Reason given: violence against Jacob

These verses open the section that spells out Edom’s guilt in concrete terms after earlier lines have already declared judgment is coming. The text first states the charge and penalty in a compact summary (v.10), then slows down to narrate what the “violence” looked like in practice (v.11), setting up the longer list of “do not…” behaviors that follows in the next verses. The logic moves from cause (violence against kin) to consequence (shame and being cut off) to evidence (Edom’s posture during Jerusalem’s fall).

Edom is addressed as a close relative of Israel/Judah, framed as a “brother” people connected to Jacob. The lines assume a real historical crisis in which Jerusalem was breached and plundered by outside forces: property was carried away, the city gates were entered, and Jerusalem was treated like captured loot. In that crisis Edom did not act as a protective neighbor or relative; it stood apart and, in the text’s view, functionally sided with the invaders. The passage reflects ancient expectations of kin loyalty during calamity.

Shared ground

Obadiah 1:10–11 states the reason for Edom’s announced downfall: violence against “your brother Jacob.” That family language presents Edom’s wrongdoing not merely as political rivalry but as betrayal of close kin. The text also makes a direct cause-and-effect claim: because of this violence, shame will cover Edom, and Edom will be “cut off forever.”

Verse 11 then supplies a concrete picture of what that violence looked like. On the day Jerusalem was overrun, outsiders plundered, entered the gates, and divided the city like spoil. Edom “stood on the other side,” and the prophet counts that stance as real involvement: “even you were like one of them.”

Where interpretation differs

Some readers take “stood on the other side” as primarily passive: Edom did not help, did not intervene, and watched from a safe distance. On this view, the passage condemns refusal of kin solidarity during catastrophe, and that refusal is treated as complicity.

Others read the same line as implying active hostility: Edom positioned itself with the attackers, not just away from the victims. On this view, “like one of them” is not only a moral verdict but a description of Edom’s practical alignment with the invaders.

A second, smaller difference concerns how literal the image “cast lots for Jerusalem” is. Some understand it as a concrete practice of dividing property and people by lottery; others see it as a vivid way to say Jerusalem was treated as plunder to be parceled out.

Why the disagreement exists The wording in v.11 reports Edom’s posture (“stood on the other side”) and then draws a conclusion (“like one of them”), but it does not narrate explicit actions by Edom in these two verses beyond standing aloof. That leaves readers weighing how much is implied by the verdict line and by the broader context that follows (which will list further hostile behaviors).

What this passage clearly contributes Explicitly, the passage ties divine judgment to a moral charge: violence against kin. It also expands “violence” to include behavior during a crisis that treats a brother people’s collapse as an opportunity or spectacle. Even without describing Edom as the direct raiders in these verses, the text classifies Edom with the invaders and presents shame and lasting removal as the stated consequence.