Original Meaning

EDOM FINDS THAT far from being impregnable, after her arrogance is brought low, she is open to attack, even from her allies. She is a prime candidate for such incursions, since she has gained a measure of wealth through overland trade that passed through her via the King’s Highway (Num. 20:17),1 as well as through maritime trade (1 Kings 9:26–28). There are also copper mines in the region.2 A country that has resources but is unable to defend them is ready prey. The Hebrew perfect or affix verb forms used in this section most often indicates completed action, though we can discern no specific episode in Edom’s past to which this might refer.

The prophet begins this section by asking a rhetorical question, thus capturing the people’s attention. He draws on national experiences of looting and plunder, which, though bad enough, are far less than what Edom could expect. The loss is due to habitual sneak-thieves (Gen. 31:39; cf. Ex. 20:15) or more violent, devastating plunderers (Jer. 12:12). Their crimes are accentuated since they happen at night, a time when unsuspecting citizens are not vigilant.

The author highlights the heinous nature of the crime by inserting an almost involuntary exclamation, whose introductory interjection “Oh” can indicate horror (Jer. 51:41) or lament (Isa. 1:21; Jer. 48:17). The exact content of the interjection is unclear, since the Hebrew verb involved (dmh) can mean either “to be similar” (e.g., Ezek. 32:2) or “to be destroyed” (NIV “disaster”; e.g., Isa. 6:5). Either use fits the context, and the author perhaps uses this ambiguous verb on purpose. It is a thing of horror, whether Edom is destroyed or whether they are themselves acting like the plundering thieves (vv. 11–14). This multi-meaning word was possibly selected on purpose since it supplies a wordplay with the sound “Edom” (ʾdm).3

These plunderers limit their haul, taking only enough to satisfy their needs (cf. Ex. 36:7) and not completely stripping their victims. At least these brigands have boundaries, and these are understood by the hearers, who are expected to answer the rhetorical question in Obadiah 5a-b in the affirmative. The same holds for the question in verse 5c, which is similar in structure. Here it is common agricultural practice, not criminal activity, that is called upon for support.

One staple of Edom’s crops is the grape (cf. Num. 20:17). According to Israelite regulations, the poor are to be provided for through leaving gleanings, or unharvested portions, for their use (Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–22; cf. Ruth 2). Even though these Israelite laws did not hold in Edom, agricultural practices were similar, and nonmechanized harvesting results in incomplete harvests even if leaving some produce was not mandated. Both of these pictures, whether of violence or of agriculture, show at least a small portion remaining.

By contrast, Edom in its punishment is completely denuded (v. 6). Even the stores hidden away in her rocky nooks and crannies (v. 3) will be ferreted out, purposefully sought for (cf. Gen. 31:34–35), and, by implication, plundered.4 The nation is identified by a different name here, that of Esau, its founder (Gen. 36), a name common in the rest of the book (Obad. 8, 9, 18[2x], 19, 21). It is referred to in this verse as both singular (“his treasures”) and plural (“they will be ransacked”). This could indicate that it is being used as a collective noun that at times refers to a unit and at other times to a collection of individuals within that unit (cf. 1 Kings 18:39, where one noun governs both singular and plural verbs).

Rather than criminals or ancient enemies plaguing Edom, it is her former friends and allies who turn against her. They are identified in Hebrew literally as covenant partners (“allies”; lit., “those of your covenant”), “friends” (lit., “those of your peace”; Jer. 38:22; cf. Ps. 41:9; Jer. 20:10), and “your bread.” The latter term appears odd in the context. Poetically parallel to the two previously mentioned phrases, it must indicate a positive relationship with Edom, in contrast to some of the early versions that revocalized the text to read “those who do battle with you.”5 In Psalm 49:9, “those of your peace” were synonymously parallel with “those who eat your bread,” so this could be a scribal error where the verb “eat” dropped out accidentally, or else “those of,” using the first two phrases, could be understood to apply here as well.6 In the Old Testament, meals (or sharing bread) often indicate an amicable, even covenantal relationship (e.g., Abram and Melchizedek, Gen. 14:18; Abimelech and Isaac, 26:28–31; Jacob and Laban, Gen. 31:51–54; Yahweh and the Israelite elders, Ex. 24:11; Israel and Gibeon, Josh. 9:14–15; David and Abner, 2 Sam. 3:20–21; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–25).7

Rather than receiving the support expected from friends, Edom finds them to be enemies. The Edomites are forcefully expelled (cf. Gen. 3:23; Jer. 15:1) from their dwellings and driven to the periphery of their land. Like their own deceitful heart (Obad. 3), former friends deceitfully overpower Edom—an example of a hendiadys in which two nouns, “deceive” and “overpower,” make up one concept (e.g., “kith and kin”) rather than two separate actions. Often used in terms of conflict (e.g., Judg. 16:5; 1 Sam 17:9), the erstwhile friends overpower Edom, driving her out of her holdings.

The third response, to “set a trap,” is unclear because of the difficulty with the Hebrew, which in the three other occurrences of this word (Jer. 30:13; Hos. 5:13[2x]) means “sore,” which is difficult in this context. The NIV, admitting its uncertainty, follows some of the ancient versions.8 An alternative proposal that does not require textual emendation derives the word from a Hebrew verb “be strange, foreign,” resulting in a noun “place of foreigners.”9 The next term “under you” (NIV “for you”) could equally mean “in place of you,”10 indicating that foreigners replace Edomites in their abandoned territory, a practice of exile and resettlement common for ancient Near Eastern conquerors (cf. 2 Kings 17:6, 24–26).

The NIV and NRSV view the final clause in verse 7 as referring to the trap that is undetectable. The suggested reading above makes this unworkable, and the grammar of the Hebrew also tells against this. A better rendering is “there does not exist any understanding in it/him” (so, e.g., Vulgate, KJV, NASB; cf. Deut. 32:28), referring either to “in Esau” (Obad. 6) or “in the place of foreigners.” In either case, the self-vaunted wisdom of Edom, picked up in the next section of the prophecy, is unknown to the new inhabitants of their land. This is similar to Jeremiah’s reference to Shiloh (Jer. 7:12), which in the past had been a place of significance but has subsequently been forgotten.

Bridging Contexts

COVENANTS. In the ancient Near East, nations related themselves to each other through covenants. At times, major regional powers allied themselves with each other as equals for mutual protection and support. Documentation of this kind of relationship exists between, for example, the Egyptians and the Hittites, who lived in what is now Turkey. During the thirteenth century B.C. these two countries allied themselves by treaty so they could look after other concerns, such as the encroaching “Sea Peoples” (including the Philistines), rather than having to worry about each other.11 In the Old Testament, there seem to be hints of this kind of treaty between Israel and the Midianites (Ex. 18),12 as well as the relationship inferred here between Edom and her unnamed allies.

Other treaties were imposed by conquerors, when a mightier nation subdued a smaller neighbor. Israel entered into this kind of relationship with the Gibeonites (Josh. 9–10), as did David with surrounding nations when he established his empire. He conquered some and intimidated others into becoming vassal tributaries (2 Sam. 8:1–14; cf. 3:3; 5:11). The relationship between Israel and her God is also pictured in covenant terms: He is their Great King and they are his vassal servants (e.g., 1 Sam. 12:12; Ps. 68:24; 95:3; cf. Matt. 5:35).

This covenant concept continues into the New Testament, but in a modified form. There the divine Great King is incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 21:5; 27:11, 29), and his rule is over all humanity, not just Israel (Rev. 15:3–4; cf. Ps. 47:7). He rules through service and suffering (e.g., Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:25) rather than through the use of physical power.

Common to covenant relationships is mutual fidelity; covenant partners are to show commitment to each other, whether the relationship is coerced or voluntary. Breach of such a relationship is an egregious wrong and runs counter to the practice of covenant-making. It is not unheard of, however, since most covenant documents contain punishments for such breaches (e.g., Deut. 28:15–68). It is in this context that Edom is called to task for her behavior toward Judah. As she is biologically kin to Israel and also geographically close, their relationship should be one of covenant loyalty, but instead it is one of betrayal (cf. Obad. 10–15). Her punishment is to suffer such covenant betrayal herself. Even her friends and partners will turn against her in ways threatening her very existence.

Contemporary Significance

HITTING YOU WHERE it hurts. Judah and her neighbors were mainly agricultural societies, depending for livelihood and sustenance on what crops and animals their people could raise for their own use and for the market. This is why theft of produce was such a serious thing, threatening family and nation (cf. Judg. 6:11). A sign of covenant blessing was an abundance of produce and crops (Deut. 28:11), but a result for breach of covenant was their loss (vv. 18, 29–30, 33).

Today, most people depend on things other than agriculture for their livelihood, so the examples from this sphere have less impact than they did to Obadiah’s original audience. The equivalent today is the pink slip (notice that one’s job is coming to an end), an all-too-common occurrence with the changing economic climate and multinational shifts of manufacturing sites. The compounded threat of loss of retirement and medical benefits because of either corrupt financial practices or the threatened collapse of the Social Security system creates the same anxiety today as did loss of crop and treasure. The corporate or governmental “friend” that is expected to be available might prove illusory or even be an enemy.

Biblical answers to this are difficult, especially since even the church has become dependent on the state. Some clergy in the United States are able to opt out of the Social Security system, providing for retirement and disability needs through other means. This is an option worth exploring if one is convinced that responsibility in this area should lie elsewhere than with the government. Much of this type of care is provided by the community, whether the people of Israel in the Old Testament, who dispersed God’s covenant bounty equitably through such things as leaving part of the crops for the poor (e.g., Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–21), or the church in the New Testament, through distribution of wealth (e.g., Acts 2:44–45). Some evangelicals in the past decades have been challenging the church to examine its role not only in economic assistance but also in decrying economic exploitation.13 In terms drawn from Obadiah, they are asking whether the church is fulfilling the role of covenant partner by sharing God’s provisions with others, or covenant breaker by denying these provisions to others.