Law About Levirate Marriage and Other Miscellaneous Laws

I now return to a chronological Bible study after a long break of studying the four Gospels.  My last chronologically ordered post was on October 25, 2020.  Moses had been reviewing God's laws as he had been doing in most all of the book of Deuteronomy. 

(Deuteronomy 25:1) "If there be a controversy between men and they come into judgment that they may be judged, then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked."

Moses continued speaking.  If there was a controversy between men and they came into a court to have their case judged, then judges were required to judge righteously, justifying the righteous, acquitting the one whose cause was good, and condemning to punishment the one who was guilty of a crime.  The Lord required righteous judgment from His judges, as Proverbs 17:15 says, "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord."

(2) "And it shall be if the wicked man is worthy to be beaten that the judge shall cause him to lie down and to be beaten in his presence, according to his fault by a certain number."

Crimes that were not so severe as to require death were punished with beating or scourging.  If a wicked man was found guilty, then he was to lie down in the presence of the judge and was to be beaten by the number of strikes correlating to the heinousness of his crime.  The judge or judges, as there was usually a panel of at least three, were to be present to ensure that the sentence was properly executed, neither exceeded nor diminished.

(3) "Forty strikes he may give him, and not exceed, lest if he should exceed and beat him above these with many strikes, then your brother would be degraded to you."

Forty strikes were the most a judge could order.  If he exceeded that, the man would seem more like a beast than a man, much less a brother.  Perhaps the meaning of being degraded might be degrading the body to the point of permanent deformity or even death.

(4) "You shall not muzzle an ox when he treads out the grain."

From what I have read, oxen were often muzzled in other types of labor.  However, God's law considered it inhumane to muzzle an ox when treading out the grain, that is, being driven back and forth over the grain in order to separate it from the chaff.  It was to be allowed to eat of the grain if it wanted.

(5) "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."

If brothers lived together which may mean in the same house, as a younger brother might live with his older brother, especially if their father was dead; but it might also mean that they lived together in the same town, because if they lived far away from each other, this law could not easily be upheld.  If brothers lived together and a married one died but had no child, then the husband's unmarried brother was to take his brother's widow as his wife.  She was not allowed to marry outside the family.  From what I have read, if her husband's brother did not live close by, then she was free to marry the next kinsman who lived nearby, but she was not to marry a stranger.

(6) "And it shall be the firstborn which she bears shall succeed in the name of his dead brother that his name not be blotted out of Israel."

The firstborn child born to the union of the widow and her dead husband's brother was to succeed in the name of the dead husband, given his part of the inheritance that would have gone to the dead man, so that his name and family line wouldn't be lost in Israel.  The rest of the children would be considered the living brother's heirs.

(7) "And if the man does not like to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Isarel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.'"

If the dead man's brother did not want to take his widow for a wife, then the wife was to go to the gate of the city where the judges sat and tell the elders that her dead husband's brother refused to perform the duties of a husband's brother as outlined in the law.

(8) "Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he stands and says, 'I do not like to take her,' (9) Then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders and loosen his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to that man who will not build up his brother's house.'"

Then the elders would call her brother-in-law to them and speak to him.  If he stood firm and still said he did not want to take his brother's wife, then the widow was to come to him in the presence of the elders.  She was to loosen his shoe and remove it.  Planting the foot on a thing was a symbol of lordship and taking possession, so by her removing his shoe, she showed that he had given up his right to her.  It was a sign of shame, as well, to signify that he did not belong among free men, but deserved to be counted among servants and slaves who went about barefooted.  The widow also was to spit in her brother-in-law's face, a sign of her contempt and his shame and disgrace.  She then would declare this was done because he refused to carry on his brother's name by building up his brother's house.

(10) "And his name shall be called in Isarel, 'The house of him who had his shoe removed.'"

The brother-in-law's name and his house and his posterity would forever be called in Israel, "the house of him who had his shoe removed," a lasting blot on his name.

(11) "When men strive together one with the other, and the wife of one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand and takes him by his secret parts, (12) Then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her."

If men are fighting and the wife of one of them sought to help her husband by taking the other man by his testicles, she was guilty of a most indecent act and was to have her hand cut off.  She was not to be pitied just because she had done it because of the love for her husband.  This law seemed severe but was designed to prevent women from doing such immodest and also injurious acts that might permanently scar a man for future generation.

(13) "You shall not have in your bag diverse weights, a great and a small."

As things were often bought and sold by weight, one was not to carry diverse weights, one heavy and one light, so as to benefit him and disadvantage another unjustly.  

(14) "You shall not have in your house diverse measures, a great and a small."

The same thing was required of measurements.  One could not use for a common measurement one slightly larger measure and one slightly smaller measure to benefit him and cheat another.  One couldn't carry diverse weights and measures and they could not use them in their homes.  

(15) "You shall have a perfect and just weight; a perfect and just measure you shall have, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord your God gives you."

The people were to always be righteous in their weights and measures (Leviticus 19:35).  By being just in their dealings, they may be blessed with long life in their fruitful land of Canaan that the Lord was giving them.

(16) "For all who do such things, all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord your God."

God found those who used such things to cheat others an abomination.  Proverbs 11:1 and Proverbs 20:23 tell us the same thing:  "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight;" "Diverse weights are an abomination to the Lord, and a false balance is not good."  

(17) "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you were coming out of Egypt, (18) How he met you on the way and struck the hindmost of you, all the feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary, and he did not fear God."

Moses reminded the people what the Amalekites had done to them, how they had attacked them unprovoked, when they were coming out of Egypt, where they had been in hard bondage, their spirits and some of their bodies broken.  The Amalekites had taken advantage of them, especially their weakest who brought up their rear and straggled behind the others.  The Israelites had not at all harmed the Amalekites, but they did not fear God and attacked His people unprovoked.

(19) "Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies round about, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget."

God would judge Amalek and the Amalekites.  Once the Israelites had finally been given rest from all their enemies all around them in Canaan, the land the Lord was giving them, they would then utterly destroy the Amalekites so that there were none left, to blot out even the memory of them.  The Israelites were commanded not to forget what the Amalekites had done to them nor God's order to destroy them.  This did not take place right away.  They had to subdue the Canaanites to get possession of their land and then had to get free and clear from all the surrounding nations, the Moabites, the Midianites, the Edomites, the Ammonites, and the Philistines, but they were never to forget what the Amalekites had done and to destroy them also.  It was about 400 years later before God's judgment against the Amalekites was executed.  It is noteworthy to realize how much time the Amalekites had to repent and come to God, but God had known they would not, and ordered that they be blotted out under heaven when the Israelites were finally given rest from their enemies and enjoyed full possession of the land their Lord had given them.

I marvel at the wisdom of God's laws, many of which are scoffed at by this present generation.  But had they been continually adhered to, I can only imagine the blessings and richness that would abound.  There was an instance in my extended family and in a fairly recent time in the scheme of time and things, when family was immigrating (legally) to America, and had a delay in another foreign country along the way.  There a man died leaving a young widow with two small children alone in a foreign country.  The man's aunt who was already in America sent her eldest son to take care of the young widow and her children as it was the right thing to do.  The son married his cousin's widow and raised up her children as his own, and they have lived a long and happy life together.  A selfish man could have said he did not want to go back to a foreign country and take an unknown unseen woman as his wife, not to mention two children who were not his own, but God richly blessed this family.  If we only realized that all God's laws are made for our benefit and blessing, and that to reject them only brings sorrow and curses to us.

Balaam and Balak

Continuing a chronological Bible study, and reaching the conclusion to a literal chiffhanger from the last chapter and post:

(Numbers 23:1) And Balaam said to Balak, “Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams."

At the end of the last chapter, Balak had taken Balaam up to the high places of his idol Baal to allow him to see the Israelites below them.  Balaam now asked that Balak build right there in one of the high places devoted to Baal seven altars, and to prepare for him seven oxen and seven rams.  There was much speculation among the early Biblical scholars I study about Balaam's motive in this.  Most seemed to think it was perverse, that perhaps he was "bribing God" with so many altars, that building seven altars was heathenish, that they were built for the seven known planets at the time.  I may stand corrected as I read on, but at this point, I give Balaam full benefit of the doubt that he had seen the light.  Seven is also the number of perfection.  Maybe Balaam asked for these preparations that would seem familiar and acceptable to Balak, so that he would be more susceptible to hearing the truth from the one true God.  As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

(2) And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram.

Balak did as Balaam had instructed him, and together they offered on each altar a bull and a ram.

(3) And Balaam said to Balak, “Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the LORD will come to meet me, and whatever He shows me I will tell you.” And he went to a high place.

Balaam asked Balak to stand by his burnt offerings while he went away from him to another high place to meet with the Lord if He would come to meet him.  Balaam told Balak that whatever his Lord showed him, that is what he would tell him.

(4) And God met Balaam, and he said to Him, “I have prepared seven altars, and I have offered on every altar a bull and a ram.”

God did indeed meet with Balaam, and Balaam told him he had prepared seven altars and had offered a bull and a ram on each.  Again Biblical scholars believe Balaam was boasting to the Lord, hoping to gain His favor in what he desired to do all along for his client, Balak.  I still don't necessarily see this; we shall see how God responds to it:

(5) And the LORD put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”

The Lord did not reprimand Balaam, but told him to return to Balak and speak to him the words the Lord put in his mouth, which is exactly what the Lord had told him to do in chapter 22 of Numbers.  I see no reason to add to the story that Balaam was still trying to force his own will and bribe his Lord.

(6) And he returned to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, he and all the princes of Moab.

Balaam returned to Balak to find him doing just as he had told him to do, standing by his burnt offering, he and all his princes.  They were surely anticipating a favorable response from Balaam.

(7) And he took up his parable, and said, “Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, ‘Come, curse Jacob for me, and come, defy Israel.'"

Balaam "took up his parable", or advanced his words of wisdom as received from God.  He said that Balak the king of Moab had brought him there to curse and defy Israel.  So far, so good, with respect to how Balak might receive these words, and with how Balaam was following his Lord's will and not his own.

(8) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? Or how shall I defy whom the LORD has not defied?"

Balaam went on to say how could he possibly curse whom God had not cursed, and how could he defy whom God had not defied, again showing his willingness to only do what God had told him to do, and telling Balak what he had said he would tell him--whatever his Lord showed him, he would tell him.

(9) "For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him; lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. (10) Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of one-fourth of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!”

Balaam went on to pronounce a blessing on Israel, rather than the curse Balak expected.  From the high places of Baal where he was, he could see Israel.  The Israelites were to dwell alone and separate and would never be reckoned among the other nations, but would always be a distinct nation.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, rightly noted that this was a prophecy that had been literally fulfilled through a period of thousands of years to the present day, and was truly an astonishing fact.  Balaam went on to ask who could even count the infinite multitude as numerous as the dust of the earth; who could number even a fourth of them?  When he died, as all men do, he wished to die as the righteous died, and wished for his end to be as Jacob's (Israel's) was.  The death of the righteous was far superior to the death of the wicked.  How could death be better one way or another?  It can only be if there is something after that death.  The original word "achariyth" that was translated as "end", Strong's more fully defines as "posterity" and Brown-Driver-Briggs adds to that "after part, latter time".  Especially when you consider the fact that Balaam said "last end", he was undoubtedly speaking of what came after death.  The last end of Jacob was peace, rest, and eternal life. It was so blessed, Balaam wished his end to be like Jacob's.

(11) And Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and, behold, you have altogether blessed them."

In utter disbelief, Balak cried out to Balaam to ask what had Balaam done to him.  Balak had brought Balaam there to curse Israel, whom he considered his enemies, and Balaam had instead completely blessed them.

(12) And he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak that which the LORD has put in my mouth?”

Balaam answered Balak with the question of should he not take heed to speak only what the Lord had put in his mouth.  Most of the great scholars I study at this point, still suggest that Balaam had been pretending regard for the Lord.  I still don't see it.  Maybe because Balaam went this far, instead of shutting off Balak in the beginning, is why they feel his heart had not been changed.  They say he would have to speak what the Lord would have him speak at this point, against his will, unable to resist the power of the Lord.  While that is true, I've seen no reference to his hardened heart at this point.  I don't see why it couldn't be that he was shown the light by the Lord and was doing all this to show the glory of God in His blessing of Israel.

(13) And Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there.”

Then Balak suggested that Balaam go with him to another place where he could see the Israelites, although only the outer edge of them, and he would not see them all.  Balak told Balaam to curse the Israelites for him from there.  I'm not quite sure why Balak thought a different view would change his blessing, but I guess he felt he was a desperate man.  Perhaps he thought Balaam had been overwhelmed by the sight of such an immense camp, or maybe even full of admiration for the glorious sight.  Maybe seeing just a small outer edge of the group would change his perspective.

(14) And he brought him into the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.

Balak brought Balaam into the field of a place called Zophim, which literally meant "watchers".  He took him to the top of Mount Pisgah and there again built seven altars and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.  These appear to be the actions of Balak, not Balaam, so once again I don't see Balaam acting wickedly as so many scholars believed.  Balak was the one trying to entice Balaam into giving him what he wanted.

(15) And he said to Balak, “Stand here by your burnt offering while I meet the LORD over there.”

Balaam did agree to meet with the Lord again.  He told Balak to stand by his burnt offering while he went to meet with the Lord.

(16) And the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, “Go back to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”

The Lord did meet with Balaam and told him to go back to Balak and tell him the words the Lord had put into his mouth to say.  I don't see a God admonishing Balaam for coming to Him again.  I don't see Balaam asking the Lord to change His mind.  I still don't see a conniving Balaam anxious to change the mind of the Lord for his own benefit.  I see this all as the Lord gaining Balaam's full attention and understanding through the words of the angel, and Balaam going through the motions as the Lord had then told him, "Go, but only speak the word I give you".

(17) And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said to him, “What has the LORD spoken?”

When Balaam returned to Balak, he was standing by his burnt offering with the princes of Moab with him.  He was most anxious to hear what the Lord had spoken to Balaam.  Balak appears to have at that point realized that Balaam would only do what his Lord would have him do or say, but he was still under the impression that His mind could be encouraged to change.

(18) And he took up his parable, and said, “Rise up, Balak, and hear. Hearken to me, you son of Zippor."

Balaam took up his parable, again delivering the words his Lord had given him.  Balak was already standing by his burnt offering, but the words of the Lord seem to imply he was to raise his attention and carefully listen to what the Lord had to say directly to him.

(19) “God is not a man, that He should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent; has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?"

God, through Balaam, asked Balak directly about His nature.  Was He a man who lied or like a man that he should change His mind?  No, he said He was not.  Did Balak really think that He had spoken and would not bring it about?

(20) "Behold, I have received commandment to bless; and He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it."

The words of Balaam, put there by God, now told Balak that he had received the command from God to bless Israel.  He had blessed them, and Balaam could not reverse that blessing.

(21) “He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel; the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them."

Balaam went on to say the words of his Lord to Balak.  The Lord had not observed any iniquity or perverseness in Israel that He should curse them.  Of course, they had had sin and iniquity, but not to the point that God would curse them and not be their Lord.  The Lord God was with Israel, and the joyful and triumphant shouts that people might give their king was among Israel; He was their King and ruler.

(22) "God brought them out of Egypt; he has strength like a unicorn."

Balaam went on to pronounce that God had brought His people out of Egypt.  "He" meaning Jacob or Israel, had the strength of a unicorn.  It seems no one knows exactly what the original word "reem" translated as "unicorn" really meant.  Since a unicorn is a mythical creature, it is unlikely that that is what is meant, unless the fables of their time suggested an animal of strength that could no longer be held as a slave, as the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt.  Some scholars speculate that it might have actually been a rhinoceros that was meant; the rhino having a single horn was definitely an animal of great strength.

(23) "Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither any divination against Israel; according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, 'What has God wrought!'"

Balaam told Balak that there was no enchantment or divination that could prevail to bring about a curse to Israel.  According to that particular time, it would be said of Israel with wonder and amazement, what great things God had done for His people.

(24) "Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up itself as a young lion; he shall not lie down until he eats the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain."

Balaam went on to say that the Israelites would rise up like a great lion, the old king of the forest that was feared and respected by all other animals.  Israel would lift itself up as a young lion, the young predatory lion that would not rest until it devoured its prey.  These images illustrated a people strong and courageous and even victorious against their enemies.

(25) And Balak said to Balaam, “Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all.”

Balak's response to Balaam was something to the effect of--"Fine, if you won't curse them for me, then don't, but don't bless them, either."  I believe it might be a little late for that request, not that it would have done any good, as God had placed the words in Balaam's mouth, and he was going to say them, regardless of any other requests or orders.

(26) But Balaam answered and said to Balak, “Did I not tell you, saying, ‘All that the LORD speaks, that I must do’?”

Indeed Balaam did answer Balak that he had already told him that whatever the Lord spoke, he must also speak.

(27) And Balak said to Balaam, "Come, I pray thee, I will bring you to another place; perhaps it will please God that you may curse them for me from there.”

Incredibly, Balak suggested they go to a different place and maybe God would curse them from there.  Balak did not have a full understanding of the Almighty never-changing God of the universe.  However, at least at this point, he seemed to realize and acknowledge that there was this God of Balaam and that it was He who hindered Balaam, that it was not Balaam's fault that he did not curse the Israelites for him.  Perhaps now he was trying to please God with a more worthy location from which to curse them.

(28) And Balak brought Balaam to the top of Peor, that looks toward Jeshimon.

Balak took Balaam to the top of Mount Peor, afterwards called Baal-Peor where the idol Baal was worshiped.  There was very likely a temple for Baal here, and perhaps Balak thought that God would appreciate this high place of honor.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, pointed out that Jeshimon was the same as Beth Jesimoth in the plains of Moab, thus being the place where Israel camped (Num. 33:49), and a place where Balaam would have a full view of the Israelites.

(29) And Balaam said to Balak, “Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams."

Once again Balaam told Balak to build seven altars prepared with seven bulls and seven rams.  Perhaps Balaam shouldn't have kept on tempting or appearing to bribe the Lord, as most scholars believe he did for selfish reasons.  I still don't see it that way.  Only God knows what was in Balaam's heart at this point, but God did allow them to keep going forward with these futile motions.  When you consider the time and labor and even expense spent on preparing multiple sets of seven altars with multiple sets of sacrifices, I believe the answer would make more of an impactful impression on both Balak and Balaam, and was used for God's purposes at this point.  It is true that God first told Balaam not to go to Balak.  However, once He allowed him to go, God's will was to be shown in another way that would be well impressed upon both these men, as Balaam surely needed this reinforcement after his initial actions of pressing forward to go to Balak.

(30) And Balak did as Balaam had said, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.

Once again, Balak did as Balaam told him to do, and built the altars (or had them built) and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.  Again considering the time and expense in an action that seemed less and less likely to produce the desired effect, you can see that Balak was a desperate man grasping at straws in order to have Israel cursed.

(Numbers 24:1) And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he did not go as at other times, to seek to use enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness.

This is the first indication I have that perhaps Balaam had tried to use his own means to maybe achieve his more desired answer of the Lord.  He had used sorcery or divination the other times he sought an answer from the Lord.  He now had definitely seen that the Lord was determined to bless Israel, and he did not bother with enchantments or asking the Lord, but just turned his face toward the wilderness to look upon Israel and to pronounce his parable.  I still don't believe this necessarily proves that Balaam had evil and selfish motives at this point.  This is how he had become accustomed to seeking an answer from the Lord, using his enchantments, but now he was totally convinced of the Lord's intentions and will, and did not bother with his enchantments.

(2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel encamped according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him.

Balaam looked upon Israel encamped according to their tribes, and the Spirit of God came upon him.  Whether or not Balaam was filled with the Holy Spirit because he had finally come to have complete faith in God alone, or God was just using his vessel just as He had used the donkey's, God's spirit was now upon him.

(3) And he took up his parable, and said, "Balaam the son of Beor has said, and the man whose eyes are open has said, (4) He has said, who heard the words of God, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:"

In prophetic words, Balaam spoke of himself in the third person as a man whose eyes were opened to the truth, one who heard the words of God and who had seen a vision of the Almighty God.  Falling into a trance but having eyes wide open, I believe is Balaam's attempt to explain that although he was wide awake, it was as if the truth came upon him as he was in a sort of trance.  Most scholars would suggest that he was declaring that his eyes had only at that point been opened to the truth, but I still believe they had been opened ever since he saw the angel of the Lord in Numbers 22:31--"Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way..."  The only inkling I have had that Balaam was still trying to assert his own will all this time was the fact that he had continued to use sorcery up to this point.  However, if he had learned to always use sorcery to inquire of the Lord, he may have still believed that was the only way to hear from the Lord.  At this point, he realized that was no longer necessary.

(5) "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, and your tabernacles, O Israel!"

Balaam began the actual blessing of Israel.  How good and pleasing were the tents of Israel!  Not that they were rich or magnificent in structure, but they were in a pleasant order that suggested unity and harmony.  The Israelites didn't have multiple tabernacles, but I believe the sense is that their general church of God where Israel dwelt in tents with their Lord among them, was very good.

(6) "As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees of aloes which the LORD has planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters."

As long and broad as the valleys, Israel lay encamped.  As gardens, perhaps because of their beauty and the fact they were laid out in a pleasing manner, Israel lay pleasingly encamped.  As the aloe trees that the Lord had planted, that were beautiful in their natural state as opposed to gardens planted by man, so was Israel.  As the cedar trees beside the waters that grew tall and mighty and majestic, so was the camp of Israel.

(7) "He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted."

Israel would have plentiful blessings as I believe the image of water pouring forth from buckets suggests.  His posterity would be showered with many blessings from the Lord.  Israel's king would be higher and greater than Agag, the king of Amalek, who was probably considered the greatest king on earth at that time.  Israel's kingdom would be exalted in the world.

(8) "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn; he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

God brought Israel forth out of Egypt out of bondage, and now Israel had that strength of a unicorn or rhinoceros, or whatever mighty beast was meant.  He would devour his enemies, breaking their bones, signifying the breaking of their men and their cities, and would utterly slay them.

(9) "He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion; who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesses you, and cursed is he that curses you."

Israel lay as a sleeping lion, the king of the forest respected by all others and having no fear of the others.  Who would dare to rouse the sleeping lion or provoke Israel?  Then speaking directly to Israel, Balaam pronounced the blessing that whoever blessed Israel would be blessed, and whoever cursed Israel would be cursed.

(10) And Balak's anger was kindled against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have altogether blessed them these three times."

At this point, Balak had become very angry with Balaam and he struck his hands together in an expression of that anger.  He said to Balaam that he had called him to curse the Israelites whom he called his enemies, but Balaam had completely blessed them instead these three times.

(11) “Now therefore, flee to your place; I thought to promote you to great honor, but, lo, the LORD has kept you back from honor.”

Balak told Balaam to go back to his own country.  He told him that he had intended to promote him to great honor when he cursed Israel for him, but his Lord had kept him from that honor.

(12) And Balaam said to Balak, “Did I not also speak to your messengers whom you sent to me, saying, (13) ‘If Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do good or bad of my own mind; but what the LORD says, that will I speak?'"

Balaam reminded Balak that he had warned his messengers that even if Balak were to give him his entire house full of silver and gold, he would not stray from what the Lord had put in his mouth to speak.

(14) “And now, behold, I go to my people; come, I will advise you what this people will do to your people in the latter days.”

Balaam agreed to go back to his people, but first he wanted to tell Balak what the Israelites, whom he had wanted cursed, would later actually do to his people.

(15) And he took up his parable, and said, "Balaam the son of Beor has said, and the man whose eyes are open has said:"

Balaam spoke the prophetic words of the Lord, beginning with the fact that he had had his eyes opened to the truth.

(16) "He has said, who heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open."

Balaam, still speaking of himself in the third person, said he had heard the words of God and thus spoke; he knew what the most high God wanted as he had seen a vision of Him while awake.

(17) "I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not near; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth."

At this point, Balaam seemed to possibly be prophesying about the coming Messiah.  He would see Him in the future, but not yet; he would behold Him from afar.  A Star would come out of Jacob and a scepter would rise out of Israel, descriptive words of the Messiah who would come out of Israel as King.  He would destroy Moab from one corner to the other, and would destroy all the children of Sheth.  Sheth means "substituted" and was the same as Seth, the third son of Adam.  As all nations came from Seth, He would rule over all the world.  Some scholars believe this might refer to some ruler of Moab whom He would destroy.  Some of the Bible commentators believed this prophesied the coming of King David out of Israel who would smite the Moabites.  However, David himself was a sort of illustration of the coming Messiah who would rule the world and destroy all those who opposed Him.

(18) “And Edom shall be a possession; Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly."

Balaam went on to prophesy that Edom, including Mount Seir, would be possessed by Israel.  Indeed David would make the Edomites his servants.  Perhaps the mention of Mount Seir depicted the strongest and most fortified places would fall to their enemy, Israel.  Israel would conquer valiantly!

(19) "Out of Jacob shall come He who shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remains of the city."

Once again Balaam appeared to be prophesying about the coming Messiah who would have dominion over the entire world, destroying any enemies who remained.

(20) And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, "Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish forever."

Of Amalek, Balaam prophesied that although it might have been first among the nations, whether literally the first nation, or the most powerful or richest, or even that it was the first to war against Israel, its ultimate end would be that it would perish forever.

(21) And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, "Strong is your dwelling place, and you put your nest in a rock. (22) Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry you away captive."

Balaam looked upon the Kenites.  There is some uncertainty as to exactly who the Kenites were, but it seems reasonable to assume that the Kenites were a Canaanite people, who may have derived their name from the city of Kain.  The word translated as "Kenites" in verse 21 is not the same word translated as "Kenite" in verse 22.  "Qeyniy" in verse 21 Strongs' states means "Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin" stemming from the root word "qayin" which is the word used in verse 22.  "Qayin" means "the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine".  Qayin would be wasted, which could be the city of Kain, as some scholars suggest, but I believe it was just the nation as a whole--Kain, the Kenites; as Edom, the Edomites, was used; and Amalek, the Amalekites.  The Kenites may have been the securest of the nations as nature had fortified them as they dwelt in the rocky places, but they would waste away until carried away captive by Asshur, or the Assyrians.

(23) And he took up his parable, and said, “Alas! Who shall live when God does this?"

Balaam continued his prophesying, asking the rhetorical question of who could possibly live when God brought all this about.  Some scholars suggest that this might mean that it will happen so far in the future that no one in that present time would live to see it happen.

(24) "And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish forever."

Strong's defines Chittim as "...from an unused name denoting Cyprus (only in the plural); a Kittite or Cypriote; hence an islander in general, that is, the Greeks or Romans on the shores opposite Palestine..."  Ships would come from Chittim, or Cyprus, or the islands.  Albert Barnes explained it this way in his Notes on the Bible, "Cyprus, the nearest of the western islands, the only one visible from Palestine, and so the representative to Balaam and to Israel of all those unknown western regions across the Mediterranean Sea, from which were at length to come the conquerors of the mighty empires of the East."  Asshur would carry away Kain, and then Chittim would afflict Asshur, and also Eber.  Most of the older commentaries I study believed Eber referred to the descendants of Eber, or Shem, and were Hebrews.  It makes more sense that they were as Adam Clarke suggested, "Probably not the Hebrews, as some think, but the people on the other side the Euphrates, from עבר  abar, to pass over, go beyond; all which people were discomfited, and their empire destroyed by Alexander the Great."  Indeed, even Strong's states Eber is the same as "eber" meaning "properly a region across...on the opposite side (especially of the Jordan; usually meaning the east)".  Either Eber would also perish forever, or it might even mean that the conqueror from Chittim would also perish.

(25) And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place; and Balak also went his way.

With the end of the words of prophecy given him by God, Balaam then rose up and went back toward his home, and Balak also left.  Reading those prophetic words, it is interesting to note how God can use all people to bring about His purposes.  He can use evil nations to bring down other evil nations, but then He also used a donkey, so it should come as no surprise that God can use whomever or whatever He chooses to bring about His will and purposes.

The Lord is My Banner

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 17:1) And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, according to the commandment of the LORD, and camped in Rephidim; and there was no water for the people to drink.

In their wilderness trek, the children of Israel now journeyed from the wilderness of Sin and camped at Rephidim.  It was by instruction from God that the people were led to camp there, and yet they came to a place where there was no water for them to drink.  The chronological study I am doing is one ordered by Skip Andrews, and it now takes me to Numbers 33, which gave a little more detail:

(Numbers 33:12) And they took their journey out of the wilderness of Sin and camped at Dophkah. (13) And they departed from Dophkah and camped at Alush. (14) And they moved from Alush and camped at Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink.

We see from this passage that actually the Lord led the people through two other stations (Dophkah and Alush), before bringing them to Rephidim.  Moses, in his Exodus account, apparently didn't record every camp probably because nothing eventful took place there; now the people were brought to a place where they were again wanting water and not finding it.  Now back to Exodus:

(Exodus 17:2) Therefore the people contended with Moses, and said, “Give us water, that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you contend with me? Why do you tempt the LORD?”

The people, unbelievably, quarrel with Moses and demand water from him.  Had they not learned anything from their last need of water (and their subsequent need of food) that was ultimately provided by their Lord?  Moses again directed them away from him and to their actual supplier, the Lord.  He accused them of tempting the Lord because they obviously did not have faith in Him to provide them with water, even though He had shown Himself to be faithful in providing all their needs up to this point.

(3) And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, “Why is it you have brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?”

Moses had already addressed the people and reminded them it was not him to whom they should complain.  Then it said "they thirsted...and the people murmured", so I would assume because they didn't immediately get water after contending with Moses the first time, they really started murmuring and complaining, once again using the old complaint that he brought them out of Egypt just to kill them in the wilderness.  Being without water would have been especially hard on children and cattle, so perhaps the meaning is not that they truly thought that Moses brought them out to kill them, but that they sincerely believed that would certainly be the result if they didn't get water soon.

(4) And Moses cried to the LORD, saying, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me!”

Moses cried out to the Lord because it seems the anger of the people toward Moses was so great that he believed they were ready to stone him.  He didn't necessarily pray that God do something for the people, as I believe he had shown in what he said just before, that He knew the Lord would provide for the people, but he honestly did not know what to do with this people whose fevered pitch was so high that he feared they were about to stone him. 

(5) And the LORD said to Moses, “Go on before the people, and take with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand your rod with which you struck the river, and go. (6) Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

The Lord told Moses to go out before the people, taking with him some of the elders, and it seems direct them nearer to a particular rock at Mount Horeb.  I have read the rock remains to this day, and is red granite, 15 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 12 feet high, and lies in the wilderness of Rephidim, to the west of Mount Horeb.  The Lord told Moses to take his rod with him, specifically his rod with which he had struck the river.  The Lord would stand upon that rock; probably that pillar of cloud that led them through the wilderness would then stand on that particular rock.  Moses was to take his rod and strike the rock and water would come out of it for the people to drink.  Moses did as the Lord instructed, and he did it in the sight of the elders.

(7) And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the contention of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, “Is the LORD among us or not?”

"Massah" meant "temptation", and "Meribah" meant "strife" or "contention".  It is unclear to me if there were two different places, or if Moses called the place two different names in remembrance of the people's murmuring against the Lord.  It doesn't appear that the scholars of old had a consensus either.  Since they were at one rock, and the scripture said, "he called the name of the place...", I choose to believe Moses called the place by both names.  He was memorializing not the miracle of the provision of water by the Lord, but the people's tempting of the Lord and their contention with him.  It seems the people actually questioned whether or not the Lord was among them or not.  That makes the fact that the Lord presented Himself on that rock at Horeb seem a direct answer to the people's question.  Yes, indeed, He was with them, and He alone provided them with water.

(8) Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.

Amalek was the son of Eliphaz, who was the son of Esau (Gen. 36:12), and the Amalekites may have held some hatred for the people of Israel because of Jacob's birthright and blessing, as has been suggested.  However, this may have been a random attack for the purpose of plunder.  According to another passage in Deuteronomy (Deut. 25:17-18), the Amalekites did not boldly confront the Israelites as a nation invading their land, but rather came up from behind and attacked their feeble, faint, and weary ones who lagged behind.  It may be that both facts were true.  The Amalekites thought of the Israelites as enemies, and they sneakily attacked them from behind so as to plunder them more easily.  The timing of this attack is interesting, too.  Did God send the Amalekites because the people had tested Him?  I'm not suggesting it was a punishment, but it certainly became a teaching moment.  God certainly allowed the attack, just as He allowed all the struggles for food and water.  His people easily could have been constantly provided with a steady stream of food and water and easy sailing, but facing these daily difficulties and having them daily remedied by their Lord, kept them in constant remembrance and dependence on God.  How quickly we forget the blessings of the Lord when we have hardship!  Sadly, it seems we must be reminded daily, and in His mercy, our sweet Lord patiently gives us what we need.

(9) And Moses said to Joshua, “Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.” (10) So Joshua did as Moses said to him, and fought with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.

Moses called on Joshua to choose and organize men to go out and fight the Amalekites.  Meanwhile, he said he himself would stand on top of the hill with the rod of God in his hand.  Moses had called on Joshua to lead the men into battle, but he himself had a most important job, as well.  On top of the hill, in view of the Israelite army, with that rod of God lifted up as encouragement and a reminder of God's promise and provision, Moses surely prayed to God and spiritually ministered to the children of Israel. Joshua did as Moses has directed him, and likewise, Moses, with Aaron and Hur, went to the top of the hill.  We will find that they were needed to assist Moses.  Aaron is, of course, Moses's brother, and it has been written by the historian Josephus that Hur was Miriam's (the sister of Moses and Aaron) husband.  That part is not clear in scripture, but he was obviously someone in whom Moses had much confidence, as he was paired with Aaron by Moses another time, as well (Exo. 24:14).

(11) And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

There are a couple of different ways to look at this verse.  From verse 9, we learned that Moses planned to stand on top of the hill with the rod of God in his hand.  When the rod was up, it may have inspired the Israelites to fight on, and when they could not see it, their hearts failed them and the Amalekites prevailed.  The verse could refer to Moses raising his hands toward heaven in prayer.  The ancient targums interpreted it that way.  Dr. John Gill wrote that even among the "heathens", Moses "was famous for the efficacy of his prayers".  Perhaps when Moses was the most stretched out and upward in prayer, he was the most fervent in prayer, and Israel prevailed; and when he faltered in prayer, Amalek prevailed.  Probably both ways of looking at this verse are correct.  When Moses was stretched upward to heaven, he was the most fervent in prayer, AND the Israelites saw the rod which inspired them to go onward.  When Moses faltered in prayer, likewise did the people when they couldn't see the rod of God.  Either way, or both ways, it's a perfect illustration of the spiritual battle in which we are engaged daily.  When God is lifted up, we are victorious over our spiritual enemies, and when we falter in our faith and in our walk with God, the enemy can prevail.  The daily battles move back and forth from victory to defeat, and it is a reminder that we should be in constant prayer with our Lord, the One from whom all victories come.

(12) But Moses's hands were heavy; and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it. And Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Moses became tired and weary and he couldn't keep his hands held upward, so they brought him a stone so that he could sit down, and Aaron and Hur, on either side of him, held his hands upward, and in this way, he was able to keep them up until the sun went down.  And when his hand was up, we know that Israel prevailed.

(13) And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.

In fact, we do read that Joshua and his army defeated the Amalekites in this, the first war of the Israelites.

(14) And the LORD said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in a book, and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”

God told Moses to specifically and literally write about this war in a book to be a lasting memorial.  It was to be recounted especially in Joshua's hearing because God would eventually completely blot out the memory of the Amalekites.  The Israelites had not yet completely annihilated the Amalekites, but Joshua was chief in this first war against them.  God knew His plans for Joshua, and I believe He wanted Joshua especially to remember what Amalek had done to Israel and especially how God had saved them from Amalek.  He wanted him to know, as well as all posterity by the written account, that in the process of time Amalek would be totally destroyed and not even remembered (except, in history, I suppose).

(15) And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovahnissi; (16) For he said, “Because the LORD has sworn the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”

Moses built an altar and called it Jehovahnissi, which literally meant, "Jehovah is my banner".  The Israelites fought under the banner, and therefore under the direction of their Lord, in His name, and in defense of His truth.  Much has been written about how this is the incorrect translation of verse 16.  It is supposed what was meant, and what was scrambled by unfortunate translations of contractions and hyphens, was that because the hand of Amalek was upon the throne of God, therefore the Lord would have war with Amalek from generation to generation.  I don't really have a problem with the KJV translation as it stands.  The Lord indeed had already said that He would ultimately completely put out the remembrance of Amalek, which does insinuate there would be a continued struggle with Amalek until that obliteration was achieved.  I believe making the altar to the Lord that was looked upon as their banner of their Lord, would serve as a reminder to the people that they were never to form any union with the Amalekites because they were sworn enemies of the Israelites, doomed to ruin.  Dr. John Gill wrote this about Amalek:  "Amalek may be considered as a type of antichrist, whose hand is against the throne of God, his tabernacle, and his saints; who, with all the antichristian states which make war with the Lamb, will be overcome and destroyed by him."

The Posterity of Esau

As I am following a chronological reading schedule of the Bible by Skip Andrews, I am skipping ahead a few chapters to begin this study in Genesis chapter 36.  Since Jacob and Esau were twins, their lives were parallel, so it's time to see what Esau has been up to:

(Genesis 36:1) Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.

We were told in Genesis 25:30 that Esau was called Edom, which means "red", because of the red stew for which he traded his birthright.  However, if we back up to verse 25 in that same chapter, we were told that Esau was born red and hairy.  He was named Esau, which Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions tells us means "hairy"; he is also called Edom, for the red part.

(2) Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

We were previously told that Esau had taken Canaanite wives which greatly grieved his parents (Gen. 26:34-35).  It is unclear if these wives are the same as the ones mentioned in that passage, or these are in addition to those wives.  It is very possible that Adah and Bashemath (from Gen. 26:34) are names for the same person as each is called the daughter of Elon the Hittite.  As for Aholibamah, she is said here to be the daughter of Anah and also the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; that is the way that should read, I believe.  Later in verse 24, we are told that Anah is the son of Zibeon, and we know "the child of" often means "descendant of" in the Bible, so Aholibamah is a descendant of both Anah and Zibeon.  I see no way of connecting Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite (from Gen. 26:34) to Aholibamah here, so they must be different wives.  

(3) And Bashemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth.

This is a continuation of verse 2, naming another of Esau's wives.  This definitely appears to be the same woman as Mahalath from Genesis 28:9 as both are called daughters of Ishmael and sisters of Nebajoth.

(4) And Adah bore Eliphaz to Esau, and Bashemath bore Reuel. (5) And Aholibamah bore Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah; these were the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.

Now Esau's children are mentioned.  Perhaps the wives listed above are the ones mentioned because they are the ones who gave Esau children, perhaps explaining why Judith from Genesis 26:34 is not mentioned.  Although I didn't personally read the ancient writings myself, Dr. John Gill wrote that Jerome and Jonathan in the early centuries after Christ (A.D. 200-400) said that this Eliphaz is the same friend of Job that came to visit him.  That Eliphaz was called a Temanite, and Tema was a son of Ishmael.  I suppose it could be true, but what stands out to me in my personal study is that I am supposed to be studying a chronological reading of the Bible and I was instructed to read Job before Abraham, and this is the second time Temanites have been mentioned, meaning at least the life of Abraham and perhaps those of his children, should have been read chronologically before Job, but it's too late for that now.  I certainly digress. The sons of Esau born to him in the land of Canaan were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah.

(6) And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle and all his animals, and all his substance which he had gotten in the land of Canaan, and went to a country away from the face of his brother Jacob.

Esau apparently had daughters, too, although those were not named.  He took his entire family and household and left the land of Canaan away from his brother Jacob.

(7) For their riches were too great for them to dwell together, and the land where they were strangers could not support them because of their cattle.  (8) So Esau dwelt in Mount Seir; Esau is Edom.

They were still sojourners and not possessors in the land of Canaan, so they still had the land's inhabitants to dwell among, and there was not room for both Jacob and Esau there, so Esau moved to Mt. Seir.  Again we are reminded that Esau is also called Edom, probably to explain why his descendants are called Edomites in the next verse.

(9) And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir: (10) These are the names of Esau's sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, and Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau.

Here begins a genealogy of Esau.  His sons are listed again, one might assume in a chronological order, with Eliphaz being his oldest son by his wife Adah, and Reuel his second son by his wife Bashemath. 

(11) And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.

The firstborn son of Eliphaz was Teman, which may be more likely the namesake of the Temanites, which identifies the Eliphaz in Job.  It seems there is discrepancy among scholars as to whether the city of Teman was named for Tema, the son of Ishmael, or more likely for Teman, the grandson of Esau.

(12) And Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz; these were the sons of Adah, Esau's wife.

Amalek was the father of the Amalekites who were bitter enemies of the Jews.  As a son of Eliphaz's concubine, he is added to the list of "sons", or actually grandsons that were borne by Adah.

(13) And these are the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah; these were the sons of Bashemath, Esau's wife.

The "sons", or more precisely grandsons that came from Esau's wife Bashemath, were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah, none of whom are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, other than perhaps if they occur in a genealogy.

(14) And these were the sons of Aholibamah, Esau's wife, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon; and she bore to Esau Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah.

Esau's sons by Aholibamah are listed again with no sons of theirs mentioned.

(15) These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau, duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz,

A duke was a captain or a governor, but could also be a head of family.  Sons and grandsons of Esau are listed as dukes or leaders of some sort.

(16) Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek; these were the dukes of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah.

Korah is inserted here as a son of Adah.  There is a Korah who is a son of Aholibamah, but as he is mentioned later among her sons, I don't believe this is the same Korah, unless he was mistakenly mentioned twice.  1 Chronicles 1:36 lists these sons of Eliphaz and adds Timna.  Timna was also the name of Eliphaz's concubine, so perhaps Korah is another son of Timna who was also identified by his mother's name.   

(17) And these are the sons of Reuel, Esau's son: duke Nahath, duke Zerah, duke Shammah, duke Mizzah; these are the dukes of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife. (18) And these are the sons of Aholibamah Esau's wife: duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, duke Korah; these were the dukes of Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife. (19) These are the sons of Esau, who is Edom, and these are their dukes.

The list of dukes from Esau's sons and grandsons continues.

(20) These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, and Anah, (21) And Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan; these are the dukes of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom.

Now we have a description of the original inhabitants of the land, the sons of Seir the Horite, first mentioned in Genesis 14:6.  Anah is listed as a son, but I believe he is the son of Zibeon as discovered above, but just as grandsons of Esau were called sons, all these are descendant sons of Seir, and also called dukes. 

(22) And the children of Lotan were Hori and Hemam; and Lotan's sister was Timna.

Seir's son Lotan's children are mentioned, probably to show the relationship of Timna, who became Eliphaz's concubine, and mother of his son Amalek, and possibly another son known by Timna or Korah.

(23) And the children of Shobal were these: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam.

The sons of Shobal, the second son of Seir, are listed.

(24) And these are the children of Zibeon: both Ajah and Anah; this was the Anah who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father.

The third son of Seir is Zibeon and his sons are listed, including Anah, who was listed as the fourth "son" of Seir.  Anah is described to the reader who would know the story, although we have not been privy to it.  There is no consensus among historians as to what this story might be.  Some believe that Anah may have discovered breeding horses with donkeys produced mules, but I tend to believe the second story.  The word translated as "mules" is "yem" and also thought to mean "warm or hot springs", so he probably discovered hot springs.  In fact, the meaning is uncertain, as it is used only one time in all of scripture.  Readers of the day may have known what this Anah was famous for, but we just have to take their word for it.  It could be this Anah was being described to distinguish him from another Anah, and therein lies the problem of trying to decipher who all these people are who are only mentioned once or twice.   

(25) And the children of Anah were these: Dishon, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah.

It appears this Dishon was named after his uncle who was mentioned in verse 21 as a son of Seir.  I suppose it's possible we also have an Anah named after his uncle Anah, and maybe Zibeon is a brother to one and a father to another.  Whew!  It's easy to get bogged down in the "weeds".  I believe the true intent of mentioning this genealogy of Seir and the original inhabitants of the land is to show how the Edomites married into this group of people.  Timna, Esau's son Eliphaz's concubine and the mother of Eliphaz's son Amalek, was a descendant of Seir, as was Aholibamah, who became Esau's wife.

(26) And these are the children of Dishon: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.

This appears to go back to the uncle Dishon, the son of Seir, and names his children.

(27) The children of Ezer are these: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan. (28) The children of Dishan are these: Uz and Aran.

The children of the last two sons of Seir are listed, none particularly noteworthy except perhaps Uz, for whom the land of Uz may have been named.

(29) These are the dukes of the Horites: duke Lotan, duke Shobal, duke Zibeon, duke Anah, (30) Duke Dishon, duke Ezer, and duke Dishan; these are the dukes of Hori, among their dukes in the land of Seir.

All the sons of Seir are listed as dukes.  Hori was Lotan's son and Seir's grandson.  It would seem the Horites were called so after him, in the land of Seir, the original inhabitant of the land.

(31) And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

Next we begin a list of kings who reigned in the land that would become known as the land of Edom, called so after Esau.  It is unclear whether these are kings who reigned before, during, or after the time it became known as Edom.  There are scholars who believe the dukes of Esau rose up to take over from the kings.  There are others, as I found when I read these accounts in 1 Chronicles 1 below, who believe these kings came from Esau.  I honestly do not know, nor can I tell from scripture, but obviously the Edomites came to power and had some dominion, as was prophesied by Isaac to his Esau in Genesis 27.  There has been much discussion among Biblical scholars as to how Moses, who supposedly wrote the first five books of the Bible, could have mentioned any possibility that there would ever be a king over Israel when they had no king in his lifetime.  I see no problem with this as Moses evidently wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  There are many prophetic pictures of the coming Christ found in these books written by him.

(32) And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. (33) And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. (34) And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his place.

A succession of kings is begun, but I don't see any noteworthy names, except perhaps that the land of Temani may be so-called after Teman, the son of Eliphaz (Esau's son) above.  If that is so, then it does seem there is an influence of the family of Esau during the reign of kings in the land.

(35) And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who attacked Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith.

Again we have an aside, a description of this Bedad that the original reader would have known, but one of someone of whom we have not been made aware.  It is possible that the Midian he attacked was Abraham's son by Keturah, and that would have been noteworthy to the early reader.

(36) And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. (37) And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his place. (38) And Saul died, and Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place.

The succession of kings who reigned in the land of Edom continues with no especially noteworthy names.

(39) And Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

Hadar appears to be the last of the kings in this land.  His wife seems to be a person of note because of the particular mention of her and her ancestors, but once again, we present-day readers don't really know who she is.  Dr. John Gill supposes that this monarchy was put to an end "by the united familes of Seir and Esau, and changed into dukedoms; of which there were seven of the race of Seir, and fourteen of the race of Esau, of whom an account is given in the preceding part of this chapter..."  I say "supposes" because I haven't found any other historical evidence for his assertion.  The other early commentaries I study are silent on this.

(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,

Dr. Gill continues his thought that after the monarchy ceased, the government in Edom was by dukes partly by the race of Seir and partly by the race of Esau.  He points out that neither Esau nor the sons of his first two wives are called dukes, only his sons by his last wife and his grandsons, which seems to show that the dukedoms were not immediate in the land, but may have occurred later when an end was put to the monarchy by "the joint influence of Seir and Esau".

I now turn to Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament which points out 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.'"  In this statement, I don't know if this commentary is refuting the idea set forth by Dr. Gill or not.  K & D continues that since that is the intention of the list, it should come to no surprise that only two names in this list correspond to those given in Genesis 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."  (Actually, I personally thought Teman was one, too, mentioned in verse 42 with Kenaz.)  I am relieved to know I don't have to research where all the these new dukes came from!  If I am interpreting this correctly, we formerly already read a list of some of the dukes that came initially from Esau's sons and grandsons, and now we have more who have names of cities corresponding to their names that have perhaps sprung up since the beginning of the dukedoms of Esau.  Perhaps we are being shown how the Edomites grew in the region.  I have to say I feel like I have spent a long time trapped in the weeds in this study by names that really don't have any more significance in the Bible.  It was important to the early reader and it is significant in that out of Esau grew a mighty people.  The lists of dukes from Esau continues:

(41) Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon,

As there appeared to be a son of Eliphaz, Esau's son, known by his mother's name, Timna, there appears to be a son known as Aholibamah, and evidently a place also known by that name.

(42) Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, (43) Duke Magdiel, duke Iram; these are the dukes of Edom, according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession; Esau is the father of the Edomites.

It is important to note that as the posterity of Esau grew, his descendants came to take possession of the land of Seir.  In verses 6-8 above, Esau first went to Mount Seir, and by the time this chapter ended, many dukes have come from the line of Esau and they possess the land formerly held by Seir and a line of kings.

As this is a chronological Bible study, my reading now turns to 1 Chronicles 1:35 where the genealogy of Esau is recapped:

(1 Chronicles 1:35) The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah. (36) The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, and Kenaz; and Timna and Amalek. (37) The sons of Reuel were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. (38) And the sons of Seir were Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan.

I find it interesting that in this genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1, which is a genealogy starting with Adam, that Seir is introduced in it along with Esau.  Seir was not of the race of Esau, but as Esau's family married into his, and Esau's descendants eventually overtook his land, I suppose he has an important role in the line of Esau.

(39) And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Homam; and Timna was Lotan's sister. (40) The sons of Shobal were Alian, Manahath, Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon were Ajah and Anah.

Alian was written as Alvan before.  The original name appears to be the same:  Alvan or Alyan, originally meaning "tall".

(41) The son of Anah was Dishon. And the sons of Dishon were Amram, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.

Amram appears to be the same as Hemdan in Genesis 36:26.  The original name was either "Chemdan" or "Chamran", probably depending on the handwriting on the particular early manuscript first read.

(42) The sons of Ezer were Bilhan, Zaavan, and Jaakan. The sons of Dishan were Uz and Aran. (43) Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dinhabah;

Again I find it peculiar that a list of kings who reigned before and/or during the time the Edomites were growing and taking possession of the land, would be included in a genealogy that started with Adam and concluded with the families of the sons of Isaac.  The 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes supposes that these are kings who came from Esau, and although I was not sure about that when I was studying Esau's descendants in Genesis 36, it certainly does seem to fit now that they are included in a genealogy along with a description of Esau's descendants.  As I have supposed all along, at the very least, these genealogies of Esau show how his power and dominion grew, and show how he intermarried with the original inhabitants of the land.

(44) And when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place; (45) And when Jobab was dead, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place; (46) And when Husham was dead, Hadad the son of Bedad, who attacked Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Avith. (47) And when Hadad was dead, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. (48) And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his place. (49) And when Shaul was dead, Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place. (50) And when Baal-Hanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

The list of kings continues pretty much as it did in Genesis 36, with a few variations in spellings.

(51) Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,

"Hadad died also."  Then begins a list of the dukes of Edom.  This makes it sound as if the monarchy ended and then the dukedoms of Edom began.  As I've said before, whether they are part of Esau's descendants or not, they played a part in making Edom what it was, and that is about as much as I am going to get out of this study! 

(52) Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon, (53) Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, (54) Duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.

As I am happy to be finished with this cumbersome genealogy, I will reflect on the fact that genealogies were important in Biblical times.  All these descendants of Esau could trace their lineage back to Abraham, and that was of utmost importance to the people back then, as that made them a part of the blessings and promises that God made to Abraham and his descendants.