Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 36:37

And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth [by] the river reigned in his stead.

37. Shaul ] This is the same name in Hebrew as “Saul.”

Rehoboth by the River ] The R.V. by printing “River” with a capital adopts the interpretation that the Euphrates is here intended. If so, Rehoboth may be Rahaba a little south of the junction of the Habor with the Euphrates. But it may be asked, what connexion can there be between Edom and the Euphrates? Hence some prefer to explain by the “river of Egypt,” the Wady el Arish, viz. the boundary between Palestine and Egypt, from which the Rehoboth of Gen 26:22 would not be very remote. But “the River” is nahar; “the river of Egypt” is naal mizraim.

Achbor ] Meaning “jerboa.” The name occurs in 2Ki 22:14; Jer 26:22; Jer 36:12.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The river; either Euphrates, or a branch of it, called Chabras, by which there is even at this day a city called Rahabath-melic, i.e. Kings Rahabath, as the learned observe; or some other river of note in those times and parts.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And Samlah died,…. As is supposed, about A. M. 2283.

and Saul of Rehoboth [by] the river reigned in his stead; Rehoboth was one of the cities built by Ashur, Ge 10:11; and was situated near the river Euphrates; and so the Targum of Jonathan calls it Rehoboth which is by Euphrates; but Jerom n, from Eusebius, takes it to be another city by a river in Edom, and says, that there was in his days a garrison in the country of Gabalena (a part of Idumea), a large village called by that name.

n De loc. Heb. fol. 93. M. & 94. A.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

(37) Rehoboth by the river.Heb., Rehoboth hannahar, Rehoboth-of-the-river, so called, perhaps, to distinguish it from Rehoboth-ir (Gen. 10:11). If the river is the Euphrates, this city was not on Edomite ground, and Saul probably reigned in Idumea by right of conquest.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

The Generations of Jacob, Gen 36:37-43.

This is the last section of the Book of Genesis headed by the special designation, , generations . See Introduction, p . 49 . Though the larger portion of this section is devoted to the history of Joseph, Jacob is still the head of the patriarchal family, and the covenant history centres in him as its representative .

“Jacob was now dwelling in the green, well-watered vale of Hebron, half-way between Beer-sheba (the place of Isaac’s sojourning) and Salem, (afterwards Jerusalem,) the city of Melchizedek, probably the earliest seat of civilized life in Palestine. Here the spies found the rich valley of Eshcol, with its giant grape clusters; here, too, crowning the overlooking height, they found the city of Arba (Kirjath-Arba) and his gigantic sons, and here, too, was and is that most venerated of all sepulchres, the cave of Machpelah. The modern town lies on the sloping sides of the narrow valley, which runs north and south, clothed with luxuriant vineyards, and groves of the gray olive and evergreen oak. About a mile north of the town, solitary in the midst of the vineyards, stands a very large wide-spreading oak, which is regarded as the successor of Abraham’s ‘oak of Mamre.’ Yet Jacob sent his flocks to pasture sixty miles north, in the fertile valley of Shalem or Shechem, where some time before he had bought a piece of ground whereon ‘to spread his tent.’ ” Newhall.

The following reflections of Ewald are most valuable in their suggestions and concessions, especially as coming from a Rationalist like him:

“The history of Jacob gradually and almost imperceptibly passes into that of the tribes, (or sons,) above whom hovers, vague and dim, the awful form of Israel, the aged Patriarch. Especially fine is the turn thus given to the history, when called to relate the evil deeds and wicked lusts of these sons; and with the one great exception of Joseph, what else is there to tell of them? In their collective history is vividly anticipated the future history of the nation; its many shortcomings, its manifold corruptions, as if the guileful nature, wholly eradicated at last in the much-tried father, sprang up again, and spread in rank luxuriance, among his descendants; first in Simeon and Levi, and still more in the history of Joseph. The old father, who now, made perfect through suffering, appears like some superior spirit watching over them, sternly rebukes all these follies and misdeeds committed behind his back; and yet, eventually, he himself has to bear the burden of iniquities planned without his knowledge. Thus Jacob is still, though in a different sense, what he was entitled in his youth, the laboriously striving, much enduring, man of God. Thus, even in the post-Mosaic period, the better spirit still hovers over the nation often obscured, and almost despairing, yet abandoning them never, and in the end really beholding with rapture a great and glorious restoration of all the erring ones.” History of Israel, 1: 360.

Gen 37:1-11

JOSEPH AND HIS DREAMS, Gen 37:1-11.

“The history of Joseph is, perhaps, the most charming story in the world. The fascinating interest and matchless pathos of the Bible narrative can be much better appreciated when it is compared with the history of Joseph as given in the Koran (chap. 12) and in Josephus, ( Antiq., book 2.) Yet those hard, dry, and tame narratives and reflections were written by men who had read the wondrous tale of Genesis! The typical suggestions of this narrative are unusually rich and deep. Some of them are thus set forth by the sober and profound Pascal:

“‘Joseph was a type of Christ. The beloved of his father; sent on an errand by his father to his brethren; without fault; sold by his brethren for money; and thence exalted to be their lord, their saviour, the saviour of multitudes unknown to him, of the world; all which could not have taken place without the scheme for his disgrace, his sale, and destruction. In the prison Joseph was committed, without any offence of his, with two criminals; Christ was crucified between two thieves. He foretold the release of the one and the execution of the other, under like symbols in the case of each: Jesus saves his chosen and condemns the rejected, under like crimes. Joseph predicts only, Christ acts. Joseph entreats of the one who is to be saved, that he will be mindful of him when he is restored to prosperity; and he whom Jesus saves prays to be remembered of him when he shall enter his glory,’ ( Thoughts; Longman’s edition, p. 312.) The sin of the brethren, however, was overruled, not necessitated.” Newhall.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments