And Baal-hanan died; and Hadad reigned in his stead and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab.
This verse closes the list of eight kings who ruled Edom, Esau's line, long before Israel ever had a throne. Hadad is the last of them. The record even pauses to name his city, his wife, her mother and her grandmother. Why does God keep such a careful file on a rival family?
The list of kings runs from Bela to this final ruler. Then the chapter goes back to naming chiefs, not kings. One writer counts them and notes the reversal:
The record traces eight kings in all, one after another, from Bela to Hadar. Yet it carefully says that we have Esau's chiefs again (verses 40-43).
Older renderings spell this last king's name Hadar.
The list exists to make a comparison. God had promised kings to Jacob's family, not Esau's. Yet Esau's family got there first.
Edom had kings before Israel had any; that is all that is said... In the chapter before, God had promised that kings would come from Jacob's own line. Yet the natural went first, with a look of strength: God's people must wait His time.
Chronicles keeps the same order on purpose. It lists Esau's sons before it takes up the chosen line:
These are traced out, including even the mention of the kings who reigned before there were any kings over the children of Israel. God's purposes ripen latest. God lets the world take its own way, and it exalts men in the earth. God means to exalt the Man that humbled Himself.
Not one of these kings handed his throne to a son. Each new name comes from a new city. A writer on Chronicles reads that pattern as a diagnosis of human power itself:
Violence seems to have marked them, for no son follows his father on the throne. As one faction won out over another, different kings arose from different cities. In the end, it appears, the king's authority was cut back, and chiefs followed the kings. This change in the form of authority shows something typical — we might say a flaw — in human power: it cannot hold steady.
Commentators differ on the cause. Some have suggested the Edomite monarchy was elective; the same writer rejects that, seeing instead "the contending of adverse factions for power, and where of course the strongest arm wins."
Esau is Edom. One writer reads the whole display of chiefs, kings, cities and marriages as the story of a nature that lifts itself up.
Esau's family shows the usual story of the flesh always exalting itself. So the long list of names is meant to impress on us that God has taken full account of the flesh and everything it does, and finds it only vanity.
Another writer points to what is missing from the whole display:
As we look over the pride and show of chiefs and kings, the alliances with God's enemies, and the whole scene without one mark of God on it, we cannot help recognising the line of the flesh.
Edom's kings came first. Coming first is not the same as lasting.
God lets the world show itself, and its power, or rather lack of power, first. Then come His purpose and its firm foundation. For there were kings in Edom before any were found in Israel. The Edomite kings are gone, but God's King abides for ever.
The obvious objection is that a page of foreign names teaches nothing. One writer meets it head on:
"Do you believe that the long string of names in the opening chapters of 1 Chronicles — those family lists — are inspired by God? Were they written for our learning?"... We say without hesitation that we reverently believe God inspired every one of them. And we have no doubt at all that their value, interest and importance will be fully proved in time, in the history of the people they specially apply to.
- First. Edom had eight kings while Israel had none — the natural comes first in apparent strength.
- Waiting. God promised kings to Jacob, not Esau. His people must wait His time while others are crowned early.
- Unstable. No Edomite king handed his throne to his son — the list exposes a flaw in human power.
- Vanity. The parade of chiefs, kings and marriages is the flesh exalting itself — God recorded it in full and found it empty.
- Abiding. Hadad's throne ended with him; the Edomite kings are gone, but God's King abides for ever.
And Hadad died. And the chiefs of Edom were chief Timna, chief Aliah, chief Jetheth,
Hadad's death closes the list of Edom's kings, and the same breath opens a new list — chiefs, not kings. Why does Scripture stop to record the rulers of Esau's family? And why does Edom's power slip backwards here?
Older translations call these men "dukes." The word marks a tribal chief, not a nobleman. Even the kings of Edom ruled something smaller than the title suggests:
Genesis 36 shows us how their national greatness rose and grew. First comes the line of their dukes, as they are called. In today's language these would probably answer to the sheiks of their tribes. Then later come the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel. These kings we should probably call emirs — not kings in the full sense, but rather chiefs for common purposes. For among these sons of Edom there was a great deal of independence.
Even the name of the last king may not be a personal name:
King of Edom who succeeded Baal-hanan. 1 Chr. 1:50-51. Called HADAR in Gen. 36:39. Apparently "Hadad" was a title of the kings of Edom rather than a name.
Read back through Edom's kings and one thing is missing: no king's son takes the throne. That silence is itself the record's comment on Edom.
The list names the kings of Edom next (vv. 43-54; cf. Gen. 36:31-42). Violence marks this whole race, for not a single one of these kings has his son as his successor.
Some explain the missing succession as an elected monarchy. One writer rejects that, and puts rival factions in its place:
From the fact that no son succeeded his father, some think the Edomite monarchy was elective. But that assumes the people had enough power to choose their own ruler... What we do see in Esau's descendants, and what has marked the world, is rival factions fighting for power, where of course the strongest arm wins. God lets the world show itself, and its power, or rather lack of power, first. Then come His purpose and its firm foundation. For there were kings in Edom before any were found in Israel. The Edomite kings are gone, but God's King abides for ever.
The order in this verse is the point. Edom climbs to kings, then the record drops back to chiefs. One writer reads that fall as a flaw in all human power.
Esau joined himself to the people of Seir, and after a time his descendants seem to have risen to greater power, for kings are named among them... As one faction won out over another, different cities produced different kings. Then, so it appears, the royal authority was cut back, and dukes followed the kings. In this change in the form of authority there is a mark — we might say a flaw — in human power: its instability. Man cannot keep supreme and sole power in himself.
Edom had kings while the chosen line had none. That head start carries a warning about anything that grows fast.
Even then we find a rapid development of power in the family of Esau. They were all great people, to be sure — duke this and duke that, right to the end of the chapter. Even kings reigned there, we are told, before there were any in Israel. I have no doubt this is given to us as an important mark of how quickly what is not of God shoots up. Growth according to God is slower, but then it is more permanent.
Why keep a long list of names from a family God was not building His purpose through? One writer answers that the list is a reckoning.
Yet Esau (Edom) prospers and grows rich, and his sons become "dukes" before Jacob's family reach such honour... Esau's family shows the common history of the flesh, which always exalts itself. So the long list of names is meant to impress on us that God has taken full account of the flesh and all it does, and finds it only vanity.
Another writer gives a second reason for the space given to Edom:
Edom is singled out like this because of their great hatred of Israel. They were among the most unrelenting of all the nations around them (Num. 20:14-21). It showed itself long years later, when the Edomite rejoiced at the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Psalm 137). For this very reason they are remembered for judgment (Obadiah 10).
- Words. The "chiefs" are tribal sheiks, and the "kings" are closer to local emirs. "Hadad" itself looks like a title of Edom's kings, not a personal name.
- Fast. What is not of God shoots up quickly — Edom had kings long before Israel had any.
- Broken. No Edomite king passed his throne to his son. Violence and rival factions decided who ruled.
- Backwards. After Hadad, kings give way again to chiefs. Human power is unstable, and the list records it.
- Finished. God takes full account of the flesh and finds it vanity. Edom's kings are gone and Edom is remembered for judgment; God's King remains for ever.