Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 36:31
And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
31 39. Kings of Edom
31. any king ] From this verse we infer that the writer lived at a time subsequent to the foundation of the Israelite monarchy. The definition, however, of the date is not quite clear in the opinion of some scholars. It is simplest to render, “before there reigned a king for Israel,” i.e. before the time of Saul. But it is noteworthy that LXX Cod. A renders, “before there reigned any king in Jerusalem.” Dillmann translates “before an Israelite king reigned,” i.e. over Edom, referring to the subjugation of the Edomites by David. The tradition shews that Edom had a settled constitution before Israel. In Scriptural terms Esau was “the elder.” It is to be observed that the Edomite kings, (1) had different places of residence, (2) were not hereditary kings. Perhaps they may be compared with the local judges of Israel. “The land of Edom” is the whole territory, more extensive than “mount Seir” ( Gen 36:8). There was a “king of Edom” in Moses’ time (Num 20:14).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 31. Before there reigned any king over – Israel.] I suppose all the verses, from Ge 36:31-39 inclusive, have been transferred to this place from 1Ch 1:43-50, as it is not likely they could have been written by Moses; and it is quite possible they might have been, at a very early period, written in the margin of an authentic copy, to make out the regal succession in Edom, prior to the consecration of Saul; which words being afterwards found in the margin of a valuable copy, from which others were transcribed, were supposed by the copyist to be a part of the text, which having been omitted by the mistake of the original writer, had been since added to make up the deficiency; on this conviction he would not hesitate to transcribe them consecutively in his copy. In most MSS. sentences and paragraphs have been left out by the copyists, which, when perceived, have been added in the margin, either by the original writer, or by some later hand. Now, as the margin was the ordinary place where glosses or explanatory notes were written, it is easy to conceive how the notes, as well as the parts of the original text found in the margin, might be all incorporated with the text by a future transcriber; and his MSS., being often copied, would of course multiply the copies with such additions, as we have much reason to believe has been the case. This appears very frequently in the Vulgate and Septuagint; and an English Bible now before me written some time in the fourteenth century, exhibits several proofs of this principle. See the preface to this work.
I know there is another way of accounting for those words on the ground of their being written originally by Moses; but to me it is not satisfactory. It is simply this: the word king should be considered as implying any kind of regular government, whether by chiefs, dukes, judges, &c., and therefore when Moses says these are the kings which reigned in Edom, before there was any king in Israel, he may be only understood as saying that these kings reigned among the Edomites before the family of Jacob had acquired any considerable power, or before the time in which his twelve sons had become the fathers of those numerous tribes, at the head of which, as king himself in Jeshurun, he now stood.
Esau, after his dukes, had eight kings, who reigned successively over their people, while Israel were in affliction in Egypt.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He speaks of the posterity of Esau, who after they had subdued the Horites, erected a kingdom there.
Here profane wits triumph. How, say they, could Moses write this, when as yet there was no king in Israel?
Answ.
1. The word may be taken for any chief governor, in which sense the title of king is given to Moses, Deu 33:5; and to the judges, Jdg 17:6; and to others who were not kings, properly so called, Psa 119:46; Luk 22:25; Act 9:15, &c.
Answ. 2. Moses might well say thus, because he did by the Spirit of prophecy foresee, and therefore could foretell, that the Israelites would have a king, as appears from Deu 17:14,15.
Answ. 3. This, with other clauses of the same nature, might be inserted afterwards by some holy and inspired man of God, as it is confessed that part of the last chapter of Deuteronomy was.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31-39. kings of EdomThe royalpower was not built on the ruins of the dukedoms, but existed at thesame time.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,…. In the land that was afterwards called the land of Edom; for this laud was not so called when these kings began to reign: for, according to Bishop Cumberland f, and those that follow him g, these were Horite kings, who, after their defeat by Chedorlaomer, Ge 14:5; in order to secure themselves the better from such a calamity for the future, set up a kingdom, and which appears, by the following account, to be elective; and so Maimonides h observes, that not one of these kings were of Edom: and these were,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel; and there being no kings over Israel until many years after the times of Moses, hence some have thought these words are inserted by some other writer after him; but there is no need to suppose that; for Moses knew, from foregoing prophecies and promises, that kings would arise out of them and reign over them, Ge 17:6; and this he was so certain of, that he himself, by divine direction, gave laws and rules to the children of Israel respecting their future kings, De 17:14; besides Moses himself was king in Jeshurun or Israel, De 33:5, so that it is the same as if he had said, these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before this time.
f Orig. Gent. Antiq. p. 1-24. g Bedford in his Scripture Chronology, and the Authors of the Universal History. h Morch Nevochim, par. 3. c. 50. p. 510.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(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.).
(Note: If this be admitted; then, on the supposition that this list of kings contains all the previous kings of Edom, the introduction of monarchy among the Edomites can hardly have taken place more than 200 years before the exodus; and, in that case, none of the phylarchs named in Gen 36:15-18 can have lived to see its establishment. For the list only reaches to the grandsons of Esau, none of whom are likely to have lived more than 100 or 150 years after Esau’s death. It is true we do not know when Esau died; but 413 years elapsed between the death of Jacob and the exodus, and Joseph, who was born in the 91st years of Jacob’s life, died 54 years afterwards, i.e., 359 years before the exodus. But Esau was married in his 40th year, 37 years before Jacob (Gen 26:34), and had sons and daughters before his removal to Seir (Gen 36:6). Unless, therefore, his sons and grandsons attained a most unusual age, or were married remarkably late in life, his grandsons can hardly have outlived Joseph more than 100 years. Now, if we fix their death at about 250 years before the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there remains from that point to the arrival of the Israelites at the land of Edom (Num 20:14) a period of 290 years; amply sufficient for the reigns of eight kings, even if the monarchy was not introduced till after the death of the last of the phylarchs mentioned in Gen 36:15-18.)
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.).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. 32 And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom: and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 33 And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. 34 And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his stead. 35 And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith. 36 And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead. 37 And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead. 38 And Saul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead. 39 And Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. 40 And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names; duke Timnah, duke Alvah, duke Jetheth, 41 Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon, 42 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, 43 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram: these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession: he is Esau the father of the Edomites.
By degrees, it seems, the Edomites wormed out the Horites, obtained full possession of the country, and had a government of their own. 1. They were ruled by kings, who governed the whole country, and seem to have come to the throne by election, and not by lineal descent; so bishop Patrick observes. These kings reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, that is, before Moses’s time, for he was king in Jeshurun, Deut. xxxiii. 5. God had lately promised Jacob that kings should come out of his loins (ch. xxxv. 11), yet Esau’s blood becomes royal long before any of Jacob’s did. Note, In external prosperity and honour, the children of the covenant are often cast behind, and those that are out of covenant get the start. The triumphing of the wicked may be quick, but it is short; soon ripe, and as soon rotten: but the products of the promise, though they are slow, are sure and lasting; at the end it shall speak, and not lie. We may suppose it was a great trial to the faith of God’s Israel to hear of the pomp and power of the kings of Edom, while they were bond-slaves in Egypt; but those that look for great things from God must be content to wait for them; God’s time is the best time. 2. They were afterwards governed by dukes, again here named, who, I suppose, ruled all at the same time in several places in the country. Either they set up this form of government in conformity to the Horites, who had used it (v. 29), or God’s providence reduced them to it, as some conjecture, to correct them for their unkindness to Israel, in refusing them a passage though their country, Num. xx. 18. Note, When power is abused, it is just with God to weaken it, by turning it into divers channels. For the transgression of a land, many are the princes thereof. Sin brought Edom from kings to dukes, from crowns to coronets. We read of the dukes of Edom (Exod. xv: 15), yet, long afterwards, of their kings again. 3. Mount Seir is called the land of their possession, v. 43. While the Israelites dwelt in the house of bondage, and their Canaan was only the land of promise, the Edomites dwelt in their own habitations, and Seir was in their possession. Note, The children of this world have their all in hand, and nothing in hope (Luke xvi. 25); while the children of God have their all in hope, and next to nothing in hand. But, all things considered, it is better to have Canaan in promise than mount Seir in possession.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 31-43:
The reference to the kings of Israel (verses 31) does not imply a post-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In Ge 35:11 is God’s promise that kings should arise from Jacob’s lineage. Esau’s descendants established a monarchial system of government before those of Israel (Jacob). At least eight kings of Edom are listed in this text.
Verse 35 shows the aggressive nature of the Edomites, that they engaged in warfare with their neighbors.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
31. These are the kings that reigned, etc We must keep in memory what we have said a little before, that reprobates are suddenly exalted, that they may immediately fall, like the herb upon the roofs, which is destitute of root, and has a hasty growth, but withers the more quickly. To the two sons of Isaac had been promised the honor that kings should spring from them. The Idumeans first began to reign, and thus the condition of Israel seemed to be inferior. But at length, lapse of time taught how much better it is, by creeping on the ground, to strike the roots deep, than to acquire an extravagant pre-eminence for a moment, which speedily vanishes away. There is, therefore, no reason why the faithful, who slowly pursue their way, should envy the quick children of this world, their rapid succession of delights; since the felicity which the Lord promises them is far more stable, as it is expressed in the psalm,
“
The children’s children shall dwell there, and their inheritance shall be perpetual.” (Psa 102:28.)
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(31) The kings.In the triumphal song of Moses on the Red Sea we still read of dukes of Edom (Exo. 15:15; but when Israel had reached the borders of their land, we find that Edom had then a king (Num. 20:14). But in the list given here, no king succeeds his father, and probably these were petty monarchs, who sprang up in various parts of the country during a long period of civil war, in which the Horites were finally as completely conquered as were the Canaanites in Palestine under the heavy hands of Saul and Solomon. In the time of the dukes, there were also Horite dukes of the race of Seir, ruling districts mixed up apparently with those governed by the descendants of Esau. But all these now disappear.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE KINGS OF EDOM, Gen 36:31-39.
How a monarchy arose among the Edomites we are not told, but it is noticeable that of the eight kings here mentioned, not one is said to have succeeded to his father. It is, therefore, very plausibly supposed that they were chosen by the dukes, or phylarchs. The statement that these kings reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel has been suspected as an interpolation, introduced after kings reigned over the Israelites. This is not an unreasonable or improbable supposition. See Introd. to the Pentateuch, p. 22. Others have argued from it the late authorship of the Pentateuch. But neither of these suppositions are necessary. God had said to Abraham, “Kings shall come out of thee,” (Gen 17:6,) and he repeated the promise to Jacob, (Gen 35:11,) who, in his last words, prophesied of a sceptre to arise in Judah.
Gen 49:10. Moses also assumed that kings would arise in Israel, (Deu 17:14; Deu 28:36😉 and with such expectations it would have been very natural for him, in recording this list of Edomite kings, to introduce the remark that all these reigned before Israel had any king . The Edomite monarchy was a sudden upstart affair, as compared with the Israelitish .
Of none of these kings have we any certain trace elsewhere. Bozrah, in Gen 36:33, is the same as that mentioned in Isa 34:6; Isa 53:1, and the land of Temani (Gen 36:34) was probably so called after the son of Eliphaz . Gen 36:11. Bozrah was probably at the site of the modern el-Busaireh, southeast of the Dead Sea .
In Gen 36:35 the mention of Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, gives us a momentary glimpse of ancient wars among the peoples scattered south and east of the Dead Sea. As the death of all these kings except Hadar (Gen 36:39) is formally recorded, it is naturally supposed that he was living at the time of this writer, and was, perhaps, the same king to whom Moses applied for permission to pass through the Edomite territory. Num 20:14.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Kings Who Reigned in the Land of Edom ( Gen 36:31-39 ).
We have no means of knowing over what period these kings reigned other than that it was before a king reigned over the children of Israel. The kingship was clearly a kingship that depended on the quality of the candidates rather than on dynastic succession. It was necessary for the king to be a capable war leader for the people needed to be able to defend themselves and themselves probably engaged in raids. With people like Esau to contend with they had to be capable. The switch from Gen 36:39-40 may suggest a time before the chieftainships of Esau’s sons. The section is transferred, with few changes, en bloc to 1 Chronicles 1.
Gen 36:31
‘And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’
This phrase does not necessarily require that at the time of writing there was now kingship in Israel. The promise to Jacob (Gen 35:11), and the promise to Abraham before him (Gen 17:6; Gen 17:16), which Esau would know well, was that their descendants would be kings. Thus this boast could well have been made by Esau in the light of that fact to point out that while there were, and had been, kings in Edom, and thus settled statehood, none such had yet arisen among the children of Israel, thus demonstrating his own status. Indeed the very unusual phrase ‘king over the children of Israel’ (only here and 1Ch 1:43 where it is copied from this verse) is a sign of the age of the narrative. We could argue that later generations would have used the regular stereotyped phrase ‘king over Israel’.
But who were these kings? We neither know that nor when they reigned. Their lives may well have been fairly brief for they were war leaders in rugged territory, and the fact that they came from so many backgrounds and reigned in different ‘cities’ suggests the nature of the people they ruled. It may well be that as Esau integrated with the tribes in Edom, eventually to become their leader, ‘the father of the Edomites’, he came across a record of these kings or heard their lineage recited at the installation of a new king, and boastfully included it here to demonstrate that his new people were more civilised than those of his family tribe.
Gen 36:32-34
‘And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. And Bela died and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.’
The ‘city’ of Dinhabah need only have been a group of dwellings or even a tent encampment. Bozrah similarly, although a long time later it was an established city. Whether the Temanites were named after Teman (Gen 36:11), or Teman was named after the Temanites, we do not know. Eliphaz the Temanite was one of Job’s comforters (Job 2:11). Much later on Teman was an established city (Jer 49:20).
Gen 36:35
‘And Husham died and Hadad, the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Avith. And Hadad died and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.’
The fact that Hadad smote Midian in the countryside of Moab dates him after the time when Midian and Moab were established as tribes. Midian was a son of Abraham by Keturah and Moab was the son of Lot, but there were tribes in Moab in settled villages before that and they probably gave their names to the tribes they eventually took leadership over. How easily a capable leader from any background could take over a tribe in the right circumstances here in Edom is demonstrated by this king list.
Gen 36:36-39
‘And Hadad died and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. And Samlah died and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his place. And Shaul died and Baalhanan, the son of Achbor reigned in his place. And Baalhanan the son of Achbor died and Hadar reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Pau, and his wife’s name was Mehetabel the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab.
If The River means the Euphrates as it usually does in Scripture then Shaul has come some distance, but it is quite possible that people would enter this warring, raiding tribe from many sources. Alternately it may refer to a local river known as The River. We note again that daughters are important in this area and may well have been influential.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Kings of Edom We find in Gen 36:31-39 a lineage of kings who reigned over the land of Edom.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Kings of Edom
v. 31. And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, v. 32. And Bela, the son of Beor, reigned in Edom; and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
v. 33. And Bela died, and Jobab, the son of Zerah of Bozrah, reigned in his stead. v. 34. And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his stead. v. 35. And Husham died, and Hadad, the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Avith. v. 36. And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.
v. 37. And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead. v. 38. And Saul died, and Baalhanan, the son of Achbor, reigned in his stead.
v. 39. And Baalhanan, the son of Achbor, died, and Hadar reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. v. 40. And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names: Duke Timnah, Duke Alvah, Duke Jetheth, v. 41. Duke Aholibamah, Duke Elah, Duke Pinon, v. 42. Duke Kenaz, Duke Teman, Duke Mibzar, v. 43. Duke Magdiel, Duke Iram; these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession; he is Esau, the father of the Edomites.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 36:31. Before there reigned, &c. Some remark, that this could not have been said till after there had been a king in Israel, and therefore (say they) these cannot be the words of Moses, but must have been afterwards interpolated. Others understand Moses to speak prophetically, since it appears from chap. Gen 17:6, and Deu 17:14, that he foresaw there were to be kings in Israel. But the truth is, that the words rendered king, and reigned, may, and ought to be understood only of dominion, or rule in the general, not of royal dominion. The preceding verse shews this: for thence it is plain, that the kings spoken of here, are no other than the dukes, or leaders, spoken of there: and therefore the verse might, with much propriety, be rendered, “these are the governors who governed in the land of Edom, before there was any governor over the children of Israel.” And in this view all is clear. Dr. Wall remarks on this verse, that it was the custom of those times to call any one king of a people, who had in any way the rule, government, or superiority over them. And thus Moses was king in Jeshurun, or Israel; so that this is no more than to say, all these kings or governors in Edom were before Moses’s time.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Ch 1:43 , etc.-From dukes the seed of Esau advance to kings. But all the while are rejected from the covenant of promise. Psa 72:17 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 36:31 And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
Ver. 31. Before there reigned any king, &c. ] Sicut herba tectorum praecocem habet vigorem, sed citius arescit. Exoriuntur impii, sed exuruntur. They are set up on high, but “on slippery places”; Psa 73:18 advanced, as Haman, but to be brought down again with a vengeance. This observation the Hebrews make upon this text: While Edom reigns and flourishes, Israel groanes under the servitude of Egypt. Pomp and prosperity, then, is no sure note of the true Church.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 36:31-39
31Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel. 32Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 33Then Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah became king in his place. 34Then Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites became king in his place. 35Then Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who defeated Midian in the field of Moab, became king in his place; and the name of his city was Avith. 36Then Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah became king in his place. 37Then Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates River became king in his place. 38Then Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor became king in his place. 39Then Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar became king in his place; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab.
Gen 36:31 “Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel” This verse has caused a tremendous amount of stir among commentators of the OT. Because of the mention of the kings of Israel it seems to have been written in a later period when Israel had kings. This seems to imply that Genesis, if not written later, at least was edited at a later time. Those who hold to the documentary hypothesis (four different later authors, J.E.D.P.) use this as solid evidence that Moses is not the original author of the Pentateuch. Those who assert Mosaic authorship say that this was a prophecy about the days when a king would appear. One must admit that Israel is prophesied to have a king in Gen 49:10; Num 24:7; Num 24:17; Deu 17:14-20. For me it is obvious that someone has edited the writings of Moses-whether it was Jeremiah, Ezra, or one of the prophetic schools is uncertain, but brief editorial comments like this one do not seriously affect Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. See Introduction, Authorship in Vol. 1A: “How It All Began,” Genesis 1-11.
Gen 36:32 “Bela the son of Beor” The consonants of this name, Bela (BDB 118), are similar to the name for Balaam, who is also called the son of Beor (BDB 129). These are the only two occurrences of the father’s name (cf. Numbers 22-24). To identify these as the same person is improbable, but in these genealogical lists, nothing is certain.
Gen 36:37 “the Euphrates River” This Hebrew term for “the river” (BDB 625) is used in most instances to refer to the Euphrates (i.e., Gen 31:21). However, in context it must refer to a local river because there is no historical documentation for a king from the line of Esau ever reigning in the land of Mesopotamia.
Gen 36:39 Because of the mention of several women in Gen 36:39, Albright (noted American archaeologist) asserts that there was a matriarchal succession for kings in Edom. Since it is obvious that none of these kings are sons of the previous kings and because the wives are mentioned, this is a possibility although there is no historical evidence.
“Hadar” The Masoretic Text has “Hadar” (BDB 214). However, in 1Ch 1:50 it is spelled “Hadad.” Hadad (BDB 212, cf. 1Ki 11:14; 1Ki 11:17; 1Ki 11:21; 1Ki 11:25) became a general title for the kings of Syria, but in this account it is obviously not a reference to Syria.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
before there reigned. The reference is to Gen 17:6 and Gen 35:11. Deu 17:14-20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
kings that reigned in the land of Edom
It is characteristic of Scripture that the kings of Edom should be enumerated before the kings of Israel. The principle is stated in 1Co 15:46. First things are “natural,” man’s best, and always fail; second things are “spiritual,” God’s things, and succeed. Adam–Christ; Cain–Abel; Cain’s posterity–Seth’s posterity; Saul–David; Israel–the true Church, etc.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the kings: Gen 17:6, Gen 17:16, Gen 25:23, Num 20:14, Num 24:17, Num 24:18, Deu 17:14-20, Deu 33:5, Deu 33:29, 1Ch 1:43-50
before there: Moses may here allude to the promise which God made to Jacob – Gen 35:11, that kings should proceed from him; and here states that these kings reigned before that prophecy began to be fulfilled.
Reciprocal: Gen 36:40 – General Gen 36:43 – the dukes Deu 2:12 – succeeded them Jdg 17:6 – no king Jdg 18:1 – no king 1Ki 22:47 – no king
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 36:31. By degrees the Edomites worked out the Horites, and got full possession of the country. They were ruled by kings who governed the whole country, and seem to have come to the throne by election, and not by lineal descent: these kings reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel That is, before Mosess time, for he was king in Jeshurun. God had lately promised Jacob that kings should come out of his loins: yet Esaus blood becomes royal long before any of Jacobs did. Probably it was a trial to the faith of Israel, to hear of the power of the kings of Edom, while they were bond-slaves in Egypt: but those that look for great things from God must be content to wait for them. Gods time is the best time.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
36:31 And these [are] the {g} kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
(g) The wicked rise up suddenly to honour and perish as quickly: but the inheritance of the children of God continues forever, Psa 102:28.