Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · Obadiah 第1章

Edom's Ruin, setting forth, in the first place, the purpose of God to make Edom small through the medium of hostile nations, and to hurl it down from the impregnable heights of its rocky castles (Obadiah 1:1-4); and then depicting, in lively colours, how it will be plundered by enemies, forsaken and deceived by allies and friends, and perish in helplessness and impotence (Obadiah 1:5-9). Obadiah 1:1 contains, in addition to the brief heading, the introduction to the prophecy, which gives in a brief form the substance of the first section: “Thus hath the Lord Jehovah spoken of Edom, A report have we heard from Jehovah, and a messenger is sent among the nations: Up, and let us arise against it in battle.” The first clause, לאדום ... כּה אמר , does not harmonize with what follows, inasmuch as we should expect it to be followed with a declaration made by Jehovah Himself, instead of which there follow simply tidings heard from Jehovah. The difficulty cannot be removed by assuming that these introductory words are spurious, or were added by a later prophet (Eichhorn, Ewald, and others); for the interpolator could not fail to observe the incongruity of these words just as well as Obadiah. Moreover, לאדום could not be omitted from the opening, because it is required not only by the suffix in עליה (against her), but also by the direct addresses in Obadiah 1:2. Nor is the assumption that the prophet suddenly altered the construction any more satisfactory, or that the declaration of Jehovah announced in כּה אמר וגו (“thus saith the Lord”) commences in Obadiah 1:2, and that the words from שׁמוּעה to the end of the verse form an explanatory parenthesis to כּה אמר וגו ot sisehtnera . For such an alteration of the construction at the very beginning of the address is hardly conceivable; and the parenthetical explanation of the last three clauses of Obadiah 1:1 is at variance with their contents, which do not form by any means a subordinate thought, but rather the main thought of the following address. No other course remains, therefore, than to take these introductory words by themselves, as Michaelis, Maurer, and Caspari have done, in which case כה אמר does not announce the actual words of Jehovah in the stricter sense, but is simply meant to affirm that the prophet uttered what follows jussu Jehovae , or divinitus monitus , so that כה אמר is really equivalent to diber זה הדּבר אשׁר דּבּר in Isaiah 16:13, as Theodoret has explained it. לאדום , not “to Edom,” but with reference to, or of, Edom. On the occurrence of Y e hōvâh after 'Adōnâi , see the comm. on Genesis 2:4. What Obadiah saw as a word of the Lord was the tidings heard from the Lord, and the divine message sent to the nations to rise up for war against Edom. The plural שׁמענוּ ( we have heard) is communicative. The prophet includes himself in the nation (Israel), which has heard the tidings in him and through him. This implies that the tidings were of the greatest interest to Israel, and would afford it consolation. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 49:14) has removed the pregnant character of the expression, by introducing the singular שׁמעתּי (I have heard). The next clause, “and an ambassador,” etc., might be taken, as it has been by Luther, as a statement of the import of the news, namely, that a messenger had been sent; inasmuch as in Hebrew a sentence is frequently co-ordinated with the preceding one by Vav cop., when it ought really to be subordinated to it so far as the sense is concerned, from a simple preference for the parallelism of the clauses. But the address gains in force, if we take the clause as a co-ordinate one, just as it reads, viz., as a declaration of the steps already taken by the Lord for carrying out the resolution which had been heard of by report. In this case the substance of the report is not given till the last clause of the verse; the summons of the ambassador sent among the nations, “to rise up for war against Edom,” indicating at the same time the substance of the report which Israel has heard. The perfect shullâch with qâmets in the pause, which is changed by Jeremiah into the less appropriate passive participle kal , corresponds to שׁמענוּ , and expresses in prophetic form the certainty of the accomplishment of the purpose of God. The sending of the messenger ( tsı̄r as in Isaiah 18:2) among the nations ( ב as in Judges 6:35) is an assurance that the nations will rise up at the instigation of Jehovah to war against Edom (compare Isaiah 13:17; Jeremiah 51:1, Jeremiah 51:11). The plural nâqūmâh (let us rise up), in the words of the messenger, may be explained on the simple ground that the messenger speaks in the name of the sender. The sender is Jehovah, who will also rise up along with the nations for war against Edom, placing Himself at their head as leader and commander (compare Joel 2:11; Isaiah 13:4-5). עליה , against Edom, construed as a land or kingdom, gener. faem. The fact that it is the nations generally that are here summoned to make war upon Edom, and not only one nation in particular, points at once to the fact that Edom is regarded as a type of the power of the world, and its hostility to God, the destruction of which is here foretold.

return to '

In the midst of this calamity Edom will be forsaken and betrayed by its allies, and will also be unable to procure any deliverance for itself by its own understanding. The allies send Edom even to the border. The meaning of this is not that they will not receive the Edomitish fugitives, but drive them back to the frontier, so that they fall into the hands of the enemy (Hitzig and others); for the suffix ך cannot refer to the small number of fugitives from Edom who have escaped the massacre, but applies to Edom as a nation. The latter seeks for help and support from their allies, - namely, through the medium of ambassadors whom it sends to them. But the ambassadors, and in their persons the Edomites themselves, are sent back to the frontier by all the allies, because they will not entangle themselves in the fate of Edom. Sending to the frontier, however, is not to be understood as signifying that the allies “send their troops with them as far as the frontier, and then order them to turn back,” as Michaelis supposes; for “if the allies were unwilling to help, they would hardly call out the army to march as far as the frontier” (Hitzig). Nor is this implied either in שׁלּחוּך or השּׁיאוּך ; for shillēăch means to send away, to dismiss, and both here and in Genesis 12:20 to send across the frontier. This was a deception of the expectation of the Edomites, although the words “have deceived thee” belong, strictly speaking, to what follows, and not to the conduct of the allies. אנשׁי שׁלמך , an expression taken from Psalms 41:10, both here and in Jeremiah 38:22 (cf. Jeremiah 20:10), the men or people with whom thou didst live in peace, are probably neighbouring Arabian tribes, who had made commercial treaties with the Edomites. They deceived, or rather overpowered, Edom. יכלוּ is the practical explanation and more precise definition of השּׁיאוּ .

But the answer to the question whether the overpowering was carried out by cunning and deception (Jeremiah 20:10; Jeremiah 38:22), or by open violence (Genesis 32:26; Psalms 129:2), depends upon the explanation given to the next sentence, about which there are great diversities of opinion, partly on account of the different explanations given of לחמך , and partly on account of the different renderings given to מזור . The latter occurs in Hosea 5:13 and Jeremiah 30:13 in the sense of a festering wound or abscess, and the rabbinical commentators and lexicographers have retained this meaning in the passage before us. On the other hand, the older translators have here ἔνεδρα (lxx), תקלא , offence, σκάνδαλον (Chald.), k e mi'nā' , insidiae (Syr.), Aq. and Symm. σύνδεσμος and ἐπίδεσις , Vulg. insidiae ; and hence the modern rendering, they lay a snare, or place a trap under thee. But this rendering cannot be vindicated etymologically, since zūr (= zârar ) does not mean to bind, but to press together or squeeze out. Nor can the form mâzōr be taken as a contraction of m e zōrâh , as Hitzig supposes, since this is derived from zârâh , to strew or scatter. And no weight is to be attached to the opinion of Aquila with his literal translation, for the simple reason that his rendering of Hosea 5:13 is decidedly false. Ewald and Hitzig prefer the rendering “net;” but this, again, cannot be sustained either from the expression m e zorâh hâresheth in Proverbs 1:17 (Hitzig), or from the Syriac, m e zar , extendit (Ges. Addid. ad thes. p. 96). The only meaning that can be sustained as abscess or wound. We must therefore adhere to the rendering, “they make thy bread a wound under thee.” For the proposal to take lachm e khâ (thy bread) as a second genitive dependent upon 'anshē (the men), is not only opposed to the accents and the parallelism of the members, according to which 'anshē sh e lōmekhâ (the men of thy peace) must conclude the second clause, just as 'anshē b e rı̄thekhâ (the men of thy covenant) closes the first; but it is altogether unexampled, and the expression 'anshē lachm e khâ is itself unheard of. For this reason we must not even supply 'anshē to lachm e khâ from the previous sentence, or make “the men of thy bread” the subject, notwithstanding the fact that the lxx, the Chald., the Syr., and Jerome have adopted this as the meaning. Still less can lachm e khâ stand in the place of אכלי לחמך (they that eat thy bread), as some suppose. Lachm e khâ can only be the first object to yâsı̄mū , and consequently the subject of the previous clause still continues in force: they who befriended thee make thy bread, i.e., the bread which they ate from thee or with thee, not “the bread which thou seekest from them” (Hitzig), into a wound under thee, i.e., an occasion for destroying thee. We have not to think of common meals of hospitality here, as Rashi, Rosenmüller, and others do; but the words are to be taken figuratively, after the analogy of Psalms 41:10, which floated before the prophet's mind, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up the heel against me,” as denoting conspiracies on the part of those who were allied to Edom, and drew their own sustenance from it, the rich trading nation, to destroy that very nation which was now oppressed by its foes. The only difficulty is in the word תּחתּיך , under thee, inasmuch as the meaning “without thy knowledge” ( clam te ), which Vatablus and Drusius adopt, cannot be sustained, and least of all from 2 Samuel 3:12. We must connect תּחתּיך closely with מזור , in this sense, that the wound is inflicted upon the lower part of the body, to express its dangerous nature, inasmuch as wounds upon which one sits or lies are hard to heal. Consequently יכוּ לך (they prevail against thee) is to be understood as denoting conquest, not by an unexpected attack or open violence, but by cunning and deceit, or by secret treachery. The last clause, אין תּבוּנה וגו , does not give the reason why the thing described was to happen to the Edomites (Chald., Theod.); nor is it to be connected with mâzōr as a relative clause (Hitzig), or as explanatory of תּחתּיך , “to thee, without thy perceiving it, or before thou perceivest it” (Luther and L. de Dieu). The very change from the second person to the third ( בּו ) is a proof that it introduces an independent statement, - namely, that in consequence of the calamity which thus bursts upon the Edomites, they lose their wonted discernment, and neither know what to do nor how to help themselves (Maurer and Caspari). This thought is expanded still further in Obadiah 1:8, Obadiah 1:9.

return to '

“And the house of Jacob will be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble. And they will burn among them, and consume them, and there will not be one left to the house of Esau, for Jehovah hath spoken.” This verse not only resumes the discussion of the retribution, so that it corresponds to Obadiah 1:15, but it also affirms, as an appendix to Obadiah 1:17, that Edom is to be utterly destroyed. By the “house of Jacob” Judah is intended, as the co-ordination of the house of Joseph, i.e., of the ten tribes, clearly shows. The assumption that “house of Jacob” signifies all Israel, in connection with which that portion is also especially mentioned, which might be supposed to be excluded (Rosenmller, Hengstenberg, and others), is at variance with such passages as Isaiah 46:3, “the house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel,” where the reason assigned for the co-ordination is not applicable. Obadiah uses the name Jacob for Judah because ever since the division of the kingdoms Judah alone has represented the people of God, the ten tribes having fallen away from the kingdom of God for a time. In the future, however, Judah and Israel are to be united again (vid., Hosea 2:2; Ezekiel 37:16; Jeremiah 31:18), and unitedly to attack and overcome their foes (Isaiah 11:13-14). Obadiah distinctly mentions the house of Joseph, i.e., of the ten tribes, in this passage and in this alone, for the purpose of guarding against the idea that the ten tribes are to be shut out from the future salvation. For the figure of the flame of fire which consumes stubble, see Isaiah 5:24 and Isaiah 10:17. For the expression, “for Jehovah hath spoken,” compare Joel 3:8.

return to '