Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,
Jump to: Barnes • Benson • BI • Cambridge • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • JFB • KD • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Parker • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • TTB • WES • TSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)Hadad died also.—Rather, And Hadad died, and there were (or arose) chiliarchs of Edom, the chiliarch of Timnah, the chiliarch of Aliah, &c. This appears to state that Hadad was the last king of Edom, and that after his death the country was governed by the heads of the various clans or tribes, without any central authority. In Genesis 36:40, the sentence, “And Hadad died,” is wanting, and the transition from the kings to the chiliarchs is thus effected: “And these are the names of the chiliarchs of Esau, after their clans, after their places, by their names: the chiliarch of Timnah,” &c. The chiliarchs (‘allûphîm, from ‘eleph, a thousand) were the heads of the thousands or clans (mishpehôth) of Edom (Genesis 36:40). (See Note on 1Chronicles 14:1.) The names in these verses are not personal, but tribal and local, as the conclusion of the account in Genesis 36:43 indicates: “These are the chiliarchs of Edom, after their seats, in the land of their domain.” Comp. the names of the sons of Esau and Seir (1Chronicles 1:35-42). This makes it clear that Timnah and Aholibamah were towns. The king of Edom is often mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament. (See Numbers 20:14; Amos 2:1-8 th cent. B.C. ; 2Kings 3:9 - 9th cent.) According to Ewald (Hist. p. 46), the chieftains of Edom follow the list of kings, “as if David had already vanquished the last king of Edom, and put it under” merely tribal government, in subordination to himself. “The Hadad who fled very young to Egypt at David’s conquest (1Kings 11:14-22) may have been grandson of Hadad, the last king.”
Shammah—the great tribe Beni Shammar. In the same way, the names of the other kings and dukes are traced in the modern tribes of Arabia. But it is unnecessary to mention any more of these obscure nomads, except to notice that Jobab (1Ch 1:44), one of the kings of Edom, is considered to be Job, and that his seat was in the royal city of Dinahab (Ge 36:32; 1Ch 1:43), identified with O'Daeb, a well-known town in the center of Al Dahna, a great northern desert in the direction of Chaldea and the Euphrates [Forster].Genesis 25:30. From hence, to the end of the chapter, an account is given of the kings and dukes of Edom, in the same order as in Genesis 30:31. Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)Genesis 36:40-43)
51. dukes] The word means “leader of a thousand.” The list which follows is probably topographical, not chronological. It seems to give the names of the “dukedoms” into which Edom was divided at the time when the list was drawn up.
duke Timnah, etc.] Render, the duke of Timnah, etc.
Aliah] In Genesis 36:40, “Alvah.”Verses 51-54. - H. LIST OF ELEVEN DUKES OF EDOM. These, the remaining verses of ch. 1, appear to give a list of eleven dukes of Edom, emphasized apparently as "the dukes of Edom," as though there were none before or after them. But see Genesis 36:15, 41, 43, the study of which can scarcely leave a doubt on the mind that this list is not one of persons but of places; e.g. "the duke" of the city, or region of "Timnah," and so on. The places were dukedoms. The names of these verses, in both Authorized Version and Hebrew text, are an exact counterpart of those found in Genesis 36:40-43, except that Aliah here (so Allan, ver. 40) stands for Alvah in Genesis. In the Septuagint we have Golada, Elibamas, and Babsar here, for Gola, Olibemas, and Mazar there. Thus this first chapter contains those genealogical tables which concern the patriarchs from Adam up to Israel, spanning a stretch of some two thousand three hundred years, and embracing also tables of Edom and certain of the descendants of Edom up to the period of kings. The chapter contains not a single instance of a remark that could be described as of a moral, religious, or didactic kind. Yet not a little is to be learnt sometimes, not a little suggested, from omission and solemn silence as well as from speech; no more notable instance of which could perhaps be given, when we take into account time, place, and circumstances, than that already alluded to in the omissions involved in the following of the name of Seth upon that of Adam. The genealogies of this chapter, with their parallels in Genesis, are notable also for standing unique in all the world's writing, and far over all the world's mythology, for retracing the pedigree of the wide family of men, and especially of the now scattered family of the Jew, to its original. From the time of the close of our Chronicle genealogies, supplemented by the earliest of the New Testament, no similarly comprehensive but useful, ambitious but deliberately designed and successfully executed enterprise has been attempted. And as Matthew Henry has well said, since Christ came, the Jews have lost all their genealogies, even the most sacred of them, "the building is reared, the scaffold is removed; the Seed is come, the line that led to him is broken off."
Genesis 36:31-39, except that the introductory formula, Genesis 36:32, "and there reigned in Edom," which is superfluous after the heading, and the addition "ben Achbor" (Genesis 36:39) in the account of the death of Baal-hanan in 1 Chronicles 1:50, are omitted; the latter because even in Genesis, where mention is made of the death of other kings, the name of the father of the deceased king is not repeated. Besides this, the king called Hadad (v. 46f.), and the city פּעי (v. 50), are in Genesis Hadar (Genesis 36:35.) and פּעוּ (Genesis 36:39). The first of these variations has arisen from a transcriber's error, the other from a different pronunciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, however, appears, when in Genesis 36:39 the death of the king last named is not mentioned, because he was still alive in the time of Moses; while in the Chronicle, on the contrary, not only of him also is it added, הדד ויּמת, because at the time of the writing of the Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of the names of the territories of the phylarchs, which in Genesis follows the introductory formula שׁמות alum ואלּה, is here connected with the enumeration of the kings by ויּהיוּ, "Hadad died, and there were chiefs of Edom." This may mean that, in the view of the chronicler, the reign of the phylarchs took the place of the kingship after the death of the last king, but that interpretation is by no means necessary. The ו consec. may also merely express the succession of thought, only connecting logically the mention of the princes with the enumeration of the kings; or it may signify that, besides the kings, there were also tribal princes who could rule the land and people. The contents of the register which follows require that ויּהיוּ should be so understood.
Links1 Chronicles 1:51 Interlinear
1 Chronicles 1:51 Parallel Texts
1 Chronicles 1:51 NIV
1 Chronicles 1:51 NLT
1 Chronicles 1:51 ESV
1 Chronicles 1:51 NASB
1 Chronicles 1:51 KJV
1 Chronicles 1:51 Bible Apps
1 Chronicles 1:51 Parallel
1 Chronicles 1:51 Biblia Paralela
1 Chronicles 1:51 Chinese Bible
1 Chronicles 1:51 French Bible
1 Chronicles 1:51 German Bible