Though Esau does not bear the covenant line, God causes His descendants to become Edom, a structured nation of chiefs and kings, thereby distinguishing common historical greatness from covenant inheritance.
Text Size
Genesis 36
Esau Becomes Edom, His Line Expands in Seir, and the Non-Covenant Brother Becomes a Nation
Though Esau does not bear the covenant line, God causes His descendants to become Edom, a structured nation of chiefs and kings, thereby distinguishing common historical greatness from covenant inheritance.
Reading a chapter
What this page is: Each chapter page shows the big idea, the argument flow, key original-language terms, doctrine connections, and passage units, all in one place.
How to use it: Start with the Overview tab to get the chapter's main point. Then move to Passages to study individual units, or Language to trace key terms.
Going deeper: The Doctrines and Motifs tabs show how this chapter connects to the broader biblical story.
Chapter Summary
Though Esau does not bear the covenant line, God causes His descendants to become Edom, a structured nation of chiefs and kings, thereby distinguishing common historical greatness from covenant inheritance.
Overview
Genesis 36 teaches that God’s providence extends beyond the covenant line, granting real fruitfulness, territory, leadership, and nationhood to those outside the central redemptive promise, while still preserving the distinction between historical significance and covenant election. Esau had lost the birthright and the patriarchal blessing in their primary covenant sense, yet He is not reduced to nothing.
He becomes Edom. His descendants are numerous, organized, and regionally established. The repeated naming of chiefs and kings shows that Esau’s line is not marginal in world-history terms. In fact, the statement that kings reigned in Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites emphasizes that non-covenant lines may appear politically mature and historically powerful before the promise line manifests its royal form.
This is theologically important because it prevents simplistic equations between immediate prominence and covenant centrality. The chapter also reveals God’s ordering of peoples and lands. Esau separates from Jacob because their possessions are too great to dwell together, echoing earlier patriarchal separations, especially Abraham and Lot. Yet unlike Lot’s story, the separation here serves to clarify national trajectories.
The covenant line and the brother-nation line develop side by side but not as one. Thus Genesis 36 argues that God governs the destinies of all peoples, that He may grant impressive growth outside the promise line, and that redemptive election must not be confused with outward political or genealogical greatness.
Genesis 36 serves as a major genealogical chapter that closes the Esau material and clarifies the historical development of His line apart from the covenant line of Jacob. After Genesis 35 reaffirmed the covenant promises to Jacob, consolidated the twelve sons, and marked the death of Isaac, this chapter turns to Esau and traces His descendants, chiefs, intermarriages, settlements, and kings.
Within the structure of Genesis, this is not a digression without purpose. It is a deliberate genealogical resolution that distinguishes Esau’s flourishing historical line from Jacob’s covenant line. Esau is not ignored, erased, or reduced to insignificance. He becomes Edom, settles in Seir, and His descendants become chiefs and kings. Yet this chapter also reinforces that fruitfulness, territorial settlement, political structure, and national development are not the same thing as carrying the redemptive promise.
In the flow of Genesis, the Esau material must be given its due before the narrative narrows decisively toward Jacob’s house and then Joseph. Thus Genesis 36 functions as both closure and contrast, showing that God’s providence extends beyond the central covenant line while still preserving the uniqueness of that line.
Structural Flow
The chapter opens by identifying Esau as Edom and listing His wives, sons, and migration. Because their possessions had become too great for them to dwell together, Esau separates from Jacob and settles in the hill country of Seir.
The generations of Esau as father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir are introduced, and the sons born through His wives are listed.
The chiefs descended from Esau are enumerated through Eliphaz, Reuel, and the other sons, establishing the clan leadership structure of Edom.
The Horite inhabitants of Seir and their chiefs are listed, showing the broader setting into which Esau’s line is integrated and over which it gains prominence.
The kings who reigned in Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites are listed one after another.
The chapter closes with another list of the chiefs of Esau according to their clans, places, and names, reaffirming Esau as the father of Edom.
Chapter Outline
- 36:1–8: The chapter opens by identifying Esau as Edom and listing His wives, sons, and migration. Because their possessions had become too great for them to dwell together, Esau separates from Jacob and settles in the hill country of Seir.
- 36:9–14: The generations of Esau as father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir are introduced, and the sons born through His wives are listed.
- 36:15–19: The chiefs descended from Esau are enumerated through Eliphaz, Reuel, and the other sons, establishing the clan leadership structure of Edom.
- 36:20–30: The Horite inhabitants of Seir and their chiefs are listed, showing the broader setting into which Esau’s line is integrated and over which it gains prominence.
- 36:31–39: The kings who reigned in Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites are listed one after another.
- 36:40–43: The chapter closes with another list of the chiefs of Esau according to their clans, places, and names, reaffirming Esau as the father of Edom.
Theological Focus
- Providence over Nations
- Covenant Distinction
- Common Grace
- Genealogy and Identity
- Territorial Settlement
- Political Development
- Brother-Nation Contrast
- Historical Fruitfulness
- Providence
- Covenant Theology
- Biblical Theology
- Nations and Peoples
- Christology Preparation
Covenant Significance
Genesis 36 is covenantally significant because it clarifies what Esau’s line becomes and thereby removes ambiguity about the direction of the promise. Esau is fruitful, established, and politically organized, yet He is not the bearer of the Abrahamic covenant in its central redemptive trajectory. The chapter creates a clear distinction between Edom and Israel before Israel fully emerges as a nation.
This matters because later biblical history will repeatedly involve Edom as a related but distinct people. By tracing Esau’s chiefs and kings here, Genesis establishes the identity of Edom in advance and preserves the covenant focus on Jacob’s line without denying Esau’s real historical significance.
Canonical Connections
Genesis 36 is covenantally significant because it clarifies what Esau’s line becomes and thereby removes ambiguity about the direction of the promise. Esau is fruitful, established, and politically organized, yet He is not the bearer of the Abrahamic covenant in its central redemptive trajectory. The chapter creates a clear distinction between Edom and Israel before Israel fully emerges as a nation.
This matters because later biblical history will repeatedly involve Edom as a related but distinct people. By tracing Esau’s chiefs and kings here, Genesis establishes the identity of Edom in advance and preserves the covenant focus on Jacob’s line without denying Esau’s real historical significance.
Genesis 25:23-34
Genesis 27:39-40
Genesis 32:3
Deuteronomy 2:4-5
Obadiah 1:1-21
Genesis 13:5-12
Genesis 25:23-34
Deuteronomy 2:4-5
Obadiah 1:1-21
Cross References
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Clarifies how the passage points to the gospel of Christ.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Dinhabah. Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
They said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons don’t walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” Samuel prayed to Yahweh....
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings,
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations who are called by my name,” says Yahweh who does this.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
He changes the times and the seasons. He removes kings, and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
When you have come to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,” you shall surely set him whom Yahweh your God chooses as king...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
The Horites also lived in Seir in the past, but the children of Esau succeeded them. They destroyed them from before them, and lived in their place, as Israel did to the land of his possession, which Yahweh gave to them.)
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
as he did for the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites from before them; and they succeeded them, and lived in their place even to this day.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Command the people, saying, ‘You are to pass through the border of your brothers, the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore be careful. Don’t contend with them; for I will not give you any of their...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, herds, and tents. The land was not able to bear them, that they might live together; for their possessions were so great that they couldn’t live together. There was strife between the herdsmen of...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Yahweh said to her, “Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples will be separated from your body. The one people will be stronger than the other people. The elder will serve the younger.”
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Isaac his father answered him, “Behold, your dwelling will be of the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of the sky from above. You will live by your sword, and you will serve your brother. It will happen, when you will break loose, that...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Behold, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, and are regarded as a speck of dust on a balance. Behold, he lifts up the islands like a very little thing.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
“I have loved you,” says Yahweh. Yet you say, “How have you loved us?” “Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?” says Yahweh, “Yet I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
The vision of Obadiah. This is what the Lord Yahweh says about Edom. We have heard news from Yahweh, and an ambassador is sent among the nations, saying, “Arise, and let’s rise up against her in battle. Behold, I have made you small among...
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Shows Old Testament grounding that frames or supports this passage.
Gospel Clarity
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Gospel Cross References
Primary Emphasis
Genesis 36 contributes to Christology indirectly by preserving the contrast necessary for the seed line. It shows that not every great lineage, organized nation, or kingly structure carries the messianic future. The royal trajectory in Edom is real, but it is not the royal line of promise. This helps reinforce that the coming Messiah will arise not from mere political development or obvious early national strength, but from the line God appointed through Jacob and ultimately Judah.
In that sense, Genesis 36 protects the theological integrity of the messianic line by distinguishing it from adjacent greatness.
Chapter Contribution
Genesis 36 teaches that God’s providence extends beyond the covenant line, granting real fruitfulness, territory, leadership, and nationhood to those outside the central redemptive promise, while still preserving the distinction between historical significance and covenant election. Esau had lost the birthright and the patriarchal blessing in their primary covenant sense, yet He is not reduced to nothing.
He becomes Edom. His descendants are numerous, organized, and regionally established. The repeated naming of chiefs and kings shows that Esau’s line is not marginal in world-history terms. In fact, the statement that kings reigned in Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites emphasizes that non-covenant lines may appear politically mature and historically powerful before the promise line manifests its royal form.
This is theologically important because it prevents simplistic equations between immediate prominence and covenant centrality. The chapter also reveals God’s ordering of peoples and lands. Esau separates from Jacob because their possessions are too great to dwell together, echoing earlier patriarchal separations, especially Abraham and Lot. Yet unlike Lot’s story, the separation here serves to clarify national trajectories.
The covenant line and the brother-nation line develop side by side but not as one. Thus Genesis 36 argues that God governs the destinies of all peoples, that He may grant impressive growth outside the promise line, and that redemptive election must not be confused with outward political or genealogical greatness.
Doctrines in This Chapter
Material increase and family development may occur outside the covenant inheritance by God’s sovereign kindness.
Though God rules over all nations, He preserves a distinct line through which His redemptive promises advance.
God orders separation and place in ways that preserve His larger redemptive purposes.
God governs the rise and organization of kingdoms, even those outside the covenant line.
God’s saving purposes advance through His chosen line rather than through worldly systems of power.
God’s redemptive work takes place within a broader world already populated and structured.
God governs the increase, movements, and settlement of peoples both within and outside the covenant line.
The formation of tribes and territories unfolds under God’s sovereign rule.
Earthly authority structures are real but temporary and distinct from eternal covenant realities.
Key Hebrew Terms
Sense Edom
Definition Edom
Why it matters The repeated equation of Esau with Edom is one of the chapter’s central contributions, anchoring Edom’s later biblical identity in Esau’s line.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense generations, descendants, account
Definition generations, descendants, account
Why it matters The toledot formula signals that Esau’s line matters in the narrative and must be traced before the story narrows fully again to Jacob’s house.
Sense Seir
Definition Seir
Why it matters Seir becomes the settled geographic center of Esau’s line, marking territorial distinction from Jacob’s line.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense chief, clan leader
Definition chief, clan leader
Why it matters The repeated listing of chiefs shows that Esau’s descendants developed organized leadership structures and substantial sociopolitical identity.
Sense king
Definition king
Why it matters The kings of Edom before any king reigned in Israel highlight the distinction between early visible monarchy and the later covenantal royal line.
Cross-language bridge 2 links · View in lexicon
Individual words שִׂמְחָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה simchah lifney YHWH · לִפְנֵי מְלָךְ־מֶלֶךְ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל lifnei melakh-melekh livnei Yisra'el · קִרְיַת מֶלֶךְ רָב qiryat melek rav · בֵּן מֵבִין ben mevin · הָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל hare yisrael
Sense before any king reigned over the Israelites
Definition before any king reigned over the Israelites
Why it matters This statement sharpens the contrast between Edom’s early political development and Israel’s still-future monarchy, without confusing the two lines.
Sense dwell, settle
Definition dwell, settle
Why it matters Esau’s dwelling in Seir marks real territorial establishment and a distinct national path apart from Jacob.
Sense possessions, goods, wealth
Definition possessions, goods, wealth
Why it matters The note that Jacob and Esau’s possessions were too great for them to dwell together parallels earlier patriarchal separations and clarifies the practical side of national divergence.
Sense Horite
Definition Horite
Why it matters The Horite material situates Esau’s line in a broader historical and territorial context, showing Edom’s development within an already inhabited region.
Sense father
Definition father
Why it matters The closing phrase that Esau is the father of Edom emphasizes not only biological descent but national origin and identity formation.
Individual words אֶרֶץ תַּחְתִּיּוֹת ʾereṣ taḥtiyyôt · אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזָּה / אֶרֶץ מְגוּרֵיהֶם erets megureihem
Sense land of their sojournings
Definition land of their sojournings
Why it matters The distinction between the land of Jacob and Esau’s move to Seir reinforces that the brother lines are no longer sharing one territorial future.
Lexicon data: MorphGNT Strong's Dictionary XML (CC0) · Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible (CC BY 4.0) · Open Scriptures Hebrew Lexicon (CC BY 4.0) · STEPBible Data (CC BY 4.0) · Full details
Commentary (Keil & Delitzsch)
C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–91) — public domain
Warnings and Misreadings
- Genesis 36 warns against confusing outward success, rapid nation-building, or political prominence with covenant inheritance, because historical greatness and redemptive election are not the same thing.
- Treating the chapter as irrelevant genealogy, when it actually performs a major narrative and theological function by clarifying the identity and trajectory of Edom.
- Assuming Esau’s fruitfulness contradicts the loss of the covenant line, rather than recognizing that common grace and covenant inheritance are distinct categories.
- Reading Edom’s kings as proof that Esau somehow became the true heir, when the chapter instead shows parallel historical development outside the central promise line.
- Ignoring the repeated identification of Esau with Edom, which is crucial for understanding later biblical references to the Edomites.
- Flattening the chapter into bare ancestry while missing its geopolitical and theological significance.
- Assuming that because Esau prospers, the covenant line must have failed, instead of seeing that Genesis often distinguishes timing, visibility, and redemptive purpose.
Discipleship Questions
- Where are You tempted to equate visible success, influence, or expansion with God’s deepest approval?
- How does Genesis 36 challenge the assumption that the most immediately powerful line is the most spiritually central one?
- Do You know how to distinguish between God’s common grace in the world and His covenantal redemptive work?
- What does this chapter teach You about patience when God’s promise line seems less outwardly impressive than surrounding powers?
- How might Your understanding of history change if You saw genealogy, territory, and leadership as all still under God’s providence?
Pastoral Applications
- Preach Genesis 36 to teach the difference between outward prominence and covenant inheritance.
- Use the chapter to help believers avoid envying the apparent speed, strength, or structure of those outside the promise, because God’s purposes are not measured only by visible scale.
- Teach that genealogy and history matter in Scripture because God rules peoples, places, and nations, not only isolated individuals.
- Help the church understand that God’s providence extends beyond the redeemed community without collapsing all lines into one.
- Encourage believers who feel unimpressive or delayed that God’s chosen line often looks less developed outwardly for a time, yet still carries the redemptive future.
- Use Edom’s chiefs and kings to show that God may allow significant cultural and political development outside the line of promise while still reserving covenant fulfillment elsewhere.
- Prepare readers for later biblical tensions between Israel and Edom by grounding that relationship in shared ancestry and differentiated destiny.
Pastoral Trajectories
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Imperatives
Moderate
Imperative Themes
- The chapter is genealogical and descriptive rather than imperative-driven, yet its theological force implicitly calls readers to distinguish common grace from covenant inheritance.
Motifs in This Chapter
The Biblical World
Chapter At A Glance
Genesis 36 is covenantally significant because it clarifies what Esau’s line becomes and thereby removes ambiguity about the direction of the promise. Esau is fruitful, established, and politically organized, yet He is not the bearer of the Abrahamic covenant in its central redemptive trajectory. The chapter creates a clear distinction between Edom and Israel before Israel fully emerges as a nation.
This matters because later biblical history will repeatedly involve Edom as a related but distinct people. By tracing Esau’s chiefs and kings here, Genesis establishes the identity of Edom in advance and preserves the covenant focus on Jacob’s line without denying Esau’s real historical significance.
Genesis 36 clarifies the gospel framework by showing that not every fruitful, organized, or kingly line carries the redemptive promise. Esau becomes Edom, and Edom becomes a real nation with chiefs and kings. Yet the covenant future does not move through Esau’s greatness. This prepares the reader to understand that God’s saving purpose is not identified merely by political strength, early prominence, or broad expansion.
In the fullness of Scripture, the true line of promise narrows not through Edom’s kings but through Jacob, Judah, and ultimately Jesus Christ.
Focus Points
- Providence over Nations
- Covenant Distinction
- Common Grace
- Genealogy and Identity
- Territorial Settlement
- Political Development
- Brother-Nation Contrast
- Historical Fruitfulness
- Providence
- Covenant Theology
- Biblical Theology
- Nations and Peoples
- Christology Preparation
Cross References
Yahweh said to her, “Two nations are in Your womb. Two peoples will be separated from Your body. The one people will be stronger than the other people. The elder will serve the younger.” When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. The first came out red all over, like a hairy garment. They named Him Esau.
Old Testament foundation
Isaac His father answered Him, “Behold, Your dwelling will be of the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of the sky from above. You will live by Your sword, and You will serve Your brother. It will happen, when You will break loose, that You will shake His yoke from off Your neck.”
Old Testament foundation
Jacob sent messengers in front of Him to Esau, His brother, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.
Old Testament foundation
Command the people, saying, ‘You are to pass through the border of Your brothers, the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir; and they will be afraid of You. Therefore be careful. Don’t contend with them; for I will not give You any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for a possession.
Old Testament foundation
The vision of Obadiah. This is what the Lord Yahweh says about Edom. We have heard news from Yahweh, and an ambassador is sent among the nations, saying, “Arise, and let’s rise up against her in battle. Behold, I have made You small among the nations. You are greatly despised. The pride of Your heart has deceived You, You who dwell in the clefts of the...
Old Testament foundation
Not only so, but Rebekah also conceived by one, by our father Isaac. For being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger.”
Gospel resolution
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to His offspring. He doesn’t say, “To descendants”, as of many, but as of one, “To Your offspring”, which is Christ.
Gospel resolution
Lest there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like Esau, who sold His birthright for one meal. For You know that even when He afterward desired to inherit the blessing, He was rejected, for He found no place for a change of mind though He sought it diligently with tears.
Gospel resolution
Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and His brothers. Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron. Hezron became the father of Ram.
Gospel resolution
The seventh angel sounded, and great voices in heaven followed, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ. He will reign forever and ever!”
Gospel resolution
Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, herds, and tents. The land was not able to bear them, that they might live together; for their possessions were so great that they couldn’t live together. There was strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and the herdsmen of Lot’s livestock. The Canaanites and the Perizzites lived in the land at that time.
Thematic parallel
Yahweh said to her, “Two nations are in Your womb. Two peoples will be separated from Your body. The one people will be stronger than the other people. The elder will serve the younger.” When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. The first came out red all over, like a hairy garment. They named Him Esau.
Thematic parallel
Command the people, saying, ‘You are to pass through the border of Your brothers, the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir; and they will be afraid of You. Therefore be careful. Don’t contend with them; for I will not give You any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for a possession.
Thematic parallel
The vision of Obadiah. This is what the Lord Yahweh says about Edom. We have heard news from Yahweh, and an ambassador is sent among the nations, saying, “Arise, and let’s rise up against her in battle. Behold, I have made You small among the nations. You are greatly despised. The pride of Your heart has deceived You, You who dwell in the clefts of the...
Thematic parallel
Passages
Chapter opening: Genesis 36:1-8
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:1-8 Esau’s Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau’s three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father’s name as well.
The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i. e. , grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9.
This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau’s family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man’s life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.
g. , the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations , vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri , i.
e. , spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau’s wife?
And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father’s brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau’s wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41).
- Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz. , that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; 1Ki 10:29; 2Ki 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8.
For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz. , the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz. , on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.
e. , a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau’s sons occur again in 1Ch 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob’s return.
The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause “ went into the country ” (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf.
Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words “into the country” convey no sense when standing by themselves.
Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau’s Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom , i. e. , the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob.
Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek , whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.)
, and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham’s time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked.
The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff. , and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.) If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14).
Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.)
, and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. ; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).
Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau’s Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom , i. e. , the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob.
Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek , whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.)
, and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham’s time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked.
The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff. , and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.) If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14).
Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.)
, and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. ; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).
Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau’s Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom , i. e. , the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob.
Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek , whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.)
, and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham’s time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked.
The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff. , and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.) If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14).
Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.)
, and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. ; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).
Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau’s Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom , i. e. , the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob.
Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek , whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.)
, and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham’s time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked.
The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff. , and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.) If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14).
Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.)
, and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. ; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).
Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau’s Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom , i. e. , the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob.
Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek , whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.)
, and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham’s time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked.
The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff. , and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.) If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14).
Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.)
, and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. ; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).
Gen 36:9-14 (cf. 1Ch 1:36-37). Esau’s Sons and Grandsons as Fathers of Tribes. - Through them he became the father of Edom , i. e. , the founder of the Edomitish nation on the mountains of Seir. Mouth Seir is the mountainous region between the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, the northern half of which is called Jebâl (Γεβαλήνη) by the Arabs, the southern half, Sherah (Rob.
Pal. ii. 552). - In the case of two of the wives of Esau, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in that of Aholibamah the three sons were the founders. Among the sons of Eliphaz we find Amalek , whose mother was Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz. He was the ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb as they came out of Egypt under Moses (Exo 17:8.)
, and not merely of a mixed tribe of Amalekites and Edomites, belonging to the supposed aboriginal Amalekite nation. For the Arabic legend of Amlik as an aboriginal tribe of Arabia is far too recent, confused, and contradictory to counterbalance the clear testimony of the record before us. The allusion to the fields of the Amalekites in Gen 14:7 does not imply that the tribe was in existence in Abraham’s time, nor does the expression “first of the nations,” in the saying of Balaam (Num 24:20), represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe by which Israel was attacked.
The Old Testament says nothing of any fusion of Edomites or Horites with Amalekites, nor does it mention a double Amalek (cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations 2, 247ff. , and Kurtz, History i. 122, 3, ii. 240ff.) If there had been an Amalek previous to Edom, with the important part which they took in opposition to Israel even in the time of Moses, the book of Genesis would not have omitted to give their pedigree in the list of the nations.
At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, having their headquarters in the southern part of the mountains of Judah, as far as Kadesh (Gen 14:7; Num 13:29; Num 14:43, Num 14:45), but, like the Bedouins, spreading themselves as a nomad tribe over the whole of the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:7; 1Sa 27:8); whilst one branch penetrated into the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills, in what was afterwards the inheritance of Ephraim, bore the name of mountains of the Amalekites (Jdg 12:15, cf. Gen 5:14).
Those who settled in Arabia seem also to have separated in the course of time into several branches, so that Amalekite hordes invaded the land of Israel in connection sometimes with the Midianites and the sons of the East (the Arabs, Jdg 6:3; Jdg 7:12), and at other times with the Ammonites (Jdg 3:13). After they had been defeated by Saul (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:2.)
, and frequently chastised by David (1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1. ; 2Sa 8:12), the remnant of them was exterminated under Hezekiah by the Simeonites on the mountains of Seir (1Ch 4:42-43).
Gen 36:15-19 The Tribe-Princes Who Descended from Esau. - אלּוּפים was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zec 9:7, and Zec 12:5. It is probably derived from אלף or אלפים, equivalent to משׁפּחות, families (1Sa 10:19; Mic 5:2), - the heads of the families, i.
e. , of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these Alluphim are not names of places, but of persons-of the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in Gen 36:9-14; though Knobel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. - In Gen 36:16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from Gen 36:18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar .
Codex.
Gen 36:15-19 The Tribe-Princes Who Descended from Esau. - אלּוּפים was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zec 9:7, and Zec 12:5. It is probably derived from אלף or אלפים, equivalent to משׁפּחות, families (1Sa 10:19; Mic 5:2), - the heads of the families, i.
e. , of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these Alluphim are not names of places, but of persons-of the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in Gen 36:9-14; though Knobel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. - In Gen 36:16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from Gen 36:18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar .
Codex.
Gen 36:15-19 The Tribe-Princes Who Descended from Esau. - אלּוּפים was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zec 9:7, and Zec 12:5. It is probably derived from אלף or אלפים, equivalent to משׁפּחות, families (1Sa 10:19; Mic 5:2), - the heads of the families, i.
e. , of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these Alluphim are not names of places, but of persons-of the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in Gen 36:9-14; though Knobel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. - In Gen 36:16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from Gen 36:18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar .
Codex.
Gen 36:15-19 The Tribe-Princes Who Descended from Esau. - אלּוּפים was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zec 9:7, and Zec 12:5. It is probably derived from אלף or אלפים, equivalent to משׁפּחות, families (1Sa 10:19; Mic 5:2), - the heads of the families, i.
e. , of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these Alluphim are not names of places, but of persons-of the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in Gen 36:9-14; though Knobel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. - In Gen 36:16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from Gen 36:18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar .
Codex.
Gen 36:15-19 The Tribe-Princes Who Descended from Esau. - אלּוּפים was the distinguishing title of the Edomite and Horite phylarchs; and it is only incidentally that it is applied to Jewish heads of tribes in Zec 9:7, and Zec 12:5. It is probably derived from אלף or אלפים, equivalent to משׁפּחות, families (1Sa 10:19; Mic 5:2), - the heads of the families, i.
e. , of the principal divisions, of the tribe. The names of these Alluphim are not names of places, but of persons-of the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau mentioned in Gen 36:9-14; though Knobel would reverse the process and interpret the whole geographically. - In Gen 36:16 Korah has probably been copied by mistake from Gen 36:18, and should therefore be erased, as it really is in the Samar .
Codex.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:20-29 (parallel, 1Ch 1:38-42). Descendants of Seir the Horite; - the inhabitants of the land, or pre-Edomitish population of the country. - “ The Horite: ” ὁ Τρωγλοδύτης, the dweller in caves, which abound in the mountains of Edom (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. p. 424). The Horites, who had previously been an independent people (Gen 14:6), were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deu 2:12, Deu 2:22).
Seven sons of Seir are given as tribe-princes of the Horites, who are afterwards mentioned as Alluphim (Gen 36:29, Gen 36:30), also their sons, as well as two daughters, Timna (Gen 36:22) and Aholibamah (Gen 36:25), who obtained notoriety from the face that two of the headquarters of Edomitish tribe-princes bore their names (Gen 36:40 and Gen 36:41). Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12); but Aholibamah was not the wife of Esau (cf.
Gen 36:2). - There are a few instances in which the names in this list differ from those in the Chronicles. But they are differences which either consist of variation in form, or have arisen from mistakes in copying. Of Anah , the son of Zibeon, it is related (Gen 36:24), that as he fed the asses of his father in the desert, he “found היּמם” - not “he invented mules,” as the Talmud, Luther, etc.
, render it, for mules are פּרדים, and מצא does not mean to invent; but he discovered aquae calidae ( Vulg .) , either the hot sulphur spring of Calirrhoe in the Wady Zerka Maein (vid. , Gen 10:19), or those in the Wady el Ahsa to the S. E. of the Dead Sea, or those in the Wady Hamad between Kerek and the Dead Sea.
Gen 36:30 “ These are the princes of the Horites according to their princes, ” i.e., as their princes were individually named in the land of Seir. ל in enumerations indicates the relation of the individual to the whole, and of the whole to the individual.
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:31-39 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:43-50). The Kings in the Land of Edom: before the children of Israel had a king. It is to be observed in connection with the eight kings mentioned here, that whilst they follow one another, that is to say, one never comes to the throne till his predecessor is dead, yet the son never succeeds the father, but they all belong to different families and places, and in the case of the last the statement that “he died” is wanting.
From this it is unquestionably obvious, that the sovereignty was elective; that the kings were chosen by the phylarchs; and, as Isa 34:12 also shows, that they lived or reigned contemporaneously with these. The contemporaneous existence of the Alluphim and the kings may also be inferred from Exo 15:15 as compared with Num 20:14. Whilst it was with the king of Edom that Moses treated respecting the passage through the land, in the song of Moses it is the princes who tremble with fear on account of the miraculous passage through the Red Sea (cf.
Eze 32:29). Lastly, this is also supported by the fact, that the account of the seats of the phylarchs (Gen 36:40-43) follows the list of the kings. This arrangement would have been thoroughly unsuitable if the monarchy had been founded upon the ruins of the phylarchs (vid. , Hengstenberg, ut sup . pp. 238ff.) Of all the kings of Edom, not one is named elsewhere.
It is true, the attempt has been made to identify the fourth, Hadad (Gen 36:35), with the Edomite Hadad who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14); but without foundation. The contemporary of Solomon was of royal blood, but neither a king nor a pretender; our Hadad, on the contrary, was a king, but he was the son of an unknown Hadad of the town of Avith , and no relation to his predecessor Husham of the country of the Temanites.
It is related of him that he smote Midian in the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35); from which Hengstenberg (pp. 235-6) justly infers that this event cannot have been very remote from the Mosaic age, since we find the Midianites allied to the Moabites in Num 22; ; whereas afterwards, viz. , in the time of Gideon, the Midianites vanished from history, and in Solomon’s days the fields of Moab, being Israelitish territory, cannot have served as a field of battle for the Midianites and Moabites.
- Of the tribe-cities of these kings only a few can be identified now. Bozrah , a noted city of the Edomites (Isa 34:6; Isa 43:1, etc.) , is still to be traced in el Buseireh, a village with ruins in Jebal (Rob. Pal. ii. 571). - The land of the Temanite (Gen 36:34) is a province in northern Idumaea, with a city, Teman, which has not yet been discovered; according to Jerome , quinque millibus from Petra.
- Rehoboth of the river (Gen 36:37) can neither be the Idumaean Robotha , nor er Ruheibeh in the wady running towards el Arish , but must be sought for on the Euphrates, say in Errachabi or Rachabeh , near the mouth of the Chaboras. Consequently Saul, who sprang from Rehoboth, was a foreigner. - Of the last king, Hadar (Gen 36:39; not Hadad, as it is written in 1Ch 1:50), the wife, the mother-in-law, and the mother are mentioned: his death is not mentioned here, but is added by the later chronicler (1Ch 1:51).
This can be explained easily enough from the simple fact, that at the time when the table was first drawn up, Hadad was still alive and seated upon the throne. In all probability, therefore, Hadad was the king of Edom, to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the land (Num 20:14.) At any rate the list is evidently a record relating to the Edomitish kings of a pre-Mosaic age.
But if this is the case, the heading, “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, ” does not refer to the time when the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob (Gen 35:11, cf. Gen 17:4.) , and merely expresses the thought, that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier period than Israel.
Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, “that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” ( Del .)
Gen 36:40-43 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:51-54). Seats of the Tribe-Princes of Esau According to Their Families. - That the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz. , of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar’s death), but merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evident from the expression in the heading, “ After their places, by their names, ” as compared with Gen 36:43, “ According to their habitations in the land of their possession .
” This being the substance and intention of the list, there is nothing surprising in the fact, that out of the eleven names only two correspond to those given in Gen 36:15-19. This proves nothing more than that only two of the capitals received their names from the princes who captured or founded them, viz. , Timnah and Kenaz . Neither of these has been discovered yet.
The name Aholibamah is derived from the Horite princess (Gen 36:25); its site is unknown. Elah is the port Aila (vid. , Gen 14:6). Pinon is the same as Phunon , an encampment of the Israelites (Num 33:42-43), celebrated for its mines, in which many Christians were condemned to labour under Diocletian, between Petra and Zoar, to the northeast of Wady Musa. Teman is the capital of the land of the Temanites (Gen 36:34).
Mibzar is supposed by Knobel to be Petra; but this is called Selah elsewhere (2Ki 14:7). Magdiel and Iram cannot be identified. The concluding sentence, “ This is Esau, the father (founder) of Edom ” (i. e. , from his sprang the great nation of the Edomites, with its princes and kings, upon the mountains of Seir), not only terminates this section, but prepared the way for the history of Jacob, which commences with the following chapter.
Gen 36:40-43 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:51-54). Seats of the Tribe-Princes of Esau According to Their Families. - That the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz. , of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar’s death), but merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evident from the expression in the heading, “ After their places, by their names, ” as compared with Gen 36:43, “ According to their habitations in the land of their possession .
” This being the substance and intention of the list, there is nothing surprising in the fact, that out of the eleven names only two correspond to those given in Gen 36:15-19. This proves nothing more than that only two of the capitals received their names from the princes who captured or founded them, viz. , Timnah and Kenaz . Neither of these has been discovered yet.
The name Aholibamah is derived from the Horite princess (Gen 36:25); its site is unknown. Elah is the port Aila (vid. , Gen 14:6). Pinon is the same as Phunon , an encampment of the Israelites (Num 33:42-43), celebrated for its mines, in which many Christians were condemned to labour under Diocletian, between Petra and Zoar, to the northeast of Wady Musa. Teman is the capital of the land of the Temanites (Gen 36:34).
Mibzar is supposed by Knobel to be Petra; but this is called Selah elsewhere (2Ki 14:7). Magdiel and Iram cannot be identified. The concluding sentence, “ This is Esau, the father (founder) of Edom ” (i. e. , from his sprang the great nation of the Edomites, with its princes and kings, upon the mountains of Seir), not only terminates this section, but prepared the way for the history of Jacob, which commences with the following chapter.
Gen 36:40-43 (Parallel, 1Ch 1:51-54). Seats of the Tribe-Princes of Esau According to Their Families. - That the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz. , of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar’s death), but merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evident from the expression in the heading, “ After their places, by their names, ” as compared with Gen 36:43, “ According to their habitations in the land of their possession .
” This being the substance and intention of the list, there is nothing surprising in the fact, that out of the eleven names only two correspond to those given in Gen 36:15-19. This proves nothing more than that only two of the capitals received their names from the princes who captured or founded them, viz. , Timnah and Kenaz . Neither of these has been discovered yet.
The name Aholibamah is derived from the Horite princess (Gen 36:25); its site is unknown. Elah is the port Aila (vid. , Gen 14:6). Pinon is the same as Phunon , an encampment of the Israelites (Num 33:42-43), celebrated for its mines, in which many Christians were condemned to labour under Diocletian, between Petra and Zoar, to the northeast of Wady Musa. Teman is the capital of the land of the Temanites (Gen 36:34).
Mibzar is supposed by Knobel to be Petra; but this is called Selah elsewhere (2Ki 14:7). Magdiel and Iram cannot be identified. The concluding sentence, “ This is Esau, the father (founder) of Edom ” (i. e. , from his sprang the great nation of the Edomites, with its princes and kings, upon the mountains of Seir), not only terminates this section, but prepared the way for the history of Jacob, which commences with the following chapter.