John Calvin on Obadiah 1:18

Here again the Prophet meets a doubt, which might come into the mind of each of them; for the Idumeans were flourishing, and their condition was independent, when the Israelites as well as the Jews were led into exile, and Jerusalem with its temple was destroyed. They might under such circumstances despair; but the Prophet shows, that though for a time the house of Jacob seemed to be dead, yet a fire would be kindled, which would consume the Idumeans, though they were then proud of their power and their wealth, and also of the prosperous issue of the victory over the Jews, for they had been enriched, and well as the Assyrians, by the overthrow of their brethren. A similar mode of speaking Isaiah also adopts; though he directs his discourse, not to the Idumeans, but to others, yet his manner of speaking is the same when he says, that God, the light of Israel, would be a fire and a flame to consume the wicked, (Isaiah 29:6.)

But this was fulfilled, when the Lord avenged the cruelty of Edom, though the Jews were then in exile and could not move a finger, when they were without arms, yea, when they were miserable slaves: the Idumeans were even then consumed, by what fire? how was this burning kindled? Even then the house of Jacob and the house of Joseph were like a fire and a flame The cause of this ruin, it is true, did not immediately appear to the Idumeans: but we must here look to the purpose of God. Why did God with so much severity punish the Idemeans? Because he intended by this example to show how much he loved his Church. Since then their cruelty was the cause of ruin to the Idumeans, rightly does the prophet say, that the house of Jacob and the house of Joseph would be like a fire and a flame to consume the Idumeans. And it was not a small solace to the miserable exiles, when they understood, that they were still regarded by God in their depressed condition. Inasmuch then as they were exposed to the reproach and ridicule of all, it pleased God to testify that they were the objects of his care, and that he would, for their sake, destroy whole nations even those who then gloried in their power. We now then see why the Prophet adopted this figurative language. By the house of Joseph, he means as we have said elsewhere the kingdom of Israel; he mentions a part for the whole. It follows —

Obadiah 19-20

19. And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead

19..Et possidebunt meridiem montis Esau, et planietiem Philistim, et possidebunt agros Ephraim et agros Samariae; et Benjamin possidebit Gilead.

20. And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south.

20. Et migratio exercitus hujus filiorum Israel, quod Chananaeorum fuit usque ad Zerphath (vel, qui sunt in Chananaeis,) et migratio Jerusalem, quod in Sepharad, possidebunt (in quam) urbes Australes (vel, meridionales.) The rendering of the first of these two verses is materially different from our version. There are difficulties here which are considerable. Our version in the first part follows Septuagint; and others have followed the same, such as Newcome and Henderson, though Junius and Tremulius and Dathius have rendered it materially the same with Calvin, and certainly more in consistency with the Hebrew text. The following may be considered as a literal version of the whole verse: —

19. And they shall inherit the south, the mount of Esau, And the plain, even that of the Philistines, And they shall inherit the field of Ephraim and the field of Samaria, And of Benjamin, even Gilead.

The word “to possess” does not convey the meaning of ירש, which means to inherit, or to possess by inheritance, as Junius and Tremelius render it — haereditario jure possidebunt — “They shall possess by an hereditary right.” And this exactly corresponds with Calvin’s explanation. Though our version follows the Septuagint in the two first lines, it yet departs from it the two last.

But the 20th verse is the most difficult. “Captivity” is more properly “migration” or transmigration, as Calvin renders it. Then follow the words, החל-חזה לבכי ישראל, literally, in my view, “the beginning, this, to the children of Israel.” So the Septuagint takes the word החל, as meaning “beginning,” and not “host:” it wants the ו except in three copies, and it always has this, when it means a host. I propose the following translation: —

And the migration, which commenced with the children of Israel, Shall inherit what the Canaanites had as far as Sarephath; And the migration from Jerusalem, which are in Saphrad, The cities of the south.

The latter verse is a fuller explanation of the former; and, as is the case commonly in Hebrew, when two things previously mentioned are referred to, the order is reversed, the last particular is mentioned first, so it is here. The verb “inherit” is in the last clause in Hebrew; but the idiom of our language requires it to be in the first. — Ed.