Original Meaning

THE EXTERNAL REASONS for the fall of Edom are now identified. The surprising reversal of verse 7 (friends turning to enemies) is not that surprising after all! Instead, Edom will receive back on her own head what she had done to her own “family.” What goes around comes around!

The first two verses of this section break the normal Hebrew word order by beginning with prepositional phrases. They emphasize causes of judgment: violence and noninvolvement. Verses 12–14 continue with a litany of eight sentences, each beginning with the adverb “(and) not.” By emphatic ordering and the emphasis of repetition, the prophet is hammering away at the heinous nature of that in which Edom is involved. The inseparable preposition “(deriving) from violence,” which opens this section in verse 10, is the same preposition that closed the previous section (“[deriving] from slaughter” in v. 9). This provides a noticeable syntactic tie between cause and effect.

Edom’s Violence (v. 10)

EACH OF THE three Hebrew terms in the first clause of verse 10 has a strong rhetorical impact on the hearers. The causal element (“violence”) was the precipitating factor for the destruction of humanity by flood during the time of Noah (Gen. 6:11, 13). This word can indicate both personal physical abuse (e.g., Gen. 49:5–6; Jer. 13:22) and practices destructive of institutions and society (e.g., Ex. 23:1; Zeph. 3:4). In this case, both physical and psychological destruction are introduced by this term. Specific instances are explored in the following verses.

This violence is (lit.) “of your brother Jacob.” This is an objective genitive, indicating that the brother is the recipient of the action done by someone else, who in this case is Edom.1 A political treaty can be described as being between neighbors who call themselves brothers (e.g., 1 Kings 9:13; 20:30–34),2 but here the actual biological fraternal relationship is highlighted. This not only reminds hearers of the biological ties between the Israelites and Edomites, but also emphasizes the monstrous nature of the wrongdoing. This is not just an outrage against an enemy, or even a neighbor; this is against one’s own blood!

This close relationship is accentuated by identifying the brother as “Jacob,” the physical brother of Esau (Gen. 25:25–26), here indicating the nation of Judah, Jacob’s descendants (cf. Joel 3:19). Readers are reminded of previously strained relationships between the two “brothers” (e.g., Num. 20:14), a strain that had by now become a serious rupture. The prophet, by using these three terms in this relationship, starts his punishment justification phase with a powerful thunderclap.

Violent Edom, instead of being cloaked by its pride (v. 3), is now “covered with shame,” just as the flood covered Noah’s violent neighbors (Gen. 7:19–20) or as one might be wrapped in a garment (e.g., Ex. 28:42; Deut. 22:12). The ironic twist is that garments are used most commonly to cover one’s shame (e.g., Gen. 9:23; Hos. 2:9; cf. Gen. 3:7, 21), but here it is shame that covers the nation. Shame is in contrast with honor, an external consideration of worth—an important concept in the Near East, including contemporary Arabic culture. Honor is unlike pride, which is an internal, subjective consideration of worth. Edom is deprived of the former as she already had been deprived of the latter (Obad. 2–3).

Shame is not the only result, however, since shame, while psychologically damaging, is not of itself fatal. Edom will be “destroyed” (the same verb as “cut down” in v. 9, providing yet another verbal tie between this section and the last). The nature of this total destruction (cf. Gen. 9:11; Jer. 11:19) is accentuated here, since it is eternal (“forever”). There is no hope for future restoration since there will be nothing to restore.

The Specific Nature of Edom’s “Violence” (vv. 11–14)

THE MAIN CLAUSE of verse 11 is followed by four subordinate clauses that explain the background events of which Edom is guilty. They seem to contrast Edom, the “you” of the first and last clauses, with the unidentified enemies and foreigners who despoil “his” (i.e., Jacob’s/Judah’s) wealth. The verb “carried off” indicates that military action is involved, with the conqueror removing either people (whether soldiers or citizenry; e.g., 1 Kings 8:46–48) or property (“wealth”; cf. 2 Chron. 21:17). In a society where gates and walls protect cities, open access for nonnative “foreigners” (Deut. 17:15) is not only a disgrace, but it is also dangerous. Jacob’s/Judah’s gates are open, those of Jerusalem as well as those of her other towns.

These strangers, rather than respecting the authority of Judah’s capital or the sanctity of the site of the temple, treat it as a commodity won by the lucky gambler. The instrument determining the winner is the “lot,” most likely a pebble with inscriptions on its surfaces. These indicate various possible outcomes that are determined randomly by throwing, much like dice.3 While used to determine who might receive clothing or property (e.g., Num. 26:55; Ps. 22:18), it is also used in a grammatical form similar to that found here to indicate the division of prisoners of war for exploitation as slaves (Joel 4:3; Nah. 3:10). While no such practice is associated with any specific date in Judean history, the reference of this whole section is probably to the Babylonian exile of Jerusalem and Judah in either 597 or 586 B.C.

The last clause of verse 11 comes as a shock, since Edom, at whom the finger is dramatically pointed through the pronoun “you,” acts the part of enemy and foreigner rather than that of neighbor and brother. She stands aloof, separate but within visual distance of the events taking place. She sees what is happening, so she cannot plead ignorance. She does not take part here, either as participant or as rescuer. But as the next verses show, Edom’s involvement becomes steadily greater, moving from silent complicity to active participant.

The eight sentences in verses 12–14 each begin with a negative command “don’t” (NIV “you should not”). The context of verses 10–11 places the perspective after the actions have already taken place, and numerous translations put this form into the past, even though that is incorrect since, from a grammatical standpoint, it is directed toward the present or the future as a universal prohibition (so translated by ASV, NIV, NASB, NEB). The author may use this form to express the immediacy of the horror to him, placing himself back directly into the time of the action and calling out “STOP!”

The three sentences in verse 12 indicate increasing levels of psychological intimidation that Edom shows. They “look down on” their brother (the regular verb for looking intently at something [rʾh] can also connote gloating [e.g., Ps. 22:18; 37:34]), they “rejoice maliciously” (e.g., Isa. 14:8; Mic. 7:8), and they “open wide the mouth” (which the NIV takes as “boast”). This last phrase more likely indicates scornful laughter rather than boasting (boasting would indicate Edom had something to do with the situation, which is not the case).4

The situation is first called (lit.) “the day of your brother” (the NIV omits “the day of”), picking up terms from verses 10 (“brother Jacob”) and 11 (“day” when they were defeated). It is further defined as “the day of his misfortune,” a term that only occurs here and in Job 31:3, where its use with “misfortune” indicates that this is probably a synonym. This is clarified in the next sentence as the time of their destruction, when the people of Judah were carried off into exile and destroyed as a people (e.g., Jer. 48:46; Amos 1:8); in a true time of great trouble or distress—a common phrase in the prophets (Obad. 14; Nah. 1:7).

Edom moves from mental to physical assault in four of the next five sentences in verses 13–14. They join the foreign enemy of verse 11 by entering Judah’s gate—either that of their capital or a collective noun for the gates of all her towns. Here Judah is called “my people,” a covenant term showing the strong relationship between Yahweh and his people (Lev. 26:11). This should serve as a severe warning to Edom: She is not just attacking little Judah, but also Judah’s covenant partner, the Creator of the universe.

Obadiah uses a synonym for “misfortune” three times in verse 13. “Their disaster” (ʾêdām) refers to that of Judah, but the term also supplies a clear wordplay on the name Edom. Edom looks around from close quarters (cf. v. 12) at Judah’s calamity after they enter her gate.5 But Edom does not stop with observing. She joins in the looting and pillage of their wealth. The verb “stretch out [the hand]” (NIV “seize”) has a peculiar grammatical form,6 but is often used of taking things (with the implied direct object “your hand”; see also 2 Sam. 6:6; cf. Gen. 3:22; Ex. 22:7, 10). The identification of Edom with the enemy of previous verses again accentuates the surprising statement closing Obadiah 11.

The most despicable acts are those in verse 14, where Edom physically lays hands on defeated and fleeing neighbors. She stands waiting (or actively fighting against; cf. Judg. 6:31; 2 Chron. 20:23) refugees. The location where this takes place is unclear (NIV “crossroads”),7 but the heinous nature of the act is not. Literally, they “cut off/down” those who flee, a verb regularly used of putting someone to death (e.g., Jer. 9:20; 44:7), though death is not the only means of elimination and does not work well in this context, since survivors remain in the next sentence. Separation is meant here, not by death but by exile, just as an unclean person is separated from the Israelite camp (cf. Ex. 12:15; cf. the related word for divorce, Deut. 24:1, 3). Edom aids the exile of a defeated people by turning over the defeated survivors (Num. 21:35; Josh. 8:22). Those to whom she commits them are not mentioned, lest they also share the blame, which is here left wholly on Edom.

The Reason for the Warning (v. 15)

THE REASON FOR the warning against this cumulative litany of escalating evil is now given. Edom will receive as she has given. As she exploited Judah’s days of calamity (vv. 11–14), so a day will cause her distress. This is “the day of the LORD,” a time that affects not only Edom but all nations, of which she is a representative. One way this representation might be seen is linguistic, since “Edom” and “humanity” are comprised of the same consonants (ʾdm) in Hebrew.8 The next section of the prophecy expounds the nature and effect of this day, but this verse serves as a hinge, drawing one section to a close while it opens the next.9 Along with the numerous key words sprinkled throughout, this adds to the cumulative evidence for the textual unity of the book.

“The day of the LORD” is not a concept originating with Obadiah, but rather one that started with the earliest of the writing prophets (see Amos 5:18[2x], 20; cf. Isa. 13:6, 9; Ezek. 13:5; 45:35; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Zeph. 1:7, 14[2x]; Mal. 4:5). The origins of the concept are debated, but its contents are clear from what is probably the first of the biblical uses of the phrase—Amos 5:18. It concerns a time of divine intervention in history, bringing good and blessing on those who please God and gloom and destruction on his foes.10 The day is not only an eschatological concept at the end of the age, but a time that is near (Joel 1:15; 3:14; Zeph. 1:7) and approaching quickly (Zeph. 1:14). Its nearness is one of the compelling reasons for the current predicament in which Edom finds itself and why the people are called to reform while there is still a chance to do so.

Yet another surprise awaits the readers in verse 15. The nations called to participate in the campaign against Edom in verse 1 may well have felt themselves on the side of good since they had been given this task. The situation is shown to be otherwise, however, since they, along with Edom, are recipients of judgment (cf. esp. v. 16). Their fate will follow later, since the author returns attention to Edom, who again is addressed in the second person in a comparative sentence. The past, Edom’s prior actions, have a result in the future; they will be done to her.

This response is based on one of the foundations of Israelite law, an appropriate response to a wrong that had been done. Called talion law, or lex talionis, it is also known as “an eye for an eye,” based on its three occurrences (Ex. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:18–21). This is not the only place where Edom is the subject of this type of talion statement (Ezek. 25:12–14; 35:6, 11, 15). The same idea is repeated in the last clause of Obadiah 15. Any advantage that Edom sought from her betrayal does not benefit her after all, but rather costs her.

Bridging Contexts

SHAME AND HONOR. These two concepts, important social constructs in many traditional societies, are described as follows: “If honor signifies respect for being the kind of person and doing the kinds of things the group values, shame signifies, in the first instance, being seen as less than valuable because one has behaved in ways that run contrary to the values of the group.”11 Intrafamilial violence is one of these contrary values in the ancient Near East, and so leads to Edom’s shame. Shame also results from defeat (Jer. 2:36; Ezek. 7:18), losing God’s protection (Deut. 32:5) as a result of treachery (Ps. 25:3). Socially unacceptable practices also are shameful in the later Mediterranean culture of the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:34; Eph. 5:12; 2 Peter 2:2).

Family ties. A powerful Hebrew term indicating relationships is ḥesed, usually translated “love, loving-kindness, mercy.” Most often used to describe the close, covenant relationship that God enjoys with his people (commonly in the Psalms, where over half of its 246 occurrences were found; e.g., Ps. 6:4; 103:4, 8, 11, 17), it also indicates interpersonal relationships as well. This can include king-subject (e.g., 1 Kings 2:7), friendship (e.g., 1 Sam. 20:8), and family relationships (e.g., Gen. 20:13). It is a central ideal for the concept of positive interpersonal regard and mutual support and is aptly rendered in a recent Hebrew dictionary by “loyalty.”12

ḥesed not only has a favorable connotation, but it also connotes permanence and stability—fundamental elements of relationships either of covenant or kin. People enter into covenants in order to establish and maintain this type of relationship, and this term depicts the ideal family life, both of which result in šālôm (“well-being”) for those so related.13 This is the relationship that Edom should have had with its brother, Israel. The concept also transcends time, not being restricted to the ancient world. Loving-kindness resulting in relational peace is also desired for people in the New Testament since it is characteristic of God himself (Gal. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:22; cf. 2 Cor. 13:11).

It is in this context that breach of covenant is treated so seriously. While Edom does breach the relationship with Judah, she even goes a step further. Judah is not a mere neighbor, nor even simply a covenant partner. She is actually family, distant kin through the Jacob-Esau relationship. While one might expect such despicable actions from one’s enemies, one does not expect them from one’s relative! The shock of Cain’s betrayal of Abel in Genesis 3 is echoed by the treachery of which Edom is accused. Honorable behavior has been replaced by acts that should bring shame to the perpetrator.

An eye for an eye. This concept derives from the polar opposite of the relationship that should exist within a family group. What should be the result if kinship love is shattered and harm is caused to a family member? An appropriate response under law is the goal of a legal system. Precedent or procedure delineates the responses that had previously been made to a given situation, showing what might be appropriate in case the situation should arise again.

Mesopotamian law (e.g., the laws of Hammurabi from the eighteenth century B.C.) contains such responses. For example, if a man destroys the sight of another similar person (i.e., one of the same social rank), his sight can be destroyed (law 196).14 These laws are not equitable, however, since a similar injury caused to someone of lower status than the offender results in a lesser punishment (laws 198, 199, 201). Also, if a lower social class injures one above his station, penalties are much more severe (e.g., a slave who strikes a gentleman on his cheek loses his ear [law 205], while one striking an equal is just fined [law 204]).

In the Bible, there are several mentions of such laws concerning “an eye for an eye,” not only in the Old Testament (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21) but also in the words of Jesus (Matt. 5:38). Though not always showing equity, this biblical type of talion law is not harsh and punitive in purpose. While one can respond proportionately to a wrong, one is not required to respond with “an eye for an eye” and can exact a lesser punishment, or none at all. This type of law does not allow the injured party to exact a greater punishment, however, so the law is limiting. This is, therefore, an example of what could appear to be cruel in fact being a grace.15 Even when wronged, one can chose to respond showing the appropriate familial loving-kindness that they themselves did not receive.

Contemporary Significance

SHAME AND SHAMING. It is ironic that Western society has by and large forgotten this concept, while many in the church misuse it. Decisions in business or politics are rarely made on the basis of what is either the honorable or shameful thing to do, since these are only derivable from an outside source of authority or expectation. Since much of Western society is pluralistic, it is felt that it must also be so as regards values. If there is no absolute right and wrong, there are no valid, external criteria to determine shame or honor. It is here that the church needs to return to its biblical heritage, demonstrating that moral absolutes derive from the will of the Creator (e.g., Gen. 2:17), and that how one responds to them not only should bring honor or shame, but also can have a radical impact on the very quality of life itself.

Rather than using honor and shame appropriately, too many in society at large, and even in the church, use them in an illegitimate manner, as a club to force desired actions. If one does not behave “appropriately,” one is shamed into thinking that it is not one’s actions but one’s very being that is faulty. If one does not live by the guidelines established by the church, though not necessarily by Scripture, one is not a Christian. “If you do not give to this ministry until it hurts, you have no faith.” This is coercion by demeaning, an invalidation of loving-kindness and too often a denial of the very image of God in the other.

Variations of violence. Physical assault on another human being is the very opposite of demonstrating familial love. It is both harmful and inappropriate, as reflected in its prohibition and punishment in many national penal codes as well as in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 4:15; Ex. 21:12, 15, 18, 20, 26). This is not all that is included in the list of Edom’s sins in this passage, however. For them the assault is more psychological, starting with neglect and continuing through verbal taunting, culminating in misappropriation not only of goods but finally of freedom. All of this kind of behavior, whether done by the state or by one’s trusted caregivers, leaves scars on the victim that are at least as deep as those left by physical abuse, even though they cannot be seen. These scars are also long-lasting, changing the psyche even after the body has healed.

Judah’s neighbors recognized the psychological power of verbal abuse when they sought to demoralize the builders of Jerusalem’s wall in order to make them stop (Neh. 2:19; 4:1–3). Jesus’ opponents also sought to discourage and discredit him through mockery (e.g., Matt. 20:19; 27:29, 31, 41). This type of psychological warfare is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as “the planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”16 It can be an effective strategy when used against military forces or against the civilian populations. It has been employed throughout history by such figures as Tokyo Rose during the Second World War.17

The use of this particular approach to military engagement might be ethically questionable, but its employ in domestic situations or even in the church is troubling. This means of interaction seeks to attack another’s self-confidence and ultimately his or her self-esteem, just as Edom attacked Israel with her words and actions. Among Erik Erikson’s stages of personality development, the first, usually reached at infancy, is defined as establishing trust.18 Problems at this stage color further development and maturation.

The very first temptation in Scripture aims at this level. “Did God really say …?” is the serpent’s question to the woman in the garden (Gen. 3:1); that is, “Can you trust your God and Creator?” This is an especially insidious “catch–22” when it is a parent who is emotionally abusing a child. They wound young hearts with verbal daggers such as “You never will match up to your brother!” or “I should never have had you in the first place!” Such a child is in a difficult situation, not knowing whether to doubt their own worth or the words of their primary authority figure. This type of abuse is unconscionable since it denies the integrity and worth of a child of God (see Ps. 3:2–3; Isa. 29:16; Matt. 6:26).19

Unfortunately, this type of abuse and coercive attack is not rare even in the church. Rather than providing a place where one can find care and nurture, too often church leaders set their own unbiblical standards to which people must conform if they are to feel welcome or even part of God’s family. People are shamed if they do not conform or if they do not attain the standards set. No matter how well people do, they never are “good enough,” do not live up to “Christian standards,” and are often worn out from the striving.20 Additionally, abuse of power in the church has gone beyond just the verbal to physical and sexual as well. This also leaves severe psychological scarring when an authority one respects and trusts becomes both debased and debasing.21

It is vital for the church to teach that authority at all levels—government, the church, school, or home—is not only worthy of respect, prayer, and obedience (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:1–2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13–14), but is also accountable to God, the absolute authority who places men and women in leadership as he did the judges and kings in Israel. There is no absolute ruler over the church except God himself, and one who seems to be taking over this position by word or action needs to be strictly held to account. There also needs to be education within the church as to what constitutes violence and abuse, what its results are, and what the logical consequences of it should be. Often the behavior is not recognized as being hurtful, so discussion and teaching need to start addressing the issue. The state has taken some initial strides in this area, and it is a shame if the church should be lagging behind.