1. That such a family as that of Jacob should have had false gods in it, is a matter not less astonishing than real: and suppose that we allow, as is very probable, that their images and rings were got from strangers, the Syrians and the Shechemites, yet their being tolerated in the family, though it is probable this was for a very short time, cannot be easily accounted for. It is true the Law was not then given, and the unity of God not so particularly taught as it was afterwards. Besides, we have already seen that certain superstitions were compatible in those early times with general sincerity and attachment to the truth; those times and acts of ignorance were winked at, till superior light shone upon the world. Between many of the practices of Laban's family and those of the surrounding heathenish tribes, there might have been but little difference; and this was probably the reason why Dinah could so readily mix with the daughters of the land, [Gen 34:1], which led to the fatal consequences already reviewed. Sin is like the letting out of water - when once a breach is made in the dyke, the stream becomes determined to a wrong course, and its progress is soon irresistible. Had not Jacob put away these strange gods, the whole family might have been infected with idolatry. This saying of one of the ancients is good, Vitia transmittit ad posteros, qui praesentibus culpis ignoscit - Seneca. "He who is indulgent to present offenses, transmits sin to posterity." The first motions of it should be firmly resisted; after struggles are too often fruitless.
2. The doctrine of a particular and especial providence has another proof in this chapter. After the sanguinary conduct of Jacob's sons, is it not surprising that the neighboring tribes did not join together and extirpate the whole family? And so they certainly would, had not the terror of God fallen upon them, [Gen 35:5]. Jacob and the major part of his family were innocent of this great transgression; and on the preservation of their lives, the accomplishment of great events depended: therefore God watches over them, and shields them from the hands of their enemies.
3. The impatience and fate of the amiable Rachel, who can read of without deploring? Give me children, said she, or else I die, [Gen 30:1]. Her desire was granted, and her death was the consequence! God's way is ever best. We know not what we ask, nor what we ought to ask, and therefore often ask amiss when we petition for such secular things as belong to the dispensations of God's providence. For things of this kind we have no revealed directory; and when we ask for them, it should be with the deepest submission to the Divine will, as God alone knows what is best for us. With respect to the soul, every thing is clearly revealed, so that we may ask and receive, and have a fullness of joy; but as to our bodies, there is much reason to fear that the answer of our petitions would be, in numerous cases, our inevitable destruction. How many prayers does God in mercy shut out!
4. The transgression of Reuben, of whatsoever kind, was marked, not only by the displeasure of his father, but by that of God also; see [Gen 49:4]. It brought a curse upon him, and he forfeited thereby the right of primogeniture and the priesthood: the first was given to Judah, the second to Levi. Is it not in reference to this that our Lord addresses these solemn words to the angel of the Church of Philadelphia: Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that No Man Take Thy Crown? A man, by sowing a grain of forbidden sweets, may reap an abundant harvest of eternal wretchedness. Reader, let not sin rob thee of the kingdom of God.
5. Here we have the death of Isaac recorded: most that can be said of his character has been already anticipated, see Genesis 22, etc. He appears to have been generally pious, deeply submissive and obedient. He was rather an amiable and good, than a great and useful, man. If compared with his son Jacob, in the early part of their lives, he appears to great advantage, as possessing more sincerity and more personal piety. But if compared with his father Abraham, O, what a falling off is here! Abraham is the most perfect character under the Old Testament, and even under the New he has no parallel but St. Paul. Isaac, though falling far short of his father's excellences, will ever remain a pattern of piety and filial obedience.
Introduction
The genealogy of Esau, i.e., his sons, by his Canaanitish wives Adah, Aholibamah, and Bashemath, [Gen 36:1-3]. The children of Adah and Bashemath, [Gen 36:4]. Of Aholibamah, [Gen 36:5]. Esau departs from Canaan and goes to Mount Seir, [Gen 36:6-8]. The generations of Esau, i.e., his grandchildren, while in Seir, [Gen 36:7-19]. Anah finds mules (Yemim) in the wilderness, [Gen 36:24]. The generations of Seir, the Horite, [Gen 36:29-30]. The kings which reigned in Edom, [Gen 36:31-39]. The dukes that succeeded them, [Gen 36:40-43].
Verse 1
These are the generations of Esau - We have here the genealogy of Esau in his sons and grandsons, and also the genealogy of Seir the Horite. The genealogy of the sons of Esau, born in Canaan, is related [Gen 36:1-8]; those of his grandchildren born in Seir, [Gen 36:9-19]; those of Seir the Horite, [Gen 36:20-30]. The generations of Esau are particularly marked, to show how exactly God fulfilled the promises he made to him, Genesis 25 and 27; and those of Seir the Horite are added, because his family became in some measure blended with that of Esau.
Verse 2
His wives - It appears that Esau's wives went by very different names. Aholibamah is named Judith, [Gen 26:34]; Adah is called Bashemath in the same place; and she who is here called Bashemath is called Mahalath, [Gen 28:9]. These are variations which cannot be easily accounted for; and they are not of sufficient importance to engross much time. It is well known that the same persons in Scripture are often called by different names.
Anah the daughter of Zibeon - But this same Anah is said to be the son of Zibeon, [Gen 36:24], though in this and [Gen 36:14] he is said to be the daughter of Zibeon. But the Samaritan, the Septuagint, (and the Syriac, in [Gen 36:2]), read son instead of daughter, which Houbigant and Kennicott contend to be the true reading. Others say that daughter should be referred to Aholibamah, who was the daughter of Anah, and granddaughter of Zibeon. I should rather prefer the reading of the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Syriac, and read, both here and in [Gen 36:14], "Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the son of Zibeon," and then the whole will agree with [Gen 36:24].
Verse 6
Esau took his wives, etc. - So it appears that Esau and Jacob dwelt together in Canaan, whither the former removed from Seir, probably soon after the return of Jacob. That they were on the most friendly footing this sufficiently proves; and Esau shows the same dignified conduct as on other occasions, in leaving Canaan to Jacob, and returning again to Mount Seir; certainly a much less fruitful region than that which he now in behalf of his brother voluntarily abandoned.
Verse 12
Timna was concubine to Eliphaz - As Timna was sister to Lotan the Horite, [Gen 36:22], we see how the family of Esau and the Horites got intermixed. This might give the sons of Esau a pretext to seize the land, and expel the ancient inhabitants, as we find they did, [Deu 2:12].
Amalek - The father of the Amalekites, afterwards bitter enemies to the Jews, and whom God commanded to be entirely exterminated, [Deu 25:17], [Deu 25:19].
Verse 15
Dukes of the sons of Esau - The word duke comes from the Latin dux, a captain or leader. The Hebrew אלוף alluph has the same signification; and as it is also the term for a thousand, which is a grand capital or leading number, probably the אלופי alluphey or dukes had this name from being leaders of or captains over a company of one thousand men; just as those among the Greeks called chiliarchs, which signifies the same; and as the Romans called those centurions who were captains over one hundred men, from the Latin word centum, which signifies a hundred. The ducal government was that which prevailed first among the Idumeans, or descendants of Esau. Here fourteen dukes are reckoned to Esau, seven that came of his wife, Adah, four of Bashemath, and three of Aholibamah.
Verse 16
Duke Korah - This Dr. Kennicott pronounces to be an interpolation. "It is certain, from [Gen 36:4], that Eliphaz was Esau's son by Adah; and from [Gen 36:11], [Gen 36:12], that Eliphaz had but six sons, Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek. It is also certain, from [Gen 36:5], [Gen 36:14], that Korah was the son of Esau (not of Eliphaz) by Aholibamah; and as such he is properly mentioned in [Gen 36:18] : These are the sons of Aholibamah, Esau's wife: duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, Duke Korah. It is clear, therefore, that some transcriber has improperly inserted duke Korah in [Gen 36:16]; from which interpolation both the Samaritan text and the Samaritan version are free." - Kennicott's Remarks. Everything considered, I incline to the opinion that these words were not originally in the text.
Verse 20
These are the sons of Seir the Horite - These Horites were the original inhabitants of the country of Seir, called the land of the Horites, and afterwards the land of the Idumeans, when the descendants of Esau had driven them out. These people are first mentioned [Gen 14:6].
Verse 21
These are the dukes of the Horites - It appears pretty evident that the Horites and the descendants of Esau were mixed together in the same land, as before observed; and Calmet has very properly remarked, that if we compare this verse with [Gen 36:30], there were princes of Seir in the country of Seir, and in that of Edom; and in comparing the generations of Seir and Esau, we are obliged to consider these princes as contemporary.
Verse 24
This was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness - The words את הימם eth kaiyemim, here translated mules, has given rise to a great variety of conjectures and discordant opinions. St. Jerome, who renders it aquas calidas, warm springs, or hot baths, says there are as many opinions concerning it as there are commentators.
The Septuagint has τον Ιαμειν, which seems to be the name of a man; but this is expressed in a great variety of ways in different MSS. of that version.
The Syriac renders it mayé, waters; the author of this version having read in the Hebrew copy from which he translated. מים mayim, waters, for ימם yemim, the two first letters being transposed.
Onkelos translates the word גבריא gibbaraiya, giants, or strong or powerful men.
The Samaritan text has haaimim, and the Samaritan version am aimai, the Emim, a warlike people, bordering upon the Horites.
The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the place thus: "This is the Anah who united the onager with the tame ass, and in process of time he found mules produced by them." R. D. Kimchi says, that "Zibeon was both the father and brother of Anah; and this Anah, intent on heterogeneous mixtures, caused asses and horses to copulate, and so produced mules." R. S. Jarchi is of the same opinion. See his comment on this place.
Bochart believes the Emim are meant; and argues forcibly, 1. That מצא matsa, he found, never signifies to invent, but rather the meeting with or happening on a thing which already exists. 2. That mules are never called ימם yemim in the Scriptures, but פרדים peradim. 3. That Anah fed Asses only, not horses. And, 4. That there is no mention of mules in Palestine till the days of David. From the whole he concludes that the Emim are meant, with whom Anah fought; and he brings many places of Scripture where the same form of expression, he or they found, signifies the onset to battle, [Jdg 1:5]; [1Sam 31:3]; [1Kgs 13:24]; [2Chr 22:8]; [Num 35:27]; [Gen 4:14]; with many others. See the Hierozoicon, vol. i., cap. 21, p. 23S., edit. 1692.
Gusset, in Comment. Heb. Ling., examines what Bochart has asserted, and supposes that mules, not the Emim, were found by Anah.
Wagenseil would credit what Bochart has asserted, did not stronger reasons lead him to believe that the word means a sort of plant!
From the above opinions and versions the reader may choose which he likes best, or invent one for himself. My own opinion is, that mules were not known before the time of Anah; and that he was probably the first who coupled the mare and ass together to produce this mongrel, or the first who met with creatures of this race in some very secluded part of the wilderness. Is it not probable that from this Anah, or ענה enah, the Enetae derived at least their fabulous origin, whom Homer mentions as famous for their race of wild mules? Παφλαγονων δ' ἡγειτο Πυλαιμενεος λασιον κηρ, Εξ Ενετων, ὁθεν ἡμιονων γενος αγροτεραων.
IL., lib. ii., v. 852.
The Paphlagonians Pylaemenes rules,
Where rich Henetia breeds her Savage Mules.
Pope.
The Enetae or Henetae, who were a people contiguous to Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, might have derived their origin from this Anah, or Henah, out of which the Ενετοι of the ancient Greek writers might have been formed; and according to Theophrastus, Strabo, and Plutarch, the first mules were seen among these people. See Ludov, De Dieu and Scheuchzer.
Verse 31
Before there reigned any king over - Israel - I suppose all the verses, from [Gen 36:31-39] inclusive, have been transferred to this place from [1Chr 1:43-50], as it is not likely they could have been written by Moses; and it is quite possible they might have been, at a very early period, written in the margin of an authentic copy, to make out the regal succession in Edom, prior to the consecration of Saul; which words being afterwards found in the margin of a valuable copy, from which others were transcribed, were supposed by the copyist to be a part of the text, which having been omitted by the mistake of the original writer, had been since added to make up the deficiency; on this conviction he would not hesitate to transcribe them consecutively in his copy. In most MSS. sentences and paragraphs have been left out by the copyists, which, when perceived, have been added in the margin, either by the original writer, or by some later hand. Now, as the margin was the ordinary place where glosses or explanatory notes were written, it is easy to conceive how the notes, as well as the parts of the original text found in the margin, might be all incorporated with the text by a future transcriber; and his MSS., being often copied, would of course multiply the copies with such additions, as we have much reason to believe has been the case. This appears very frequently in the Vulgate and Septuagint; and an English Bible now before me written some time in the fourteenth century, exhibits several proofs of this principle. See the preface to this work.
I know there is another way of accounting for those words on the ground of their being written originally by Moses; but to me it is not satisfactory. It is simply this: the word king should be considered as implying any kind of regular government, whether by chiefs, dukes, judges, etc., and therefore when Moses says these are the kings which reigned in Edom, before there was any king in Israel, he may be only understood as saying that these kings reigned among the Edomites before the family of Jacob had acquired any considerable power, or before the time in which his twelve sons had become the fathers of those numerous tribes, at the head of which, as king himself in Jeshurun, he now stood.
Esau, after his dukes, had eight kings, who reigned successively over their people, while Israel were in affliction in Egypt.