Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 36:40

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,

40 43. Edomite Chiefs

40. families places names ] This short supplementary list of chiefs consists of names partly tribal, partly local, and partly personal.

duke Timna ] i.e. the chieftain of Timna; cf. note on Gen 36:15.

Alvah ] In 1Ch 1:51, Aliah. In Gen 36:23, Alvan.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 40. These are the names of the dukes that came of Esau] These dukes did not govern the whole nation of the Idumeans, but they were chiefs in their respective families, in their places – the districts they governed, and to which they gave their names. Calmet thinks that those mentioned above were dukes in Edom or Idumea at the time of the exodus of Israel from Egypt.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

1496

The names of the dukes, of their persons, and generations, and families. The state of Edom between the times of Esau and Moses seems to have been this; there were first dukes, then kings, and after them dukes again. But if it be objected, that the time was too short for a succession of so many persons, it may be replied, that what is confessed concerning the dukes preceding the kings, might be true also of these succeeding dukes, and that the Edomites either having taken some distaste at kingly government, or differing about the choice of a new king, divided themselves again into several petty principalities or dukedoms; and so several of those were dukes at the same time in divers parts.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

40-43. Recapitulation of thedukes according to their residences.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And these [are] the names of the dukes [that came] of Esau,…. After the regal monarchy ceased, the government in Edom was by dukes, and of these there were two sons, one of which an account has been given of already, who were partly of the race of Seir, and partly of the race of Esau; and who were dukes not by succession, but together, in and over their respective families: and it may be observed, that neither Esau, nor his sons by his two first wives, Eliphaz and Reuel, are called dukes, only his three sons by his last wife; all the rest are his grandsons and sons of the two former, which seems to give some light as to the time when those dukedoms took place; and very probably it was by the joint influence of Seir and Esau, whose families had intermarried, that an end was put to the regal power, and who, for a course of years, governed in the above manner: and they of Esau’s race in those times are said to be “dukes in the land of Edom”, as a learned man o has observed; whereas those that follow, which are a second race of them, are called “dukes of Edom”, Ge 36:43; who took possession of the country and ruled in it, driving out the Horites and succeeding in their stead: these are described

according to their families; they were the heads of:

after their places, by their names; the places where they lived, which were called after their names, and are as follow:

Duke Timnah, Duke Alvah, Duke Jetheth; these were both the names of the dukes, and of the places where they governed, called after their names; so Timnah or Themna, as Jerom calls it, is by him said to be a city of the princes of Edom, the same he says of Jetheth p, so the like may be concluded of Alvah.

o Shuckford’s Connection, p. 192. p De loc. Heb. fol. 92. F. 95. C.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

(Parallel, 1Ch 1:51-54). Seats of the Tribe-Princes of Esau According to Their Families. – That the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz., of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar’s death), but merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evident from the expression in the heading, “ After their places, by their names, ” as compared with Gen 36:43, “ According to their habitations in the land of their possession.” This being the substance and intention of the list, there is nothing surprising in the fact, that out of the eleven names only two correspond to those given in Gen 36:15-19. This proves nothing more than that only two of the capitals received their names from the princes who captured or founded them, viz., Timnah and Kenaz. Neither of these has been discovered yet. The name Aholibamah is derived from the Horite princess (Gen 36:25); its site is unknown. Elah is the port Aila (vid., Gen 14:6). Pinon is the same as Phunon, an encampment of the Israelites (Num 33:42-43), celebrated for its mines, in which many Christians were condemned to labour under Diocletian, between Petra and Zoar, to the northeast of Wady Musa. Teman is the capital of the land of the Temanites (Gen 36:34). Mibzar is supposed by Knobel to be Petra; but this is called Selah elsewhere (2Ki 14:7). Magdiel and Iram cannot be identified. The concluding sentence, “ This is Esau, the father (founder) of Edom ” (i.e., from his sprang the great nation of the Edomites, with its princes and kings, upon the mountains of Seir), not only terminates this section, but prepared the way for the history of Jacob, which commences with the following chapter.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

(40) According to their families, after their places.The final list of the dukes is said, both here and in Gen. 36:43, to be territorial, by which is meant, not that the persons mentioned were not real men, but that Edom finally settled down into eleven thousands named after these chieftains. So in Canaan the names of the sons of Jacob became those also of territorial divisions, two of which, however, were given to Joseph and his sons, while no district was called after Levi. What is remarkable here is the vast amount of change. No Horite duke gives his name to any of these divisions of the land of Edom. Omitting Korah from Gen. 36:16, there were originally thirteen of these tribal princes, each with his own territory, but with no central government; just as the children of Israel dwelt for centuries in Canaan, each tribe independently in its own district, and with nothing to bind them together except their religion. In Gen. 36:40-43 we find eleven tribes, of which only two, those of Teman and Kenaz, retain the names of the sons of Esau, while of the rest we know nothing. We may, however, safely conclude that these nine persons, who gave their names to districts of Edom, were all men who rose to power during the troubled times when king after king seized the crown only to be displaced by some one else. Probably many such men arose, but these were all who consolidated their power sufficiently to leave their names behind them. Amidst this anarchy, the two districts of Teman and Kenaz alone remained unbroken, and continued to be ruled by princes of the same family. This word family has in Hebrew a meaning different from that which it has with us; for it signifies one of the larger divisions of a tribe, of which the subdivisions are called fathers houses, which again are subdivided into households (Num. 1:2, &c.). In Gen. 36:43 habitations would be better rendered settlements.

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

DUKES OF ESAU AFTER THEIR PLACES, Gen 36:40-43.

Some suppose that the eleven dukes here named were contemporary with Hadar, the last named king; but 1Ch 1:51-54, which mentions the dearth of Hadar, (called Hadad there,) implies that they survived him . But the expressions, according to their families, after their places, by their names (Gen 36:40) and according to their habitations in the land of their possession, (Gen 36:43,) denote rather the ducal cities, or districts . We should accordingly translate, duke of Timnah, duke of Alvah, and etc . , and understand that Aholibamah, Kenaz, and Teman are here the names of cities, called after their founders; perhaps the persons bearing these names in the previous part of the genealogy .

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

The Chieftains Descended From Esau ( Gen 36:40-43 ).

Gen 36:40-43 a

‘And these are the names of the chieftains who came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names. Chief Timna, Chief Alva, Chief Jetheh, Chief Oholibamah, Chief Elah, Chief Pinon, Chief Kenaz, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar, Chief Magdiel, Chief Iram. These are the chieftains of Edom according to their habitations in the land of their possession.’

The introduction may suggest that once there were place names present in the lists as with some of the kings previously. But it may simply be pointing out that they ruled in different places, descended from one or other of the sons, not one after the other. The placing of the names may suggest that these chieftains followed and replaced the kings. Both Timna (Gen 36:12) and Oholibamah (Gen 36:25) have previously been females. This may well confirm the idea that women were influential in this society. Apart from these only Kenaz is elsewhere mentioned (Gen 36:11; Gen 36:15) and he may not have been the same one. We may therefore assume that these are later descendants of Esau, possibly great-grandsons.

Gen 36:43 b

‘This is Edom the father of the Edomites.’

This may well be a concluding colophon showing that the tablet belongs to Esau, possibly with Gen 36:1 as the opening heading. ‘The father of the Edomites’ simply indicates that he became their patriarch (but see Gen 37:1). Alternately note the unusual phrases that occur in the chapter which appear abruptly, ‘the same is Edom’ (Gen 36:1 a), ‘Esau is Edom’ (Gen 36:8), ‘the same is Edom’ (Gen 36:19), ‘this is Edom the father of the Edomites’ (Gen 36:43 b). These may well be remnants of headings and colophons.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Chiefs of Edom Gen 36:40-43 gives us the list of the eleven dukes that came from the loins of Esau and ruled the land of Edom.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Gen 36:40. These arethe dukes Idumea, of which Bozrah, mentioned Gen 36:33, was the capital, appears at first to have been divided into several districts or jurisdictions, each governed by an independent chief under the name of duke, until, in process of time, all these dukedoms came to be united, and brought under subjection to one prince, who at first was elective. Thus it was with Attica, as Le Clerc remarks; it was peopled by separate tribes, or families, each governed by its own chief, till Theseus incorporated them all into one community.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gen 36:40 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,

Ver. 40. Duke Timnah, duke Alvah. ] We had a Duke d’Alva lately in the Netherlands, governor there for the Spaniard, infamous for his inhumanity. For he roasted some to death, starved others, and that even after quarter; saying, though he promised to give them their lives, he did not promise to find them meat. a This was a right Romish Edomite. The Hebrews think the Romans came of the Idumeans. Sure I am, if they be not of the natural descent, they are of the spiritual, or unnatural; and so like, as by the one we may see the face, favour, and affection of the other.

a Grimston, Hist. of Netherlands.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)