Charles Ellicott Commentary Genesis 36

The generations of Esau. —This tôldôth, consisting of Genesis 36:1 to Genesis 37:1, is very remarkable, if only for the difficulties that it contains, and which have too often been aggravated by the determination of commentators to make Holy Scripture bend to their preconceived ideas about what it ought to be, instead of dutifully accepting it as it is. It begins with an enumeration of Esau’s wives, in which the names are different from those given in Genesis 26:34 and Genesis 28:9.

Next, we have the genealogy of Esau, based on the same principle by which the tôldôth of Ishmael was inserted immediately after the history of Abraham’s death (Genesis 25:12–18). But this is followed, in Genesis 36:20-30, by a genealogy of the Horite inhabitants of Mount Seir. Among these, Esau dwelt as the predominant power, but nevertheless on friendly terms, for a reason we will see later.

Next, we have a list of kings who are said to have reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. This is not a prophetic portion of the Bible but a dry genealogical table. The attempts made to evade the plain meaning of the words—namely, that kings already existed in Israel when this list of kings was written—are painful to read and can only harden skeptics in their unbelief.

It is remarkable that these Edomite kings do not follow one another through hereditary succession, nor do they share the same capital. Instead, they seem to belong to a time of anarchy, similar to the period of the Judges in Israel.

During this period, the Edomites and Horites were fused together, chiefly by conquest (Deuteronomy 2:12; Deuteronomy 2:22), but partly also by the gradual decline of the original inhabitants, much as, in the author's era, some indigenous populations in North America and New Zealand were seen to be diminishing.

Finally, we have a list of the eleven dukes of Edom, after their places. As these dukes represented tribes or clans, this catalog is geographical. It is described as such in Genesis 36:43 and was intended to present the political arrangement of the land at the later date when this addition was made, by which time considerable changes had occurred since the initial settlement.

These last two documents, forming Genesis 36:31-43, were probably added around the time the Books of Samuel were composed. However, since we also find the list of kings in 1 Chronicles 1:43–50, and because there was great activity in completing the canon of Holy Scripture at that time, some suppose that the lists in both places were written by the same hand.

It is entirely wrong to describe these as interpolations, for it was customary to add to and complete genealogies. Besides, a living authority existed in the Jewish Church through the prophets, who had the right and power to make necessary additions to the Divine record.

It is to the “schools of the prophets” that we owe, under God’s providence, the existence of most of the Old Testament Scriptures and the preservation of all of them. They did not preserve these writings for the sake of the authors, but for the sake of what was written.

And there is nothing derogatory to the authority or inspiration of Holy Scripture in believing that the prophets were, from time to time, moved by the Spirit to add to what had been written. The contents of the Old Testament bear witness everywhere to the scrupulous fidelity with which people in the prophetic schools guarded the sacred deposit entrusted to their care. However, it is equally certain that we find notes inserted from time to time, as in Genesis 35:20.

No one can doubt that the remark—that the pillar standing on Rachel’s grave unto this day was the same stone that Jacob had set up—was inserted at a later date, apparently after the conquest of Canaan. Similarly, in Genesis 14:7, we find a note inserted after the establishment of the kingly office. Why should there be any difficulty in believing that these two lists of kings and dukes, added to complete a genealogy, also belonged to a time when there were kings in Israel?

It is probable, however, that the list of kings given here is of an earlier date than that in 1 Chronicles 1. This is because Hadar (more correctly, Hadad in Chronicles) seems to have been living when this document was composed, and hence the full information about his wife is provided. In Chronicles (1 Chronicles 1:51), the text adds, Hadad died also. And if he really was alive when this catalog was written, he had by that later time (of the Chronicler's writing) been dead for centuries, for its date would then be comparatively early.

Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite. —In Genesis 26:34, she is called “Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite,” and is placed second. Here she is everywhere placed first. We do not often elsewhere find women possessing two names, but it has not been sufficiently kept in mind that she was a Hittite, and her own name in her own language was neither Adah nor Bashemath. As Adah means ornament, and Bashemath sweet-scented, both may possibly have been terms of endearment, arising from modifications of her Hittite name.

Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite. —She is supposed to correspond to Judith the daughter of “Beeri the Hittite,” in Genesis 26:34. But in Genesis 36:24-25, we find her genealogy given again, and Zibeon, the father of Anah, the father of Aholibamah, is there described as a Horite. Now, as Hivi (Hivite) and Hori (Horite) differ in Hebrew only in the length of the top of the middle letter, and as mistakes in the transcription of biblical names are of constant occurrence, it seems certain that Aholibamah was a Horite, and therefore, entirely distinct from Judith.

Judith, the first wife, apparently had no children, and this led to Esau's temptation to marry someone else. Consequently, Adah comes in her proper order, as being the first wife who had sons; and Eliphaz, as the son of the first wife who had children, has the right of primogeniture. Consequently, Aholibamah in the genealogy is always placed third. She was the fourth and last wife taken, and her children are placed after those of Bashemath. And this was a matter of far too great importance in a genealogy for there to be any mistake made in it.

And now we see the reason for giving the genealogy of the Horites, and also why Esau took the Horite land for a possession. In some expedition into the country of Seir, Esau had married the daughter of one of the dukes there, and through her had acquired a right to ducal rank. Through her family, moreover, he had friendly relations with at least one portion of the Horite people. Our knowledge of the princely Hittites has recently been too largely increased for us to be able to connect a Horite race with them, and Rebekah distinctly calls Judith and Adah-Bashemath daughters of Heth.

Except for the Semites, no race in Palestine stands so high as the Hittites, and no race so low as the Horites. But their rulers were probably of a higher lineage; and Esau’s invasions of their country, his final settlement there, and the introduction of the genealogy of “Seir the Horite,” together with Aholibamah’s place as the last of Esau’s wives, are all facts that strongly confirm the supposition of his having contracted a Horite marriage during Jacob’s absence in Padan-aram.

The low status of the Horites is not a deduction merely from their having lived in caves, for the country is so admirably adapted to this mode of living that it still exists there; but they are omitted from the table of nations in Genesis 10, and seem generally to have been a feeble aboriginal race.

Bashemath Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth. —The Samaritan text reads Mahalath here, and in Genesis 36:4, Genesis 36:10, and Genesis 36:17, as in Genesis 28:9. There can be little doubt that Mahalath is the right reading, but the versions, nevertheless, agree with the Masoretic Hebrew text, so that the error must have been of very ancient date. As Mahalath was of a Semitic stock, she would have her own Semitic name, and there would be no double translation of it, as in the case of the daughter of Elon.

In the land of Canaan. —We find Esau with a band of armed men in Seir on Jacob’s return from Padan-aram, but he still had his home at Hebron with his father until Isaac’s death, twenty-two years afterwards. Evidently he had taken Aholibamah home there, and she had borne him three sons. After Isaac’s death the land of Seir had so great attractions for him that he migrated there with his share of Isaac’s wealth, and left Hebron to Jacob, who now moved down there from the town of Eder, and took possession of the homestead of his fathers.

And thus the inheritance of the birthright came finally to Jacob by Esau’s own act, and would doubtless have so come to him; only his father’s blessing and the transference to him of the Abrahamic promises would have been given him, not at the time of Isaac’s temporary illness, but on his deathbed.

Into the country from the face. —Hebrew into a land away from the face, etc.