Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
Understanding the Difficulty
Genesis 36:31 states, “Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.” Critics of the Bible frequently point to this verse as an alleged anachronism, asserting that it could not have been written by Moses since Israel did not have a king until many centuries after his time. They reason that because the monarchy of Israel began with Saul, such a comparison (“before any king reigned over the sons of Israel”) could only have been made by someone living after Saul’s reign, supposedly indicating that this statement was added later by an unknown editor.
However, this argument collapses upon a closer examination of the text, its linguistic structure, its theological and historical context, and the consistent testimony of Scripture regarding Moses’ authorship. When we properly apply the historical-grammatical method, Genesis 36:31 reveals itself not as a case of later interpolation but as a straightforward, divinely inspired historical remark reflecting both Moses’ prophetic awareness and God’s foreordained plan for Israel’s kingship.
 |
 |
 |
The Context of Genesis 36
Genesis 36 is a genealogical and historical record concerning Esau’s descendants—the Edomites—and their establishment as a distinct nation dwelling in Mount Seir. The chapter provides both lineage lists and political developments, noting how Esau’s descendants grew into an organized nation with successive kings long before Israel possessed a monarch.
This genealogy fits seamlessly into the flow of Genesis. The book frequently records genealogical tables (Hebrew: toledoth) that serve as structural markers, linking major sections together. Genesis 36 begins with “These are the generations of Esau” (verse 1), a formula found throughout the Pentateuch (cf. Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 10:1; 11:10; 25:12; 37:2). The closing statement in verse 31 functions as a historical observation—a comparative remark highlighting that Edom’s centralized rule preceded that of Israel.
When Moses wrote this record, Israel had no king and was still under divine theocracy, led through Moses himself and later through Joshua. But the Pentateuch already contains prophecies and provisions for a future Israelite monarchy. Therefore, Moses’ statement is not retrospective but anticipatory.
 |
 |
 |
The Scriptural Foundation for an Anticipated Monarchy
Far from being unaware of Israel’s eventual monarchy, Moses wrote under divine inspiration with clear prophetic insight that kings would arise from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Consider the following divine promises:
-
Genesis 17:6 — Jehovah said to Abraham, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.”
-
Genesis 35:11 — Jehovah told Jacob, “A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come forth from your body.”
-
Numbers 24:7, 17, 19 — The prophecy of Balaam foresees a coming king and ruler rising out of Israel.
-
Deuteronomy 17:14–20 — Moses gave specific laws regulating the conduct of a future Israelite king, even though no king existed at that time.
From these passages, it is evident that the institution of monarchy within Israel was foreseen and legislated by God Himself long before the time of Saul. Therefore, Moses, under divine direction, could legitimately and naturally refer to the period “before any king reigned over the sons of Israel” without implying that Israel already had kings when he wrote.
Moses’ awareness of future events, especially those revealed by Jehovah, accords with his role as prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15–18). Hence, Genesis 36:31 is a prophetic statement, not a post-monarchical addition.
 |
 |
 |
The Historical Realities: Edom’s Early Kingship
The statement in Genesis 36:31 draws attention to a historical reality—Edom’s establishment of kings before Israel’s monarchy. The Edomites, descended from Esau, were a politically organized people earlier than Israel because they had settled in their territory long before Israel became a nation. Israel’s national organization did not occur until the Exodus and subsequent wilderness period.
Edom, being a relatively small tribal confederation, could transition into a monarchy quickly. Genesis 36:32–39 lists eight kings of Edom, each apparently ruling independently, as none of them were hereditary successors. The text repeatedly says, “When [a certain king] died, another reigned in his place,” implying a system of elective kingship. This is consistent with early Near Eastern political patterns in small nations where kingship was not dynastic.
The statement “before any king reigned over the sons of Israel” simply establishes a chronological comparison: Edom’s monarchy developed first. Moses, as a historian writing under inspiration, recorded that fact accurately. There is no implication that Israel already had kings, nor is there any basis to assume that the statement required knowledge of the later monarchy under Saul or David.
The Linguistic and Literary Integrity of Genesis 36
Linguistic studies of Genesis 36 demonstrate that its vocabulary, structure, and formulae are consistent with Mosaic composition. The genealogical phraseology matches other sections of Genesis, particularly the earlier lists of nations and patriarchal descendants. The consistent use of narrative connectors (“and,” “these are,” “now these are”) and the straightforward chronological sequencing are hallmarks of ancient Hebrew historical writing.
No textual or stylistic discontinuity suggests later editorial insertion. The phrase “before any king reigned over the sons of Israel” reads naturally within the flow of the narrative, functioning as a temporal marker. It neither interrupts the structure nor introduces an anachronistic idea.
The claim that such a statement requires post-Mosaic authorship presupposes an anti-supernatural bias—denying that Moses could foresee Israel’s monarchy under divine inspiration. This presupposition is inconsistent with the biblical worldview, which affirms divine revelation and prophetic foresight throughout Scripture.
 |
 |
 |
Moses’ Cultural Awareness of Kingship
Moses’ background further explains his ability to reference kingship knowledgeably. Having been raised and educated in Pharaoh’s royal household (Acts 7:22), Moses was intimately familiar with the concept of monarchy. Egyptian civilization was a centralized kingdom, and the idea of kings ruling over nations was well known throughout the ancient Near East, from Mesopotamia to Canaan.
Therefore, for Moses to write that Edom had kings “before any king reigned over the sons of Israel” was not to make a retrospective comment but to note a historical and cultural reality: other nations already had kings, whereas Israel, still under direct divine governance, did not yet have such a ruler. The statement is simply comparative and descriptive, not reflective of a later political context.
 |
 |
 |
The Theological Significance of the Comparison
The comparison between Edom and Israel in Genesis 36:31 carries deeper theological meaning. The Edomite monarchy represents human self-determination and worldly power established independently of God’s covenant promises. In contrast, Israel’s kingship, when it would eventually come, would be divinely instituted and covenantal in nature.
Jehovah Himself would choose the king (Deuteronomy 17:15), and the monarchy would serve His redemptive purposes, culminating in the Messiah—the ultimate King from David’s line (2 Samuel 7:12–16). Thus, Moses’ inspired remark prefigures not an anachronism but a divinely ordained contrast between human and divine authority. The Edomites established kings by human initiative, while Israel’s kingship awaited God’s appointed time and purpose.
The statement in Genesis 36:31, therefore, anticipates God’s unfolding plan, demonstrating the sovereignty of Jehovah over the course of human history and validating the prophetic nature of the Pentateuch.
 |
 |
 |
The Broader Scriptural Consistency
Scripture later reaffirms this very historical order. When Israel encountered Edom during the wilderness journey, Edom was already a well-established kingdom (Numbers 20:14–21). Moses sent messengers “from Kadesh to the king of Edom” (Numbers 20:14), clearly showing that Edom had royal leadership during Moses’ lifetime—precisely as Genesis 36 records.
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 2:4–5 reveals Jehovah’s command to Israel not to provoke Edom, recognizing their possession of Mount Seir as an established nation. This harmony between Genesis, Numbers, and Deuteronomy demonstrates Mosaic unity and authenticity. Moses was not writing retrospectively about Edom’s monarchy; he lived in its time and dealt with it firsthand.
Hence, Genesis 36:31 reflects contemporary awareness and divine foresight, not later editorial redaction.
 |
 |
 |
The Consistency of the Pentateuchal Structure
The claim that Genesis 36:31 must be post-Mosaic because of its reference to kings in Israel ignores the structural coherence of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch’s genealogical and narrative patterns are uniform from Genesis through Deuteronomy. Moses’ writings often incorporate forward-looking statements that anticipate future fulfillments of divine promises.
For example:
-
Genesis 12:2–3 anticipates Israel’s global influence centuries before it occurred.
-
Genesis 15:13–16 foretells Israel’s 400-year sojourn and deliverance before it happened.
-
Deuteronomy 28–30 outlines Israel’s exile and restoration long before the events.
In each case, prophecy and history are seamlessly interwoven, as God’s Word transcends human time. Therefore, Genesis 36:31 functions within that same inspired pattern—Moses records a factual observation about Edom while prophetically acknowledging Israel’s future kingship.
 |
 |
 |
Refuting the Liberal Critical Assumption
The claim of anachronism arises primarily from the Documentary Hypothesis, which rejects Mosaic authorship and divides the Pentateuch into alleged sources (J, E, D, P) compiled centuries later. However, this theory rests on speculative literary assumptions, not on textual evidence. Conservative evangelical scholarship has demonstrated that the supposed inconsistencies are actually complementary perspectives unified by a single author guided by divine inspiration.
No ancient manuscript evidence indicates that Genesis 36:31 was added later. The textual tradition is uniform across all major witnesses, including the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls. The verse has always been part of the Genesis record.
Thus, the “anachronism” claim reflects modern critical skepticism rather than historical or textual reality. The Mosaic authorship of Genesis stands secure, corroborated by linguistic, historical, and theological consistency.
 |
 |
 |
Conclusion: Prophetic Anticipation, Not Editorial Revision
Genesis 36:31 is not a product of post-exilic redaction but a divinely inspired, prophetic statement penned by Moses. It accurately situates Edom’s early kingship within salvation history and anticipates Israel’s future monarchy—foretold by God and later fulfilled in David’s line.
Moses, guided by Jehovah’s Spirit, could speak of kings yet to come just as confidently as he spoke of nations yet unborn. The verse, therefore, reflects the precision and foresight of divine revelation, not human hindsight.
The statement underscores the reliability of Scripture and the authenticity of Mosaic authorship. Rather than undermining the Pentateuch, Genesis 36:31 testifies to its unity, inspiration, and historical truth. It affirms that God’s promises concerning Israel’s kingship were already in motion, pointing ultimately to the eternal Kingship of Christ, the descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David—fulfilling every prophetic anticipation embedded in Genesis.
 |
 |
 |
You May Also Enjoy
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
Leave a Reply