the whole land, and so became dukes of Edom; and the persons who attained this larger dignity were the persons mentioned ver. 40, 41, 42, 43, these be the dukes of Edom. Thus the several parts of this chapter may be reconciled to one another; and this chapter made intirely agreeable to the first chapter of 1 Chronicles. If the dukes, who descended from Esau had been all alike dukes of Edom, they would have been placed all together; but some of them being only the rulers of their own children, and the others govenors of the whole land, the writer of the book of Genesis separates and distinguishes the one from the other; and the writer of the book of Chronicles does not mention the one order to have been dukes at all, determining to give the title to those only who had governed the whole country. The children of Esau, when they had made themselves dukes of Edom, continued this form of government but a short time, for they soon after set up a king. The time when they set up a king, may be deterinined from Moses. They were governed by dukes, when the Israelites went out of Egypt; and they had a king when Moses would have passed through their land to Canaan; so that their first king was contemporary with Moses, and began his reign a little after the Israelites came out of Egypt, i. e. about A.M. 2515. His reigning at this time is very consistent with his succeeding Esau's grand-children's children; for Moses was the fifth in descent from Jacob, as this first king of Edom was * Exod. xv. 15. Numb. xx. 14. a b from Esau; 'for the father of Moses was Amram, his father Cohath, Levi was the father of Cohath, and son of Jacob; so that the descents or generations in each family correspond very exactly. The first king of Edom was Bela the son of Beor, and he was the brother of Balaam, whom Balak sent for about this time to curse Israel; for Beor was Balaam's father. The Edomites had eight successive kings before there reigned any king over the children of Israel; as they might very well have; for, from the beginning of Bela's reign, the time when Saul was anointed king over Israel, A. M. 2909, is three hundred and ninty-nine years; so that these eight kings of Edom must be supposed one with another to reign something above forty-eight years each, which suits very well with the length of men's lives in these times." d Thus I have gone through the account we have of Esau's family, from Esau to the time when Saul reigned over Israel; and I think from what has been said it will easily appear, that the several parts of the xxxvith chapter of Genesis are entirely consistent with one another; and the whole agreeable to the account we have of the same family in the book of Chronicles.. Some learned writers have made great difficulties in their explication of Moses' account of this family; and have been in great doubt, whether the kings mentioned from ver. 31 to 40, were sons of Esau, or a T Chron. vi. 1, 2, 3. Numb..xxii. 5. b Gen. xxvi. 32. Gen. xxxvi. 31. 1 Chron. i. 43.* 1 Horites, and when they reigned. But I think their reigns fall so naturally into the compass of time in which I have placed them, that there can be little reason to suppose, that this is not the true place of them; and none, if Beor the father of Balaam was the father of Bela the first of these kings, which seems very probable; for if Beor (mentioned Gen. xxxvi, 32.) had not been the same person with the father of Balaam, Moses would either not have mentioned the name at all, or have distinguished the one person from the other, The dukes of Edom, being placed after the list of the kings, has occasioned some learned writers to suppose that they succeeded them; and the Latin version in the first chapter of the first book of Chronicles favours their opinion very much. But the Hebrew words do not at all countenance such a version; and we find from Saul's time, wherever the Edomites are spoken of, they were governed by a king, and not by dukes. It is said, that if the dukes at the end of the chapter were before the kings, then the order of the narration is very unnatural. I answer, not very unnatural, if rightly considered; for it is only thus; 1. We have an account of Esau's family from verse 9 to verse 15, and this family being very numerous, (for we read that Esau had an attendance of four hundred men) it is remarked, that they set up a civil government among themselves; and we are told who the persons were that bore rule among them from ver. 15 to ver. 20. Numb. xxii. 5. 1 Chron. i. 51. is translated thus; Mortuo autem Adad, duces pro regibus esse cœperunt. h 2. Then follows an account of the Horites, in whose land Esau and his children dwelt, from verse 20 to verse 30. 3. In the next place we have an account of the kings, by whom the children of Esau were governed after they had expelled the Horites; and be fore the time when the Israelites had a king, from verse 31 to verse 39. 4. It is remarked that kings were not the first rulers of the land of Edom which the sons of Esau set up; for they had one generation of dukes of Edom, verse 40 to the end. The most learned dean Prideaux very justly observes, that "the words in the 31st verse of this chapter, And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the land of Israel, could not have been said, till after there had been a king in Israel, and therefore cannot be Moses' words, but must have been interpolated afterwards ;" for it is hard to conceive, that the list of kings there mentioned could be inserted by him, when all, except the first, reigned after Moses was dead. If this be the case, if I could have the authority of any learned writer to suppose that Ezra, or whoever was the inspired writer that inserted them, might at first insert these kings after the dukes at the end of the chapter; but that some careless transcribers have misplaced them, I should readily embrace it. We meet with no further mention of Esau's life, Connect. part i. book 5. p. 492. The most learned dean intimates that Ezra was undoubtedly the author of this and the other interpolations, which he mentions p. 493. death or actions, in Moses' history; but it may not be amiss, before we leave him, to take a short view of his character. Esau was a plain, generous, and honest man: for we have no reason, from any thing that appears in his life or actions, to think him wicked beyond other men of his age and times; and his generous and good temper appears from all his behaviour towards his brother. The artifice used to deprive him of the blessing, did at the time abundantly enrage him; and in the heat of passion he thought when Isaac should be dead to take a full revenge, and kill his brother for supplanting him; but a little time reduced him to be calm again, and he never took one step to Jacob's injury. When they first met he was all humanity and affection; and he had no uncasiness, when he found that Jacob followed him not to Seir, but went to live near his father and at Isaac's death, we do not find he made any difficulty of quitting Canaan, which very circumstance, if he had harboured any latent intentions, would have revived all his resentments. He is indeed called in scripture the profane Esau,' and he is said to have been hated of God; the children, says St. Paul," being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of Gon, according to election might stand; not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. And it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated." There is, I think, no reason to infer from any of these expressions, that Esau. : * Gen. xxxiii. 4. Rom. ix. 11, 12. 'Heb. xii. 16. * Ver. 13. |