Genesis Chapter 36 verse 40 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerses 40-43. - And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names. It is now generally agreed that this and the ensuing verses contain not a second list of dukes who rose to power on the overthrow of the preceding monarchical institutions (Bertheau, Ainsworth, Patrick), or a continuation of the preceding list of dukes, which had simply been interrupted by a parenthesis about the kings (Bush); but either an enumeration of the hereditary phylarchs who were contemporaneous with Hadar, and in all probability formed, his council (Murphy), or a territorial catalogue of the districts in which the original alluphim who sprang from Esau (vers. 15-19) exercised their sovereignty (Keil, Kalisch, Lange, 'Speaker's Commentary'). Duke Timnah, - according to the explanation just given this should perhaps be read duke of Timnah = Amalek, whose mother was Timna (Lange), but this is conjectural - duke Alvah, - or of Alvah, or Allah, closely allied to Alvan (ver. 23) - duke (of) Jetheth, - "Nail" (Gesenius), "Subjugation" (Furst) - duke (of) Aholiba-mah, - vide ver. 2; perhaps Esau's wife as well as Eliphaz's concubine gave her name to the district over which her son ruled - duke Elah, - "Strength" (Furst), "Tere-binth" (Murphy) - duke Pinon, - probably equal to Pimon, dark (Gesenius) - duke Kenaz (vide ver. 11), duke Teman (ver. 15), duke Mibzar, - "Fortress," "Strong City" (Gesenius) - duke Magdiel, - "Prince of God" (Gesenius) - duke Iram: - "Citizen" (Gesenius) - these be the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations (i.e. their capitals, or districts) in the land of their possessions. The word seems to indicate an independent sovereignty within their respective provinces or principalities. He is Esau the father of the Edomites. The clause is equivalent to saying, This Esau (already referred to) was the ancestor of these Edomites.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(40) According to their families, after their places.--The final list of the dukes is said, both here and in Genesis 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 Genesis 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 Genesis 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 (Numbers 1:2, &c.). In Genesis 36:43 "habitations" would be better rendered settlements. . . .