Genesis · Chapter 36

V. 1. Who is Edom-That name perpetuated the remembrance of the foolish bargain he made, when he sold his birth-right for that red pottage.

Verse 1. These are the generations of Esau] We have here the genealogy of Esau in his sons and grandsons, and also the genealogy of Seir the Horite. The genealogy of the sons of Esau, born in Canaan, is related Genesis 36:1-8; those of his grandchildren born in Seir,Genesis 36:9-19; those of Seir the Horite,Genesis 36:20-30. The generations of Esau are particularly marked, to show how exactly God fulfilled the promises he made to him, Genesis 25:29-34; Genesis 27:30-40; and those of Seir the Horite are added, because his family became in some measure blended with that of Esau.

Verse 1. These are the generations of Esau — Esau has the honour of having an account of his posterity recorded, for the sake of his progenitors, Abraham and Isaac, and because the Edomites, his descendants, were neighbours to Israel, and their genealogy would be of use to cast light on the following relations of what passed between them. Hereby also is shown more fully the performance of the promise to Abraham, that he should be the father of many nations, of that declaration made to Rebekah, when she inquired of the Lord, “Two nations are in thy womb,” and of the blessing given to Esau by Isaac, Thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth. Who is Edom — That name perpetuated the remembrance of the foolish bargain he made when he sold his birthright for that red pottage.

Verse 1. The generations. The critics complain of the difficulties in this genealogy, arising from the same person having two names, a custom common to many nations. The ancients assumed new titles on propitious events.

Verse 2. His wives] It appears that Esau’s wives went by very different names. Aholibamah is named Judith, Genesis 26:34; Adah is called Bashemath in the same place; and she who is here called Bashemath is called Mahalath, Genesis 28:9. These are variations which cannot be easily accounted for; and they are not of sufficient importance to engross much time. It is well known that the same persons in Scripture are often called by different names. See the Table of variations, chap. xxv., where there are some slight examples. See Clarke on “Genesis 25:18”. Anah the daughter of Zibeon] But this same Anah is said to be the son of Zibeon, Genesis 36:24, though in this and Genesis 36:14 he is said to be the daughter of Zibeon. But the Samaritan, the Septuagint, (and the Syriac, in Genesis 36:2,) read son instead of daughter, which Houbigant and Kennicott contend to be the true reading. Others say that daughter should be referred to Aholibamah, who was the daughter of Anah, and granddaughter of Zibeon. I should rather prefer the reading of the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Syriac, and read, both here and in Genesis 36:14, “Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the SON of Zibeon,” and then the whole will agree with Genesis 36:24.

Ver. 2. Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon; that is, grand daughter or descendant, it being the manner of the ancients to trace their line back to a prince.

Ver. 3. Bashemath. She is called Mahalath in Genesis 28:9.

Ver. 4. And Adar bare to Esau Eliphaz. The rabbins are much divided here. Very many think that Eliphaz was the ancestor of Job, and grandfather of Eliphaz, king of Teman, Job’s friend;—and thus they make Job to be the fifth from Abraham. But others think that Job descended in the line of Nachor.

V. 6. Esau had begun to settle among his wife’s relations in Seir, before Jacob came from Padan-aram, Genesis 32:3. Isaac it is likely, had sent him thither, that Jacob might have the clearer way to the possession of the promised land: yet probably during the life of Isaac, Esau had still some effects remaining in Canaan; but after his death, he wholly withdrew to mount Seir, took with him what came to his share of his father’s personal estate, and left Canaan to Jacob, not only because he had the promise of it, but because he saw, if they should both continue to thrive, as they had begun, there would not be room for both.

Verse 6. Esau took his wives, &c.] So it appears that Esau and Jacob dwelt together in Canaan, whither the former removed from Seir, probably soon after the return of Jacob. That they were on the most friendly footing this sufficiently proves; and Esau shows the same dignified conduct as on other occasions, in leaving Canaan to Jacob, and returning again to Mount Seir; certainly a much less fruitful region than that which he now in behalf of his brother voluntarily abandoned.

Verse 6. Esau took his wives and all his substance, &c. — Although he had begun to settle among his wives’ relations in Seir, before Jacob came from Padan-aram, Genesis 32:3; yet, it is probable, that during the life of Isaac, he had still some effects remaining in Canaan; but after his death, he wholly withdrew to mount Seir, took with him what came to his share of his father’s personal estate, and left Canaan to Jacob, not only because Jacob had the promise of it, but because he saw, if they should both continue to thrive, as they had begun, there would not be room for both.

Ver. 6. From the face of his brother Jacob. Esau, who seems to have approached Isaac in his last moments, returned to mount Seir, or Edom, for the camps of the two brothers were too numerous to dwell together.

6. All his substance — Esau had vast possessions as well as Jacob, possessions acquired in the land of Canaan. He had not been idle while Jacob was in Mesopotamia. Went into the country — Hebrews, went to the land, that is, the land of Edom. From the face of his brother Jacob — When this occurred we have no means of knowing, but probably about the time of Jacob’s movement southwards from Shechem. Esau knew the land of Canaan was promised to Jacob, and he would not seek to hinder his occupation and free enjoyment of his own inheritance. THE SONS AND GRANDSONS OF ESAU AS HEADS OF TRIBES, 9-14. Compare the parallel list in 1 Chronicles 1:35-37. The names here given are evidently those of the tribe-fathers of the nation of the Edomites in Mount Seir. They embrace five sons and ten grandsons, including Amalek the son of Eliphaz by his concubine. It is impossible and unnecessary now to trace the subsequent history and settlement of these several tribes. In the name of Eliphaz, the Temanite, mentioned in the Book of Job, (Job 2:11,) we may trace the name of the son and grandson of Esau perpetuated in the name of a city founded by this Teman, whose family made frequent use of the ancestral names. Teman was famed for wisdom. Jeremiah 49:7. This Amalek is believed to be the tribe-father of the Amalekites, who are so frequently mentioned in the subsequent history of Israel. They attacked the Israelites on their exodus from Egypt to Sinai, (Exodus 17:8,) and became a powerful and famous tribe. From his being the son of a concubine, Amalek may have found little sympathy from his brethren, and early became separated from them, founding by himself an independent tribe. The mention of the “country of the Amalekites” in Genesis 14:7, does not necessarily imply that there was a nation of Amalekites at that time, but is to be explained as the natural designation of a territory thus known at the time of the writer.

THE DUKES OF ESAU, 15-19.

Here the chief tribe-fathers of the Edomites are named again, under the title of dukes, Hebrews, alluphim, (µypwla,) phylarchs, chiefs, or princes. These were all military chieftains, great patriarchal sheiks, who were celebrated by their descendants not merely as fathers but as heroes. As being merely a presentation of the same persons under a different title, they are omitted from the list in 1 Chronicles which proceeds with the sons of Seir.

SONS OF SEIR THE HORITE, 20-30.

The Horites were the original occupants of Mount Seir, (Genesis 14:6,) but it appears from Deuteronomy 2:12, 22, that they were subdued by the sons of Esau, and in all probability the remnants of their tribes intermarried with the Edomites, and became so identified with them as to be thus included in this genealogy. The seven sons of Seir the Horite are all mentioned again in verses 29 and 30 as the dukes of the Horites, corresponding with the sons and dukes of Esau already given. On the identification of some of these names there are differences of opinion. Timna, in verse 22, is generally allowed to be the same as the concubine of Eliphaz, verse 12. It is natural to suppose Aholibamah the daughter of Anah (verse 25) to be the same as the wife of Esau, (verse 2,) but Keil very positively denies their identity. Anah (verse 24) is said to be a son of Zibeon the Horite; but the Anah of verse 2 is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite. Anah is distinguished for having found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father. There is no good authority for rendering the word µmy, mules; it means rather, warm springs. While he pastured the asses of Zibeon he discovered certain hot springs, probably those of Callirhoe, on the east of the Dead Sea, in the wady Zerka-Main, which are famous for their medicinal qualities and various temperature, ranging from tepid to a degree of heat that cannot be endured in bathing. Hengstenberg suggests that the discovery of these springs gave Anah the surname Beeri, (xxvi, 34,) “the fountain man,” or “well-finder,” and thus constructs an argument to prove the identity of Anah with the father of Esau’s wife. His argument, if not conclusive, should suffice to show how many possible circumstances, now unknown to us, might have occasioned the differences of names which puzzle us in old genealogical tables.

THE KINGS OF EDOM, 31-39.

How a monarchy arose among the Edomites we are not told, but it is noticeable that of the eight kings here mentioned, not one is said to have succeeded to his father. It is, therefore, very plausibly supposed that they were chosen by the dukes, or phylarchs. The statement that these kings reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel has been suspected as an interpolation, introduced after kings reigned over the Israelites. This is not an unreasonable or improbable supposition. See Introd. to the Pentateuch, p. 22. Others have argued from it the late authorship of the Pentateuch. But neither of these suppositions are necessary. God had said to Abraham, “Kings shall come out of thee,” (Genesis 17:6,) and he repeated the promise to Jacob, (Genesis 35:11,) who, in his last words, prophesied of a sceptre to arise in Judah. Genesis 49:10. Moses also assumed that kings would arise in Israel, (Deuteronomy 17:14; 28:36;) and with such expectations it would have been very natural for him, in recording this list of Edomite kings, to introduce the remark that all these reigned before Israel had any king. The Edomite monarchy was a sudden upstart affair, as compared with the Israelitish.

Of none of these kings have we any certain trace elsewhere. Bozrah, in verse 33, is the same as that mentioned in Isaiah 34:6; 53:1, and the land of Temani (verse 34) was probably so called after the son of Eliphaz. Verse 11. Bozrah was probably at the site of the modern el-Busaireh, southeast of the Dead Sea.

In verse 35 the mention of Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, gives us a momentary glimpse of ancient wars among the peoples scattered south and east of the Dead Sea. As the death of all these kings except Hadar (verse 39) is formally recorded, it is naturally supposed that he was living at the time of this writer, and was, perhaps, the same king to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the Edomite territory. Numbers 20:14. DUKES OF ESAU AFTER THEIR PLACES, 40-43.

Some suppose that the eleven dukes here named were contemporary with Hadar, the last named king; but 1 Chronicles 1:51-54, which mentions the dearth of Hadar, (called Hadad there,) implies that they survived him. But the expressions, according to their families, after their places, by their names (verse 40) and according to their habitations in the land of their possession, (verse 43,) denote rather the ducal cities, or districts. We should accordingly translate, duke of Timnah, duke of Alvah, and etc., and understand that Aholibamah, Kenaz, and Teman are here the names of cities, called after their founders; perhaps the persons bearing these names in the previous part of the genealogy.

The Generations of Jacob, 37-50.

This is the last section of the Book of Genesis headed by the special designation, twdlt, generations. See Introduction, p. 49. Though the larger portion of this section is devoted to the history of Joseph, Jacob is still the head of the patriarchal family, and the covenant history centres in him as its representative.

“Jacob was now dwelling in the green, well-watered vale of Hebron, half-way between Beer-sheba (the place of Isaac’s sojourning) and Salem, (afterwards Jerusalem,) the city of Melchizedek, probably the earliest seat of civilized life in Palestine. Here the spies found the rich valley of Eshcol, with its giant grape clusters; here, too, crowning the overlooking height, they found the city of Arba (Kirjath-Arba) and his gigantic sons, and here, too, was and is that most venerated of all sepulchres, the cave of Machpelah. The modern town lies on the sloping sides of the narrow valley, which runs north and south, clothed with luxuriant vineyards, and groves of the gray olive and evergreen oak. About a mile north of the town, solitary in the midst of the vineyards, stands a very large wide-spreading oak, which is regarded as the successor of Abraham’s ‘oak of Mamre.’ Yet Jacob sent his flocks to pasture sixty miles north, in the fertile valley of Shalem or Shechem, where some time before he had bought a piece of ground whereon ‘to spread his tent.’” — Newhall.

The following reflections of Ewald are most valuable in their suggestions and concessions, especially as coming from a Rationalist like him: “The history of Jacob gradually and almost imperceptibly passes into that of the tribes, (or sons,) above whom hovers, vague and dim, the awful form of Israel, the aged Patriarch. Especially fine is the turn thus given to the history, when called to relate the evil deeds and wicked lusts of these sons; and with the one great exception of Joseph, what else is there to tell of them? In their collective history is vividly anticipated the future history of the nation; its many shortcomings, its manifold corruptions, as if the guileful nature, wholly eradicated at last in the much-tried father, sprang up again, and spread in rank luxuriance, among his descendants; first in Simeon and Levi, and still more in the history of Joseph. The old father, who now, made perfect through suffering, appears like some superior spirit watching over them, sternly rebukes all these follies and misdeeds committed behind his back; and yet, eventually, he himself has to bear the burden of iniquities planned without his knowledge. Thus Jacob is still, though in a different sense, what he was entitled in his youth, the laboriously striving, much enduring, man of God. Thus, even in the post-Mosaic period, the better spirit still hovers over the nation — often obscured, and almost despairing, yet abandoning them never, and in the end really beholding with rapture a great and glorious restoration of all the erring ones.” — History of Israel, 1:360.

V. 8. Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir-Whatever opposition may be made, God’s word will take place, and even those that have opposed it will see themselves, some time or other, under a necessity of yielding to it. Esau had struggled for Canaan, but now he retires to mount Seir; for God’s counsels shall certainly stand concerning the times before appointed, and the bounds of our habitation.

Verse 8. Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir — Whatever opposition may be made, God’s word will take place, and his counsels shall stand concerning the times before appointed, and the bounds of our habitation.

V. 10. These are the names-Observe here,

1. That only the names of Esau’s sons and grand-sons are recorded: not their history, for it is the church that Moses preserves the records of, not of those that were without. The elders only that lived by faith obtained a good report. Nor doth the genealogy go any farther than the third and fourth generation, the very names of all after are buried in oblivion; it is only the pedigree of the Israelites who were to be the heirs of Canaan, and of whom were to come the promised seed, and the holy seed, that is drawn out to any length, as far as there was occasion for it, even of all the tribes till Canaan was divided among them, and of the royal line ‘till Christ came.

2. That the sons and grand-sons of Esau are called dukes. Probably they were military commanders, dukes or captains that had soldiers under them; for Esau and his family lived by the sword, Genesis 27:40.

3. We may suppose those dukes had numerous families of children and servants. God promised to multiply Jacob and to enrich him, yet Esau increases and is enriched first. God’s promise to Jacob began to work late, but the effect of it remained longer, and it had its compleat accomplishment in the spiritual Israel.

Verse 10. These are the names — Observe here, 1st, That only the names of Esau’s sons and grandsons are recorded: not their history, for it is the Church that Moses preserves the records of, not of those that were without. The elders only, that lived by faith, obtained a good report. 2d, That the sons and grandsons of Esau are called dukes. Probably they were military commanders, that had soldiers under them; for Esau and his family lived by the sword, Genesis 27:40. 3d, We may suppose those dukes had numerous families of children and servants. God promised to multiply Jacob and to enrich him; yet Esau increases and is enriched first. God’s promise to Jacob began to work late, but the effect of it remained longer, and it had its complete accomplishment in the spiritual Israel.

Ver. 11. Teman. Tema occurs in the poems of Ossian; and a similarity of names appears to indicate an identity in the origin of nations.

Verse 12. Timna was concubine to Eliphaz] As Timna was sister to Lotan the Horite, Genesis 36:22, we see how the family of Esau and the Horites got intermixed. This might give the sons of Esau a pretext to seize the land, and expel the ancient inhabitants, as we find they did, Deuteronomy 2:12.

Amalek] The father of the Amalekites, afterwards bitter enemies to the Jews, and whom God commanded to be entirely exterminated, Deuteronomy 25:17,19.

Verse 15. Dukes of the sons of Esau] The word duke comes from the Latin dux, a captain or leader. The Hebrew pwla alluph has the same signification; and as it is also the term for a thousand, which is a grand capital or leading number, probably the ypwla alluphey or dukes had this name from being leaders of or captains over a company of one thousand men; just as those among the Greeks called chiliarchs, which signifies the same; and as the Romans called those centurions who were captains over one hundred men, from the Latin word centum, which signifies a hundred The ducal government was that which prevailed first among the Idumeans, or descendants of Esau. Here fourteen dukes are reckoned to Esau, seven that came of his wife, Adah, four of Bashemath, and three of Aholibamah.

Ver. 15. Duke, a military title, from their being as it would seem, captains of a thousand men. Others are of opinion that the term merely denotes that they were heads of houses. The term agrees with the twelve princes in the line of Ishmael; and they undoubtedly exercised a sort of regal power in their several districts.

Verse 16. Duke Korah] This Dr. Kennicott pronounces to be an interpolation. “It is certain, from Genesis 36:4, that Eliphaz was Esau’s son by Adah; and from Genesis 36:11, 12, that Eliphaz had but six sons, Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek. It is also certain, from Genesis 36:5, 14, that Korah was the son of Esau (not of Eliphaz) by Aholibamah; and as such he is properly mentioned in Genesis 36:18: These are the sons of Aholibamah, Esau’s wife: duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, DUKE KORAH. It is clear, therefore, that some transcriber has improperly inserted duke Korah in Genesis 36:16; from which interpolation both the Samaritan text and the Samaritan version are free.”-KENNICOTT’S Remarks. Everything considered, I incline to the opinion that these words were not originally in the text.

V. 20. These are the sons of Seir-In the midst of the genealogy of the Edomites is inserted the genealogy of the Horites, those Canaanites, or Hittites, (compare Genesis 26:34,) that were the natives of mount Seir. Mention is made of them, Genesis 14:6, and of their interest in mount Seir before the Edomites took possession of it, Deuteronomy 2:12,22. This comes in here, not only to give light to the story, but to be a standing reflexion upon the Edomites for intermarrying with them, by which it is likely they learned their way, and corrupted themselves. Esau having sold his birth-right, and lost his blessing and entered into alliance with the Hittites, his posterity and the sons of Seir are here reckoned together. Those that treacherously desert God’s church are justly numbered with those that were never in it: apostate Edomites stand on the same ground with accursed Horites. Notice is taken of one Anah, who fed the asses of Zibeon his father, Genesis 36:20, and yet is called duke Anah, Genesis 36:29. Those that expect to rise high should begin low. An honourable descent should not keep men from an honest employment, nor a mean employment baulk any man’s preferment.

Verse 20. These are the sons of Seir the Horite] These Horites were the original inhabitants of the country of Seir, called the land of the Horites, and afterwards the land of the Idumeans, when the descendants of Esau had driven them out. These people are first mentioned Genesis 14:6.

Verse 20. These are the sons of Seir — In the midst of the genealogy of the Edomites is inserted the genealogy of the Horites, that were the natives of mount Seir before the Edomites took possession of it, Deuteronomy 2:12, 22. This comes in here, not only to give light to the story, but to be a standing reflection upon the Edomites for intermarrying with them, by which it is likely they learned their ways, and corrupted themselves.

Ver. 20. Sons of Seir—inhabited the land of Edom before Esau gained possession of it, and held the strong places of mount Seir. The dukes of Esau afterwards expelled the children of Seir; and as was usual with the patriarchs, called the land Edom after their own name. Psalm 49:11.

Verse 21. These are the dukes of the Horites] It appears pretty evident that the Horites and the descendants of Esau were mixed together in the same land, as before observed; and Calmet has very properly remarked, that if we compare this verse with Genesis 36:30, there were princes of Seir in the country of Seir, and in that of Edom; and in comparing the generations of Seir and Esau, we are obliged to consider these princes as contemporary.

V. 24. This Anah was not only industrious in his business, but ingenious too, and successful, for he found mules, or, (as some read it) waters, hot baths in the wilderness. Those that are diligent in their business sometimes find more advantages than they expected.

Verse 24. This was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness] The words הימם ta eth kaiyemim, here translated mules, has given rise to a great variety of conjectures and discordant opinions. St. Jerome, who renders it aquas calidas, warm springs, or hot baths, says there are as many opinions concerning it as there are commentators.

The Septuagint has ton iamein, which seems to be the name of a man; but this is expressed in a great variety of ways in different MSS. of that version.

The Syriac renders it [Syriac] mayé, waters; the author of this version having read in the Hebrew copy from which he translated. מים mayim, waters, for ימם yemim, the two first letters being transposed. Onkelos translates the word ayrbg gibbaraiya, giants, or strong or powerful men.

The Samaritan text has [Samaritan] haaimim, and the Samaritan version [Samaritan] am aimai, the Emim, a warlike people, bordering upon the Horites.

The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the place thus: “This is the Anah who united the onager with the tame ass, and in process of time he found mules produced by them.” R. D. Kimchi says, that “Zibeon was both the father and brother of Anah; and this Anah, intent on heterogeneous mixtures, caused asses and horses to copulate, and so produced mules.” R. S. Jarchi is of the same opinion. See his comment on this place.

Bochart believes the Emim are meant; and argues forcibly, 1. That axm matsa, he found, never signifies to invent, but rather the meeting with or happening on a thing which already exists. 2. That mules are never called ימם yemim in the Scriptures, but פרדים peradim. 3. That Anah fed ASSES only, not horses. And, 4. That there is no mention of mules in Palestine till the days of David. From the whole he concludes that the Emim are meant, with whom Anah fought; and he brings many places of Scripture where the same form of expression, he or they found, signifies the onset to battle, Judges 1:5; 1 Samuel 31:3; 1 Kings 13:24; 2 Chronicles 22:8; Numbers 35:27; Genesis 4:14; with many others. See the Hierozoicon, vol. i., cap. 21, p. 23S., edit. 1692.

Gusset, in Comment. Heb. Ling., examines what Bochart has asserted, and supposes that mules, not the Emim, were found by Anah.

Wagenseil would credit what Bochart has asserted, did not stronger reasons lead him to believe that the word means a sort of plant! From the above opinions and versions the reader may choose which he likes best, or invent one for himself. My own opinion is, that mules were not known before the time of Anah; and that he was probably the first who coupled the mare and ass together to produce this mongrel, or the first who met with creatures of this race in some very secluded part of the wilderness. Is it not probable that from this Anah, or hn[ enah, the Enetæ derived at least their fabulous origin, whom Homer mentions as famous for their race of wild mules?

Paflagonwn dJ hgeito pulaimeneov lasion khr,

Exodus Enetwn, dqen hmionwn genov agroterawn.

IL., lib. ii., v. 852.

The Paphlagonians Pylæmenes rules,

Where rich HENETIA breeds her SAVAGE MULES.

POPE.

The Enetæ or Henetæ, who were a people contiguous to Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, might have derived their origin from this Anah, or Henah, out of which the enetoi of the ancient Greek writers might have been formed; and according to Theophrastus, Strabo, and Plutarch, the first mules were seen among these people. See Ludov, Deuteronomy Dieu and Scheuchzer.

Verse 24. Found mules — As the Hebrew word, here rendered mules, occurs nowhere else in Scripture, it is difficult to ascertain the meaning of this passage. Various have been the conjectures concerning what it was that Anah found. Some render the word waters, or hot waters, and understand the meaning to be, that he found some springs of water which in those hot countries were both rare and valuable, or some hot and medicinal springs. But the Chaldee renders it giants, and the Samaritan version Emims, a sort of giants mentioned Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, who were neighbours to the Horites, here spoken of, (Genesis 14:5, 6,) and therefore, according to the manner of those times, might make inroads upon them. It has been generally supposed, however, that our translators are right, and that, in keeping asses, he discovered the method of breeding mules; probably by accident.

Ver. 24. Mules. The original word occurs in this place only, and hence its import is doubtful. Some think it signifies giants, whom Anah expelled: others contend that it means mineral waters, or hot-wells. Jerome follows this opinion in the Vulgate, as was the general belief of the rabbins, and the most probable, as mules never have foals: man may for once mar the works of God, but not a second time.

V. 31. By degrees the Edomites worked out the Horites, and got full possession of the country. 1. They were ruled by kings who governed the whole country, and seem to have come to the throne by election, and not by lineal descent: these kings reigned in Edom

before there reigned any king over the children of Israel-That is, before Moses’s time, for he was king in Jeshurun. God had lately promised Jacob that kings shall come out of his loins: yet Esau’s blood becomes royal long before any of Jacob’s did. Probably it was a trial to the faith of Israel, to hear of the power of the kings of Edom, while they were bond-slaves in Egypt: but those that look for great things from God must be content to wait for them. God’s time is the best time. 2. They were afterward’s governed by dukes again, here named, who, I suppose, ruled all at the same time in several places in the country. They set up this form of government, either in conformity to the Horites, who had used it, Genesis 36:29, or God’s providence reduced them to it, as some conjecture, to correct them for their unkindness to Israel, in refusing them passage through their country, Numbers 20:18.

Verse 31. Before there reigned any king over-Israel.] I suppose all the verses, from Genesis 36:31-39 inclusive, have been transferred to this place from 1 Chronicles 1:43-50, as it is not likely they could have been written by Moses; and it is quite possible they might have been, at a very early period, written in the margin of an authentic copy, to make out the regal succession in Edom, prior to the consecration of Saul; which words being afterwards found in the margin of a valuable copy, from which others were transcribed, were supposed by the copyist to be a part of the text, which having been omitted by the mistake of the original writer, had been since added to make up the deficiency; on this conviction he would not hesitate to transcribe them consecutively in his copy. In most MSS. sentences and paragraphs have been left out by the copyists, which, when perceived, have been added in the margin, either by the original writer, or by some later hand. Now, as the margin was the ordinary place where glosses or explanatory notes were written, it is easy to conceive how the notes, as well as the parts of the original text found in the margin, might be all incorporated with the text by a future transcriber; and his MSS., being often copied, would of course multiply the copies with such additions, as we have much reason to believe has been the case. This appears very frequently in the Vulgate and Septuagint; and an English Bible now before me written some time in the fourteenth century, exhibits several proofs of this principle. See the preface to this work.

I know there is another way of accounting for those words on the ground of their being written originally by Moses; but to me it is not satisfactory. It is simply this: the word king should be considered as implying any kind of regular government, whether by chiefs, dukes, judges, &c., and therefore when Moses says these are the kings which reigned in Edom, before there was any king in Israel, he may be only understood as saying that these kings reigned among the Edomites before the family of Jacob had acquired any considerable power, or before the time in which his twelve sons had become the fathers of those numerous tribes, at the head of which, as king himself in Jeshurun, he now stood.

Esau, after his dukes, had eight kings, who reigned successively over their people, while Israel were in affliction in Egypt.

Verse 31. By degrees the Edomites worked out the Horites, and got full possession of the country. They were ruled by kings who governed the whole country, and seem to have come to the throne by election, and not by lineal descent: these kings reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel — That is, before Moses’s time, for he was king in Jeshurun. God had lately promised Jacob that kings should come out of his loins: yet Esau’s blood becomes royal long before any of Jacob’s did. Probably it was a trial to the faith of Israel, to hear of the power of the kings of Edom, while they were bond-slaves in Egypt: but those that look for great things from God must be content to wait for them. God’s time is the best time.

Ver. 31. Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. The marginal illustration, as elsewhere, has here been copied into the text from 1 Chronicles 1:43, &c.—We have no account of Esau’s death. No doubt he out-lived his brother Jacob, and his latter days, it would seem, were better spent than his earlier life.

Verse 33. Jobab the son of Zerah] Many have supposed that Jobab is the same as Job, so remarkable for his afflictions and patience; and that Eliphaz, mentioned Genesis 36:10, &c., was the same who in the book of Job is called one of his friends: but there is no proper proof of this, and there are many reasons against it.

Ver. 33. Jobab. Some of the Jews contend that this man was Job, the great model of patience; but others think, that he descended from Nahor, because Huz is mentioned. Genesis 22:21. There is however a strong probability that he descended from Esau.

Ver. 34. Temani, or Teman, the capital of Edom, not far from Bozrah, both of which are mentioned by the prophets. Isaiah 63. Jeremiah 49. Amos 1.

Verse 35. Smote Midian in the field of Moab] Bishop Cumberland supposes that this was Midian, the son of Abraham by Keturah, and that he was killed by Hadad some time before he was one hundred and nine years of age; and that Moses recorded this, probably, because it was a calamity to the ancestor of Jethro, his father-in-law.-Orig. of Nat., p. 14.

Verse 40. These are the names of the dukes that came of Esau] These dukes did not govern the whole nation of the Idumeans, but they were chiefs in their respective families, in their places-the districts they governed, and to which they gave their names. Calmet thinks that those mentioned above were dukes in Edom or Idumea at the time of the exodus of Israel from Egypt.

V. 43. Mount Seir is called the land of their possession-While the Israelites dwelt in the house of bondage, and their Canaan was only the land of promise, the Edomites dwelt in their own habitations, and Seir was in their possession. The children of this world have their all in hand, and nothing in hope, while the children of God have often their all in hope, and next to nothing in hand. But, all things considered, it is better to have Canaan in promise than mount Seir in possession.

Verse 43. He is Esau the father of the Edomites.] That is, The preceding list contains an account of the posterity of Esau, who was the father of Edom. Thus ends Esau’s history; for after this there is no farther account of his life, actions, or death, in the Pentateuch.

1. AS Esau is so considerable a person in polemic divinity, it may be necessary, in this place especially, to say something farther of his conduct and character. I have already, in several places, endeavoured, and I hope successfully, to wipe off the odium that has been thrown upon this man, (see the notes on chap. 27. and chap. 33.,) without attempting to lessen his faults; and the unprejudiced reader must see that, previously to this last account we have of him, his character stands without a blot, except in the case of selling his birthright, and his purpose to destroy his brother. To the first he was led by his famishing situation and the unkindness of his brother, who refused to save his life but on this condition; and the latter, made in the heat of vexation and passion, he never attempted to execute, even when he had the most ample means and the fairest opportunity to do it. Dr. Shuckford has drawn an impartial character of Esau, from which I extract the following particulars: “Esau was a plain, generous, and honest man, for we have no reason, from any thing that appears in his life or actions, to think him wicked beyond other men of his age or times; and his generous and good temper appears from all his behaviour towards his brother. When they first met he was all humanity and affection, and he had no uneasiness when he found that Jacob followed him not to Seir, but went to live near his father. And at Isaac’s death we do not find that he made any difficulty of quitting Canaan, which was the very point which, if he had harboured any latent (evil) intentions, would have revived all his resentments. He is indeed called in Scripture the profane Esau; and it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated; but there is, I think, no reason to infer, from any of those expressions, that Esau was a very wicked man, or that God hated or punished him for an immoral life. For, 1. The sentence here against him is said expressly to be founded, not upon his actions, for it was determined before the children had done good or evil.

2. God’s hatred of Esau was not a hatred which induced him to punish him with any evil, for he was as happy in all the blessings of this life as either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob; and his posterity had a land designed by God to be their possession, as well as the children of Jacob, and they were put in possession of it much sooner than the Israelites; and God was pleased to protect them in the enjoyment of it, and to caution the Israelites against invading them with a remarkable strictness, Deuteronomy 2:4,5. And as God was pleased thus to bless Esau and his children in the blessings of this life, even as much as he blessed Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, if not more, why may we not hope to find him with them at the last day, as well as Lot or Job or any other good and virtuous man, who was not designed to be a partaker of the blessing given to Abraham? 3. All the punishment inflicted on Esau was an exclusion from being heir to the blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed, which was a favour not granted to Lot, to Job, to several other very virtuous and good men. 4. St. Paul, in the passage before cited, only intends to show the Jews that God had all along given the favours that led to the Messiah where he pleased; to Abraham, not to Lot; to Jacob, not to Esau; as at the time St. Paul wrote the Gentiles were made the people of God, not the Jews. 5. Esau is indeed called profane, (bebhlov,) but I think that word does not mean wicked or immoral, asebhv or amartwlov\ he was called profane for not having that due value for the priest’s office which he should have had; and therefore, though I think it does not appear that he was cut off from being the heir of the promises by any particular action in his life, yet his turn of mind and thoughts do appear to have been such as to evidence that God’s purpose towards Jacob was founded on the truest wisdom.”-SHUCKFORD’S Connections, vol.ii., p.174, &c.

The truth is, the Messiah must spring from some ONE family, and God chose Abraham’s through Isaac, Jacob, &c., rather than the same through Ishmael, Esau, and the others in that line; but from this choice it does not follow that the first were all necessarily saved, and the others necessarily lost.

2. To some the genealogical lists in this chapter will doubtless appear uninteresting, especially those which concern Esau and his descendants; but it was as necessary to register the generations of Esau as to register those of Jacob, in order to show that the Messiah did not spring from the former, but that he did spring from the latter. The genealogical tables, so frequently met with in the sacred writings, and so little regarded by Christians in general, are extremely useful. 1. As they are standing proofs of the truth of the prophecies, which stated that the Messiah should come from a particular family, which prophecies were clearly fulfilled in the birth of Christ. 2. As they testify, to the conviction of the Jews, that the Messiah thus promised is found in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who incontestably sprang from the last, the only remaining branch of the family of David. These registers were religiously preserved among the Jews till the destruction of Jerusalem, after which they were all destroyed, insomuch that there is not a Jew in the universe who can trace himself to the family of David; consequently, all expectation of a Messiah to come is, even on their own principles, nugatory and absurd, as nothing remains to legitimate his birth. When Christ came all these registers were in existence. When St. Matthew and St. Luke wrote, all these registers were still in existence; and had they pretended what could not have been supported, an appeal to the registers would have convicted them of a falsehood. But no Jew attempted to do this, notwithstanding the excess of their malice against Christ and his followers; and because they did not do it, we may safely assert no Jew could do it. Thus the foundation standeth sure.

GENESIS

Verse 43. In the land of their possession — While the Israelites dwelt in the house of bondage, and their Canaan was only the land of promise, the Edomites dwelt in their own habitations, and Seir was in their possession. The children of this world have their all in hand, and nothing in hope, while the children of God have often their all in hope, and next to nothing in hand. But, all things considered, it is better to have Canaan in promise than mount Seir in possession.