Here is Jeremiah 49.11 from the ESV:
Concerning Edom.
Thus says the Lord of hosts:
“Is wisdom no more in Teman?
Has counsel perished from the prudent?
Has their wisdom vanished?
Flee, turn back, dwell in the depths,
O inhabitants of Dedan!
For I will bring the calamity of Esau upon him,
the time when I punish him.
If grape-gatherers came to you,
would they not leave gleanings?
If thieves came by night,
would they not destroy only enough for themselves?
But I have stripped Esau bare;
I have uncovered his hiding places,
and he is not able to conceal himself.
His children are destroyed, and his brothers,
and his neighbors; and he is no more.
Leave your fatherless children; I will keep them alive;
and let your widows trust in me.”
Has anyone read any good commentary on Jeremiah 49.11? Here‘s a sermon that says the following: “In Jeremiah 49.11, God promises to provide for the widows and children. Speaking to Israel, God says: ‘Leave (me) your fatherless children; I will keep them alive. Your widows too can depend on me.'” But God is not speaking to Israel. He is speaking judgment against Edom. And yet he says that he loves their orphans and widows and will keep them safe.
What do we do with this? Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for their treatment of the poor, but God exterminated the entire culture. How does this comport with this prophecy and what it promises?
PS: I’m asking for input from Bible believers of some sort. If you want to attack the unity or inspiration of Scripture I’ll try to deal with you respectfully but I’m not interested in getting into an apologetic debate. I don’t have to understand every single aspect of Scripture in order to hold a general faith that it has a unified coherent message. Such faith motivates me to ask questions about passages I don’t understand in the hope to coming to a better understanding of God’s word. So this was not intended as that open a “mic.”
I think we could say several things. Firstly, if I recall correctly, Edom is treated ambiguously in the OT: i.e., it is often Israel’s enemy, but like some nations (e.g., Egypt) it appears that God will at some point in the future be gracious to them. If that is the case it makes sense on one level that God would not completely destroy them.
Secondly, the ban on the Canaanites probably made exceptions for converts, Rahab being the most obvious example. So sometimes God makes exceptions to general rules.
Thirdly, in light of Abraham’s “negotiations” with God, it is clear that Sodom had only 1 righteous man, and he did escape. Perhaps, implicitly, Esau’s widows and orphans were noticeably more righteous than Sodom’s. This of course doesn’t answer the question of small children. In that case I guess I would just appeal to the inscrutability of God’s providence. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy”, and all that.
Expanding on my third point, given covenantal headship, perhaps the (possible) righteousness of Edom’s mothers would be the reason for the preservation of the orphans too.
I don’t have much to add except to note the obvious point that Edom was treated differently from all the non-Abrahamic “nations” because of the Abrahamic lineage. What that actually means here, I don’t know, but I think it has to be kept in mind.
I don’t think the answer can be found in this direction. Only two non-Israelite kingdoms are ever accused of Harlotry: Tyre/Sidon and Ninevah. Edom never receives this accusation of unfaithfulness. I don’t think Abraham’s ancestry counts for a covenantal relationship. Conversion to the God of Israel via a relationship with an agent of Israel (King David/Jonah) is required.
Of course, God was concerned about the women and children and animals before there was such a covenant relationship win the case of Ninevah. But that confuses me more because the problem was that those dependents would have died.
Maybe I’m misremembering, then, but I thought there were places where God specifically distinguished the way Israel should regard the Edomites from the way the Canaanites were to be regarded, and I either assumed or had some reason to think it had something to do with Abraham. But maybe it’s not pertinent here anyway.
Pentamom: I remember passages like that too.
Well, one could say that Edom has a special purpose in God’s plan without saying they have a special covenantal responsibility. Right?
What is it that bothers you specifically with the passage? After I responded it occurred to me that your problem might have been more with how God treated Sodom than with how he treated Edom… am I reading you right?
Deuteronomy 1. But the other material I mentioned seems to raise problems in my mind with extrapolating to this.
Can there be a progression from Sodom to Edom?
Sodom, the poor are oppressed, but everyone gets nuked.
Edom, the poor are oppressed, but the poor survive. God’s grace is increasing.
God did the same with Israel, taking her out of the land, but leaving the poor behind.