), Slavonic, “saved ones”; they read “behap zion” as “from the mountain of Zion,” Slavonic, “from the mountain of Zion.” “To rule the mountain of Esau”; in the Slavonic, “to exact vengeance (tou ekdikhsai) upon the mountain of Esau.” Marti calls attention to the fact that in the preceding verses there was already spoken of the destruction of Edom; therefore the thought of judgment over Edom appears to him unnecessary, and the expression “to rule the mountain of Esau” Marti strikes out as a gloss. But in the figurative speech of the prophet this expression is not a contradiction: it is only a new expression of the idea being developed by the prophet of the future exaltation of the people of God. Regarding the fulfillment of Obadiah’s prophecy, the following should be noted. Pressed from the sixth century by Arabs in the north, the Edomites gradually occupied southern Palestine, so that Hebron became an Idumaean city. From this time began the struggle of the Jews with the Edomites, reaching its highest development in the era of the Maccabees. In 165 BC Judas Maccabeus took Hebron from the Edomites (1 Macc 5:3), and in 126 BC John Hyrcanus completely subjugated the Edomites, forcibly converting them to Judaism (Antiquities XII; VIII, 1; XIII; IX, 1; 1 Macc 4:28-61; 2 Macc 10:15). From this time began the merger of the Idumaeans with the Jews, and after the destruction of Jerusalem the very name of the Edomites disappeared. The facts noted can be regarded as the fulfillment of Obadiah’s prediction in verses 17–21 of the Jews’ possession of the mountain of Esau. In general, however, the prophet’s speech concerning the future of Edom and Judah is figurative in character and it is difficult to connect it with specific historical facts. Concerning the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the “destruction” of Edom, see K. Keil. Proofs of the Truth of the Christian Faith. St. Petersburg. 1870. pp. 298–360.