Charles Ellicott Commentary Genesis 36:1

"Now these are the generations of Esau (the same is Edom)." — Genesis 36:1 (ASV)

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.