Read Selected Scriptures from Gen. 36

·       Gen. 34 How does this add to the Christ-narrative?  Here are some thoughts.

o   It tells us Jacob did not dwell very long in Shechem, and Shechem did not become the capitol of Israel.  This was the belief of the Samaritans, that Shechem was where Abraham sacrificed Isaac and became Israel’s center of worship.  Shechem was in the tribal area of Manasseh while Shiloh was in Ephraim.  These were the two sons of Joseph.  Both Shechem and Shiloh would eventually be rejected by the LORD in favor of Jerusalem and Mt. Zion.

o   But more importantly, it records the rejection of Simeon and Levi as the firstborn.  Reuben would also be rejected (Gen. 35:22).  Thus, the family leadership would come to Judah.  While Joseph received the double-blessing, coming through his two sons, Joseph was not the family leader as the scepter was promised to dwell in Judah (cf. 1 Chron. 5:1-2 and Gen. 49:3-12). 

o   This chapter removes Esau from the story line.  We are now taken solely to Jacob (37:1-2).  The only references to Esau are in his treatment of Jacob.

·       Gen. 36: We can ask the same question here, in a chapter that details the line of Esau.  How does this advance the Christ-narrative?  The answer is the same as why the line of Ishmael was given earlier.  Ishmael and Esau were descendants of Abraham, the father of many nations.  They are loved by God in terms of the plan of salvation and it’s blessings on the nations.  But at the same time, as God said in Malachi 1:2-3: But Jacob I have loved, yet Esau I have hated.  We see God’s love for the world, and we see God’s sovereign and wise choice in election.  Esau’s rejection was not taking away from him the possibility of redemption by faith.  He was not “unsaved” because God didn’t choose him.  His problems were his own.  Remember how he deliberately dishonored his parents in the choice of his wives (28:8-9).  Remember his unwillingness to submit to God’s plan, that the elder would serve the younger!  The question for Esau in redemption is the same as for all: did he believe God’s word relative to that redemption?

·       36: 6-8: Esau had moved while Jacob was gone.  Overgrazing would have been a problem if they stayed together.  Why else were Joseph’s brothers grazing up north when Jacob was at Hebron (37:12-14).

·       36:12,16: Amalek was a thorn in the side of Israel and was cursed (Ex. 17:14-16), 

·       36:15-16: There were 7 chiefs from Eliphaz, Esau’s firstborn, and 7 from the other sons (v17-19).  Esau settled in an area that was already occupied (:v29-30: the Horites) and apparently lived peaceably while he continued to prosper, and thus became the dominant part of Edom or Mt. Seir.

·       There are differences between 36:15-16 and 40-43.  Henry Morris’ explanation is that you have both Semitic (Esau) and Canaanite records.  In addition, some of this was probably added later by Moses (the kings).