Obadiah 1:17-21

17-21. — ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF JEHOVAH ON MOUNT ZION.

(17) Deliverance. — Better, as in margin, the fugitives of Israel who have survived the recent calamity. This is clear from Isaiah 10:20, where phelêytah is in parallelism with shear=remnant, as well as Joel 2:32; Hebrews 3:5, where it is parallel to serîdîm, also remnant. (Comp. also Judges 21:17; 2 Chronicles 20:24.) While the judgment is falling upon all the heathen nations, Mount Zion will be an asylum for all the Israelites who had fled for safety, and been scattered and dispersed.

Holiness. — See margin. Zion was once more to become a sanctuary, and those who inhabited it holy. (Comp. Isaiah 6:13.)

Their possessions. — Whose — their own that had been lost, or those of the nations? The Vulgate, following the LXX., read “those who had possessed them,” indicating subjugation of the heathen tribes. But the parallelism is undoubtedly in favour of the other view — the remnant of Israel would be saved, and regain their old possessions. Having stated this, the prophet goes on to describe what would happen to Edom and its possessions.

(18) Though, in the preceding verse, “house of Jacob” would seem to embrace all the restored Israel, without any reference to the distinction of the two kingdoms, in this verse, being opposed to “house of Joseph,” it requires to be taken as synonymous with Judah; as in Isaiah 46:3 : “Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel.” (Comp. Psalms 77:15; Psalms 80:1; Psalms 81:4.)

For the expressive imagery, comp. Nahum 1:10; Isaiah 27:4; Isaiah 10:17.

Any remaining. — Heb., sarîd, a fugitive. The LXX. must have had a different text, as they read here πυροϕόρος, i.e., wheat-bearer, apparently (as the various reading shows) a mistake for πυρϕόρος, fire-bearer.

(19) After the destruction of the heathen the new kingdom of Zion will be restored, at least as far as the ancient territories which are at present held by the Idumæans, to the north and west of the original Edom, are concerned. Three divisions are enumerated of the house of Jacob (i.e., Judah; see Note, Obadiah 1:18), and separate mention made of Benjamin.

They of the south. — Those at present occupying the south — Heb., negev — i.e., the dry parched country forming the southern portion of the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:21), are to inhabit Mount Esau: i.e., are to extend their territory to its extreme south-eastern limit; they of the Shephelah, i.e., the western lowland on the Mediterranean, are to seize on the neighbouring Philistia, at present Idumæan; while they at present confined to the hill-country in the north and centre of Judah are to spread themselves over Ephraim and Samaria. Our present Hebrew text leaves the subject of this latter clause uncertain, as it is in the Authorised Version “they.” But the LXX., τὸ ὄρος indicates that hahor=the mountain, has dropped out, a conjecture which is abundantly borne out by the geographical arrangement of the localities in the passage. Benjamin, for which no room is left on the west of Jordan, is to push across it into Gilead instead. This prophetic vision recalls Genesis 28:14.

(20) But there are still others of the restored Israel, besides those comprised within the ancient territory of Judah. The prophetic survey proceeds northwards, and we get a general idea from this verse that there were exiles, who had found refuge on the north-western and northern boundaries of ancient Palestine, who would settle themselves partly on the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, partly in the south country, whose inhabitants had pushed downwards into Edom. But while this is plainly its general drift, the text is full of difficulties.
It is difficult to attach an intelligible meaning to “the captivity (i.e., exiles, galuth; comp. Isaiah 20:4; Isaiah 45:13) of this host of (literally, to) the sons of Israel.”

The prophet seems to allude to some body of exiles, including himself, who had escaped from the army. But there is a difference of opinion among grammarians as to the identification of chël with chayil = host. Ewald takes it to be a dialectic variety of chol = sand, generally of the sea-coast; and so here “the banished ones of this coast,” where the prophet was at the time. The rendering chël=trench, or fortification, which some adopt, is out of the question. The LXX. have τῆς μετοικεσίας ἡ�, but whether ἀρχὴ = power, or beginning, with allusion to the first dispersion of exiles, cannot be determined. Another difficulty arises with respect to the words that of the Canaanites — asher Khenaanîm (literally, which Canaanites). To make it an object, as in our version, the particle eth is wanted, and Ewald, instead of asher, reads eth-ari = the cities of. That some change has taken place in the text appears from the LXX., who have γῆ, the land (Heb., erets). Keil, keeping the present reading, renders, “And the captives of this army of the sons of Israel (will take possession) of what Canaanites there are as far as Zarephath...” Pusey: “And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel which are among the Canaanites as far as Zarephath,” making it joint subject with “the captives of Jerusalem” to “shall possess the cities of the south,” which is in accordance with the construction of the LXX. and the Syriac. But the absence of the preposition be before Khenaanim seems to make this rendering impossible. The Hebrew as it stands can only mean “which are Canaanites.” The choice lies between Ewald’s emendation of the text and Keil’s interpretation. The Jews understand by Zarephath the country of France.

The last clause is better in the text than in the margin: “The exiles from Jerusalem who are in Sepharad shall take possession of the cities of the south.” The only difficulty is in the name Sepharad, a place never mentioned elsewhere, and which has not yet been satisfactorily identified. The various conjectures have been —
1. That of the LXX., ἕως Ἐϕραθὰ followed by the Arabic translation, probably from reading Sepharath. Jerome, in his Commentary on Obadiah, appears to have understood this reading as pointing to the Hebrew Phrath, since he translates, Transmigratio Jerusalem usque Euphratem.

2. The reading of the Vulg., quœ in Bosphoro est, was derived by Jerome from a Jewish instructor, who treated the particle in Bisparad as part of the name, and rejected the final d altogether.

3. The Targum Jonathan, the Peshito-Syriac, and from them the modern Jews, interpret Sepharad as Spain (Ispamia or Ispania); hence Sephardim, a name for the Spanish Jews.

4. Sipphara in Mesopotamia. But this is more probably identified with Sepharvaim.

5. Sardis, from a supposed connection with ÇPaRaD. or (Çparda, mentioned in the great arrow-headed inscription of Nakshi Rustam, in a list of names of tribes between Cappadocia and Ionia, which De Sacy identified with Sepharad, and Lassen with Sardis.

6. Sparta. Some relations there were between the Jews after the captivity and the Lacedæmonians (see 1Ma. 12:2, seqq., 14:16, seqq., 15:23). Possibly there was a colony of the exiles in Sparta.

7. Ewald conjectures Sepharam instead of Sepharad, and finds the place in Shefa Amar, a well-known place a few miles south-east of Acco. The general drift of the passage seems to require some place not far distant from, and in the direction of, Zarephath. The only serious objection to this conjecture is the fact that Shefa Amar was within the boundaries of Palestine, and therefore those who had taken refuge there would not strictly be exiles. But it is distinctly stated that these were “of Jerusalem,” and they might well be called refugees, since they had had to go so far north to find an asylum.

(21) Saviours. — Comp. Judges 3:9; Judges 3:15; Nehemiah 9:27. The Jewish interpreters understood by “saviours” men like the judges of old, Gideon, Barak, &c., who will chastise the Christians and subdue them. The Mount of Esau is of course, according to this interpretation, Rome.

And the kingdom shall be the Lord’s. — See the reference in margin to Zechariah, who gives this anticipation of the pure form of the theocracy in its wider extent. But here, too, the prophetic look over the world seems to extend far beyond Judah and the fortunes of the Jewish race, and as the vision widens Zion and Edom both retire from sight; both are comprehended in the one Divine kingdom, and God is all in all. For the bearing of this conclusion to the prophecy on its date, see Excursus.