All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, We offend not, because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice, even the LORD, the hope of their fathers.
All that found them have devoured them—Judah's enemies (matsahem, מְצָאֵיהֶם, those who found them, encountered them) became their predators. The verb 'akal (אָכַל, devoured, consumed) depicts savage, animalistic destruction. Babylon, Edom, Ammon, and others plundered defenseless Judah during exile (Psalm 137:7, Obadiah 11-14).
And their adversaries said, We offend not—the Hebrew lo ne'esham (לֹא נֶאְשָׁם, we are not guilty, we bear no blame) reveals the enemies' theological rationalization. They justified cruelty by claiming divine authorization. Because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice—technically true (Judah did sin), but their conclusion was wrong. They assumed God's discipline meant they could attack with impunity, ignoring that God judges those who excessively punish His people (Zechariah 1:15: 'I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction').
Even the LORD, the hope of their fathers—this phrase emphasizes the covenant relationship. The Hebrew miqveh (מִקְוֶה, hope, expectation) recalls patriarchal faith (Genesis 12:1-3, 26:24, 28:13-15). God remained Israel's hope despite their sin, and would vindicate them by judging their oppressors.
Historical Context
During Judah's exile (586-538 BC), surrounding nations exploited their weakness. Edom seized southern territory (creating lasting bitterness, Obadiah). Ammon and Moab raided settlements. Babylon destroyed cities and enslaved populations. These nations rationalized their cruelty as divine justice—since Judah sinned, God must approve their actions. This parallels how medieval persecutors justified anti-Semitic pogroms or Christian persecution by claiming Jews were 'Christ-killers' deserving punishment. But God's perspective differs: He disciplines His children while punishing those who exceed His mandate or act from malice rather than justice. Isaiah 10:5-15 illustrates this with Assyria—God used them to judge Israel, then judged Assyria for their arrogance and cruelty. The principle stands: God's discipline of His people doesn't authorize others to oppress them.
Questions for Reflection
How might we wrongly justify harsh treatment of others by claiming they 'deserve it' for their sin?
What is the difference between God's righteous discipline and human cruelty that exceeds God's mandate?
How does recognizing God as 'the hope of their fathers' despite Israel's sin encourage us when we fail?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
All that found them have devoured them—Judah's enemies (matsahem, מְצָאֵיהֶם, those who found them, encountered them) became their predators. The verb 'akal (אָכַל, devoured, consumed) depicts savage, animalistic destruction. Babylon, Edom, Ammon, and others plundered defenseless Judah during exile (Psalm 137:7, Obadiah 11-14).
And their adversaries said, We offend not—the Hebrew lo ne'esham (לֹא נֶאְשָׁם, we are not guilty, we bear no blame) reveals the enemies' theological rationalization. They justified cruelty by claiming divine authorization. Because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice—technically true (Judah did sin), but their conclusion was wrong. They assumed God's discipline meant they could attack with impunity, ignoring that God judges those who excessively punish His people (Zechariah 1:15: 'I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction').
Even the LORD, the hope of their fathers—this phrase emphasizes the covenant relationship. The Hebrew miqveh (מִקְוֶה, hope, expectation) recalls patriarchal faith (Genesis 12:1-3, 26:24, 28:13-15). God remained Israel's hope despite their sin, and would vindicate them by judging their oppressors.