The Fallible Study Bible

The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible

Genesis26:34–35

Esau’s Wives

✦ Public-domain source — quoted & attributed⚙ AI synthesis — generated, verify

Genesis 26:34–35 — Esau’s Wives. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.

34

When Esau was forty years old, he took as his wives Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Hebrew — tap a word ↓

‘ê·śāw way·hî ’ar·bā·‘îm ben- šā·nāh way·yiq·qaḥ ’iš·šāh ’eṯ- yə·hū·ḏîṯ baṯ- bə·’ê·rî ha·ḥit·tî wə·’eṯ- bā·śə·maṯ baṯ- ’ê·lōn ha·ḥit·tî

Word by word17 · parsed
עֵשָׂו֙‘ê·śāwWhen EsauH6215
√ ʻÊsâv — Esav, a son of Isaac, including his posterityNounpropermasculine singular
‘êśāw (H6215) — Esau, “hairy”; the firstborn who has just despised his birthright (Genesis 25:34). Keil reads these two verses as the seal on that portrait: “Esau by these marriages furnished another proof, how thoroughly his heart was set upon earthly things.”
וַיְהִ֤יway·hîwasH1961
√ hâyâh — to exist, iConjunctive wawVerbQalConsecutive imperfectthird person masculine singular
way·hî (H1961) — the consecutive “and it was”; the narrative connective opening the age-formula.
אַרְבָּעִ֣ים’ar·bā·‘îmfortyH705
√ ʼarbâʻîym — fortyNumbercommon plural
’ar·bā‘îm (H705) — “forty”; the number is pointed. Ellicott: Esau “was therefore of exactly the same age as Isaac was when, sixty years before, he married Rebekah” (Genesis 25:20) — the same age, the opposite obedience.
בֶּן־ben-years oldH1121
√ bên — a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etcNounmasculine singular construct
ben- (H1121, construct of bēn) — “son of”; here the Hebrew age-idiom “a son of forty years,” not a statement of literal sonship.
שָׁנָ֔הšā·nāh. . .H8141
√ shâneh — a year (as a revolution of time)Nounfeminine singular
šā·nāh (H8141) — “year”; the singular within the age-formula.
וַיִּקַּ֤חway·yiq·qaḥhe tookH3947
√ lâqach — to take (in the widest variety of applications)Conjunctive wawVerbQalConsecutive imperfectthird person masculine singular
way·yiq·qaḥ (H3947) — “and he took”; lāqach, the marriage-verb. Benson: “Contrary to the command of his father, mother, and grandfather, he marries Canaanites.”
אִשָּׁה֙’iš·šāhas his wivesH802
√ ʼishshâh — a womanNounfeminine singular
’iš·šāh (H802) — “a woman / wife”; singular collective noun governing the two names that follow.
אֶת־’eṯ-H853
√ ʼêth — properly, self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely)Direct object marker
’eṯ- (H853) — the direct-object marker, untranslatable; it points to Judith as the object of “took.”
יְהוּדִ֔יתyə·hū·ḏîṯJudithH3067
√ Yᵉhûwdîyth — Jehudith, a CanaanitessNounproperfeminine singular
yə·hū·ḏîṯ (H3067) — Judith, “praised”; the feminine of Judah. Ellicott: “The names are remarkable, as showing that the Hittites spoke a Semitic tongue. Judith is the feminine form of Judah, and means praised.” In Genesis 36:2 the wife’s name differs — a real discrepancy the voices wrestle with.
בַּת־baṯ-daughterH1323
√ bath — a daughter (used in the same wide sense as other terms of relationship, literally and figuratively)Nounfeminine singular construct
baṯ- (H1323, construct of bath) — “daughter of”; the relationship-term filed twice, once per wife.
בְּאֵרִ֖יbə·’ê·rîof BeeriH882
√ Bᵉʼêrîy — Beeri, the name of a Hittite and of an IsraeliteNounpropermasculine singular
bə·’ê·rî (H882) — Beeri, “well-finder.” Ellicott: it “can scarcely be the original name of her father, as it means well-finder, but was probably gained by his skill in discovering water. We find it, however, in the genealogy of Hosea” (Hosea 1:1) — the only other verse the name appears in, though a different man.
הַֽחִתִּ֑יha·ḥit·tîthe HittiteH2850
√ Chittîy — a Chittite, or descendant of ChethArticleNounpropermasculine singular
ha·ḥit·tî (H2850) — “the Hittite”; Cambridge cautions that under the Priestly source “there is little difference between Canaanites and Hittites” — the principal inhabitants of the land.
וְאֶת־wə·’eṯ-H853
√ ʼêth — properly, self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely)Conjunctive wawDirect object marker
wə·’eṯ- (H853) — conjunctive waw + object marker; “and [he took],” introducing the second wife.
בָּ֣שְׂמַ֔תbā·śə·maṯand BasemathH1315
√ Bosmath — Bosmath, the name of a wife of Esau, and of a daughter of SolomonNounproperfeminine singular
bā·śə·maṯ (H1315) — Basemath, “fragrant.” Ellicott: “Bashemath or Basmath, the fragrant, was the name also of a daughter of Solomon” (1 Kings 4:15). The name recurs across Esau’s own genealogy (Genesis 36:3, 4, 10, 13, 17).
בַּת־baṯ-daughterH1323
√ bath — a daughter (used in the same wide sense as other terms of relationship, literally and figuratively)Nounfeminine singular construct
baṯ- (H1323) — “daughter of”; the second relationship-construct.
אֵילֹ֖ן’ê·lōnof ElonH356
√ ʼÊylôwn — Elon, the name of a place in Palestine, and also of one Hittite, two IsraelitesNounpropermasculine singular
’ê·lōn (H356) — Elon, “oak-grove”; Ellicott: “Elon, oak-grove, was the name of a judge” (Judges 12:11). Gill, with Aben Ezra and Josephus, takes Basemath to be the Adah of Genesis 36:2 — “since the name of her father, and his nation or tribe, agree.”
הַֽחִתִּֽי׃ha·ḥit·tîthe HittiteH2850
√ Chittîy — a Chittite, or descendant of ChethArticleNounpropermasculine singular
ha·ḥit·tî (H2850) — “the Hittite”; the gentilic repeated a second time, sealing the indictment that both wives were Canaanite.
35

And they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah.

Berean Standard Bible · CC0

Hebrew — tap a word ↓

wat·tih·ye·nā rū·aḥ mō·raṯ lə·yiṣ·ḥāq ū·lə·riḇ·qāh

Word by word5 · parsed
וַתִּהְיֶ֖יןָwat·tih·ye·nāAndH1961
√ hâyâh — to exist, iConjunctive wawVerbQalConsecutive imperfectthird person feminine plural
wat·tih·ye·nā (H1961) — “and they became”; hāyāh, feminine plural, the wives as subject. The verb of being, not of doing: the women themselves were the bitterness.
ר֑וּחַrū·aḥthey broughtH7307
√ rûwach — windNouncommon singular
rū·aḥ (H7307) — “spirit / breath”; here the inner seat of feeling in the construct “bitterness of spirit.” Strong’s root is “wind”; the metaphor reaches from breath to the animating spirit of a person.
מֹ֣רַתmō·raṯgriefH4786
√ môrâh — bitterness, iNounfeminine singular construct
mō·raṯ (H4786) — “bitterness of”; mōrāh, from the root mārar, “to be bitter” — the same root behind Marah, the undrinkable “bitter” waters (Exodus 15:23), and Naomi’s “call me Mara… for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me” (Ruth 1:20). It is the taste of gall, not mere melancholy; the construct “bitterness of spirit” thus names a deep, settled grief, which is why the Pulpit Commentary and Cambridge both refuse the softer “grief of mind” for the literal “bitterness of spirit,” Cambridge adding the cross-references Genesis 27:46 and 28:8 where the same grief over Esau’s wives recurs.
לְיִצְחָ֖קlə·yiṣ·ḥāqto IsaacH3327
√ Yitschâq — Jitschak (or Isaac), son of AbrahamPreposition-lNounpropermasculine singular
lə·yiṣ·ḥāq (H3327) — “to Isaac”; the preposition lə marks the one to whom the bitterness came. Isaac is named first — the father whose blessing Esau will yet seek (Genesis 27).
וּלְרִבְקָֽה׃סū·lə·riḇ·qāhand RebekahH7259
√ Ribqâh — Ribkah, the wife of IsaacConjunctive waw, Preposition-lNounproperfeminine singular
ū·lə·riḇ·qāh (H7259) — “and to Rebekah”; the mother whose own “weariness of life” because of “the daughters of Heth” (Genesis 27:46) will become the lever that sends Jacob to Paddan-aram (Genesis 28:1–2). The closing samekh (’ס’) marks the end of a setûmâh (closed) section.

The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.

⚙

Grand Commentary — the unit, read whole

synthesis · verify

AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.

i. The same age as Isaac — and the opposite choice — Genesis 26:34

The verse opens with a number the commentators refuse to read as incidental. Esau is “a son of forty years” (ben-’arbā‘îm) when he marries — and Ellicott hears the echo at once: Esau was “of exactly the same age as Isaac was when, sixty years before, he married Rebekah” (Genesis 25:20). The Pulpit Commentary presses the literal idiom, “a son of forty years… the age of Isaac when he married Rebekah,” and Keil & Delitzsch fix the chronology exactly: “Esau married two wives in the 40th year of his age, the 100th of Isaac’s life.” The symmetry is the point. The same age that once carried the covenant forward in Isaac is here turned to its undoing: where Isaac’s bride was sought from the kindred in Mesopotamia under Abraham’s oath, Esau “took” (lāqach, H3947) his wives, says Keil, “not from his own relations in Mesopotamia, but from among the Canaanites whom God had cast off.”

ii. The broken charge of Abraham — Genesis 26:34

The marriage-verb is the very verb of the prohibition. Abraham had bound his servant by oath that Isaac must not “take” a wife “of the daughters of the Canaanites” (Genesis 24:3); Esau “took” two of exactly that stock. Benson states the trespass flatly: “Contrary to the command of his father, mother, and grandfather, he marries Canaanites, who were strangers to the blessing of Abraham, and subject to the curse of Noah.” Poole intensifies it — “Both Hittites, the worst of the Canaanites” (Ezekiel 16:3) — and refuses Esau the excuse of ignorance: “from his grandfather Abraham’s severe charge… he must needs know” the act “would be highly displeasing both to God and to his parents.” Jamieson, Fausset & Brown read it as the proof of his inner state: “an additional proof that Esau neither desired the blessing nor dreaded the curse of God.” Ellicott alone carries the verdict to its New Testament conclusion: by these marriages Esau “forfeited… his birthright, and, as such marriages were illegal, is even called a fornicator in Hebrews 12:16.”

iii. The names, and an honest discrepancy — Genesis 26:34

The names themselves are a small philological witness. Ellicott: “The names are remarkable, as showing that the Hittites spoke a Semitic tongue. Judith is the feminine form of Judah, and means praised”; Basemath “the fragrant”; Elon “oak-grove.” But the unit also opens a genuine difficulty the voices do not paper over: in the Tôldôth of Esau (Genesis 36:2–3) the wives’ names differ. Gill works it case by case — rejecting the identification of Judith with Aholibamah (whose father Zibeon was a Hivite, not a Hittite), but accepting that Basemath is the “Adah” of 36:2, “since the name of her father, and his nation or tribe, agree.” Poole offers the period’s standard solvent — “as Esau had several names… so it seems these women and their parents had” — while frankly allowing the alternative, “Or Esau had more wives than these.” Cambridge, reading with source-criticism, notes that under P “there is little difference between Canaanites and Hittites.” The names are not smoothed into false agreement; the seam is left showing.

iv. Bitterness of spirit — the wound that turns the plot — Genesis 26:35

The unit ends on a phrase the English softens and the commentators restore. The BSB’s “grief” is, literally, mōraṯ rūaḥ — “bitterness of spirit.” The Pulpit Commentary and Cambridge both give the literal Hebrew; Ellicott calls it “bitterness of spirit: that is, with mingled anger and sorrow.” The voices divide gently on the cause. The Pulpit Commentary weighs it — “possibly because of their personal characters, but chiefly because of their Canaanitish descent.” Gill, leaning on “all the three Targums,” adds that the wives were “idolaters… proud, haughty, and disobedient”; Poole that they added “obstinacy and incorrigibleness, despising… godly counsels.” Cambridge alone preserves the textual fork: “The LXX ἐρίζουσαι… took the meaning to be that Judith and Basemath were quarrelsome.” Matthew Henry draws the lesson the whole tradition hears: “Children have little reason to expect God’s blessing who do that which is a grief of mind to good parents.” And this bitterness is no dead end: Cambridge points forward to Genesis 27:46 and 28:8, where Rebekah’s “weariness of life” because of “the daughters of Heth” becomes the very pretext by which Jacob is sent away to find a wife — and so to receive the blessing Esau spurned.

Read under Sola Scriptura — this tool’s own fallible reading (⚙)

Read under the rule that Scripture alone is the final authority — and offered as a reading to be tested, not a verdict to trust — these two verses are a hinge disguised as a footnote. The same gifts can serve obedience or contempt. Esau marries at forty, the very age of his father’s marriage (25:20), and uses the very verb of his grandfather’s prohibition (24:3): “he took” wives “of the daughters of the Canaanites.” The text shows a man with every advantage of the covenant household choosing, deliberately, the line God had cast off — proof, says Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, that “Esau neither desired the blessing nor dreaded the curse of God.” Sin against the holy line is felt as bitterness, not mere disappointment. The Hebrew is mōraṯ rūaḥ, bitterness of spirit — a wound to the inner life of Isaac and Rebekah, not a passing sorrow. Scripture does not flatter the patriarchal home: the favored son is a grief to his godly parents, and the book says so plainly. God turns even a household’s sorrow toward His promise. The bitterness recorded here is the seed of Genesis 27:46–28:5: Rebekah’s weariness over “the daughters of Heth” becomes the occasion that sends Jacob to Paddan-aram for a covenant-keeping wife. What Esau’s rebellion poisons, God’s providence overrules — the same divine craftsmanship Jamieson-Fausset-Brown observes, that the estrangement “was overruled by God for keeping the chosen family aloof from the dangers of heathen influence.” The man who is “the same age as Isaac” ends, by his own choosing, the opposite of Isaac — and even his bitterness is bent to the service of the line he despised.

He marries at the very age his father did — and by the very verb his grandfather forbade; the same gift, turned to contempt.

⚙

Canonical Threads — out to the whole of Scripture

cross-refs · verify

AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.

Esau's wives re-cited in the Tôldôth of Esau structural / thematic — confirmed

The same marriages are recorded again, with the same gentilic “Hittite” and the same father’s name Elon, in the formal genealogy of Esau (Genesis 36:2–3) and across its repetitions (36:4, 10, 13, 17). The names of the wives differ between the two accounts — a real discrepancy the commentators face: Gill accepts that Basemath here is the “Adah” of 36:2 “since the name of her father, and his nation or tribe, agree,” while Poole proposes either that the women had several names or that “Esau had more wives than these.” The shared lexemes include the rare proper noun Elon (’Êylôwn, H356, in only 7 verses) and the relatively rare Basemath (Bosmath, H1315, in 7 verses), so the verbal tie within Hebrew is genuine; but because the names of the wives do not match across the two records, the connection is held below quotation as structural — the same event re-told, not one verse citing the other — and the discrepancy itself is flagged.

Genesis 26:34 · Genesis 36:2 · Genesis 36:3 · Genesis 36:4 · Genesis 36:10 · Genesis 36:13 · Genesis 36:17

basis: Verified shared lexemes (Hebrew↔Hebrew). With Genesis 36:2: H356 ʼÊylôwn (rare, 7 vv), H2850 Chittîy (47 vv), H6215 ʻÊsâv (82 vv), H1323 bath (497 vv), H802 ʼishshâh (686 vv), H3947 lâqach (909 vv); with 36:3, 4, 10, 13, 17: H1315 Bosmath (rare, 7 vv) + H6215 ʻÊsâv. The same author re-records the same marriages with differing wife-names, so this is a structural re-telling, not a quotation; held below verbal precisely because the discrepancy in the names is real and is named by Gill and Poole.

Beeri — a rare name shared with the prophet Hosea's father flagged — verify source

The name of Judith’s father, Beeri (Bᵉ’êrîy, H882), occurs in only two verses of all Scripture: here and in the superscription of Hosea, “the word of the LORD… unto Hosea, the son of Beeri” (Hosea 1:1). The Verifier flags this as a verbal tie on the strength of the name’s rarity. But it is exactly the kind of link that demands flagging rather than asserting: Ellicott notes the recurrence — “We find it, however, in the genealogy of Hosea” — while making plain it is a different man (the Hittite well-finder of Edom, not the Israelite father of a prophet). A shared rare name is not a shared person, and no commentator claims Hosea descends from Esau’s father-in-law. The lexeme is real; the significance is disputed; the link is recorded as flagged so the reader is not misled by the bare frequency count.

Genesis 26:34 · Hosea 1:1

basis: Shared lexeme H882 Bᵉʼêrîy (Hebrew↔Hebrew), genuinely rare (only 2 vv), which the Verifier scores as verbal. Flagged and DOWNGRADED because the rare name denotes two different men — a Hittite of Edom (here) and the Israelite father of Hosea (Hosea 1:1) — as Ellicott himself observes. A shared rare proper noun is a verbal coincidence of naming, not a quotation or a genealogical link; the bare frequency count would mislead if asserted as a real connection.

The charge Esau broke — Abraham's oath against Canaanite wives structural / thematic — confirmed

Esau’s act is legible only against the prohibition it defies. Abraham bound his servant by oath: “thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites” (Genesis 24:3). Esau “took” (lāqach) precisely such daughters. The shared lexemes are the marriage-vocabulary itself — “take” (lāqach, H3947), “wife” (’iššāh, H802), “daughter” (bath, H1323) — all common words, so this is a deliberate verbal-and-thematic contrast rather than a quotation: the same formula used to forbid in 24:3 is used to narrate the breach here. Ellicott, Benson, Poole, Cambridge, and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown all name 24:3 on this verse as the standard Esau violated.

Genesis 26:34 · Genesis 24:3

basis: Verified shared lexemes (Hebrew↔Hebrew): H3947 lâqach (909 vv), H802 ʼishshâh (686 vv), H1323 bath (497 vv) — the marriage-formula. All common words, so this is a thematic prohibition-and-breach pattern (24:3 forbids, 26:34 records the violation), not a quotation. Named explicitly on this verse by Ellicott, Benson, Poole, Cambridge, and JFB.

Bitterness of spirit — Rebekah's weariness that sends Jacob away structural / thematic — confirmed

The closing “bitterness of spirit” (v. 35) is not a dead end but the seed of the next two chapters. Cambridge cross-references it directly to Genesis 27:46 and 28:8: Rebekah tells Isaac, “I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth… if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth… what good shall my life do me?” (27:46), and Esau then “saw that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father” (28:8). The shared lexemes are the parental names — Isaac (Yitschâq, H3327) and Rebekah (Ribqâh, H7259, relatively rare at 29 vv) — binding the same grieved couple across the three verses. The link is a thematic chain within the narrative, not a quotation: the bitterness recorded here becomes the stated pretext by which Jacob is sent to Paddan-aram for a covenant wife (28:1–5).

Genesis 26:35 · Genesis 27:46 · Genesis 28:8 · Genesis 28:1

basis: Verified shared lexemes (Hebrew↔Hebrew): H3327 Yitschâq (101 vv) and H7259 Ribqâh (29 vv) with 27:46; H3327 Yitschâq with 28:8. The shared words are the parents' names, marking the same grieved couple; the tie is a narrative theme (the same bitterness over Esau's Hittite wives, recurring as the motive that sends Jacob away), not a verbal quotation. The 27:46/28:8 cross-reference is named on this verse by Cambridge.

Esau's third wife — a partial, late repentance structural / thematic — confirmed

Seeing his Canaanite marriages displeased his parents, Esau “went unto Ishmael, and took… Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael… to be his wife” (Genesis 28:9). Ellicott reads it as a half-turn: “Esau partially repented, and took as a third wife a daughter of Ishmael.” The shared lexemes — Esau (‘Êsâv, H6215), “take” (lāqach, H3947), “wife” (’iššāh, H802), “daughter” (bath, H1323) — are the same marriage-formula as v. 34, now redeployed to narrate Esau’s attempt to mend the offense by marrying within Abraham’s wider kindred. A structural echo of the same act, with a different intent — not a quotation.

Genesis 26:34 · Genesis 28:9

basis: Verified shared lexemes (Hebrew↔Hebrew): H6215 ʻÊsâv (82 vv), H3947 lâqach (909 vv), H802 ʼishshâh (686 vv), H1323 bath (497 vv) — the same marriage-formula. Common words, so a structural parallel (Esau's offending marriages here; his corrective third marriage in 28:9), not a quotation. Named on this verse by Ellicott and the Pulpit Commentary.

⚙Christ in the Unittypology · verify

AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.

The profane man who sold his birthright widely-held

The New Testament reads Esau’s marriages and his bartered birthright as one settled portrait of the man who despises the things of God. Hebrews warns the church against any “fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright” (Hebrews 12:16). Ellicott draws exactly this line on the present verse: by marrying idolaters Esau “forfeited… his birthright, and, as such marriages were illegal, is even called a fornicator in Hebrews 12:16.” The connection is figural and cross-Testament (Hebrew narrative → Greek epistle), so it cannot rest on shared Strong’s numbers; it is the apostolic reading of Esau as the type of the profane heart that treats the covenant inheritance as nothing — against which the Mediator of the new covenant (Hebrews 12:24) is set. Because the precise provenance of the Hebrews verdict on Esau’s “fornication” is itself debated (whether literal or figural of his idolatry), the underlying NT link is flagged in the apparatus.

Genesis 26:34 · Hebrews 12:16 · Hebrews 12:17

The line guarded for the Seed of promise widely-held

The bitterness these marriages caused is the providence by which the chosen line is kept pure for the Messiah. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown name the divine overruling on this very unit: the estrangement of Esau’s heathen wives from his parents “was overruled by God for keeping the chosen family aloof from the dangers of heathen influence.” It is precisely Rebekah’s grief over “the daughters of Heth” (Genesis 27:46) that sends Jacob to take a covenant-keeping wife (Genesis 28:1–5) — and through Jacob runs the genealogy “of whom… according to the flesh, Christ came” (cf. Romans 9:5; Matthew 1:2). Esau’s contempt and Jacob’s sending are the two halves of one act of preservation: God keeps the messianic line distinct from the Canaanite nations it was sent to redeem. The reading is canonical and cross-Testament, figural rather than a stated citation, and widely held in the church’s tradition.

Genesis 26:35 · Genesis 28:1 · Romans 9:5 · Matthew 1:2

Apparatus & Provenance

The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.

Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:

  • Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, — (1880s)
  • Charles Ellicott, Commentary for English Readers (1878)
  • Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory (1871)
  • John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible (1746–63)
  • Keil & Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1860s)
  • Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706)
  • Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible (1685)
  • The Pulpit Commentary, Spence & Exell, eds. (1880s)

This is a two-verse unit (Genesis 26:34–35) recording Esau’s marriage to two Hittite women and the “bitterness of spirit” it brought his parents. Several voices key whole-section comments to both verses on Biblehub (Matthew Henry’s “26:34,35” note; Keil’s “Esau’s Marriage” survey; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s header; and an Albert Barnes block that, on both verse pages, is actually his note on the Abimelek treaty earlier in the chapter and so does not bear on these two verses — we have therefore not drawn Barnes for either card, to avoid mismatched commentary). All voices above are public-domain commentaries quoted verbatim from Biblehub’s collation; each excerpt is a contiguous substring of its source, trimmed only at the ends. The verse-cards draw on eight distinct commentators across the unit — Ellicott, Keil & Delitzsch, Poole, Gill, the Pulpit Commentary, Cambridge, Matthew Henry, and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown.

Cross-reference tiers follow the Verifier’s computed shared-lexeme bases, with deliberate under-claiming. Two cautions are stated rather than smoothed. First, the Beeri / Hosea 1:1 link: the Verifier returns “verbal” because the name Bᵉ’êrîy (H882) occurs in only two verses of all Scripture — but the two Beeris are different men (a Hittite of Edom here; the Israelite father of the prophet there), as Ellicott himself notes, so a bare frequency count would mislead and we have flagged it. Second, the Genesis 36:2–3 parallel shares genuinely rare lexemes (Elon, Basemath) and the Verifier scores it verbal, but the names of Esau’s wives differ between this passage and the Tôldôth of Esau — a real discrepancy the commentators wrestle with — so we have downgraded it to structural and named the difficulty in place rather than harmonizing it. The remaining intra-Genesis links (24:3 the charge broken; 27:46/28:8 the bitterness that turns the plot; 28:9 Esau’s corrective third marriage) rest on common marriage- and name-vocabulary and are held at structural/thematic, never asserted as quotation.

The Christ-section links (Hebrews 12:16; Romans 9:5; Matthew 1:2) are cross-Testament and cross-language and therefore cannot rest on shared Strong’s numbers; they are held as widely-attested typology. The Verifier confirms there is no shared original-language lexeme between Genesis 26:34 and Hebrews 12:16 (“the connection, if any, is thematic/structural and must be argued, not asserted”); because the precise provenance of the Hebrews verdict calling Esau a “fornicator” is itself a debated NT-interpretation point (literal vs. figural of his idolatrous marriages), that underlying link is flagged. This unit does not contain Joshua 1:5, so no Joshua→Hebrews 13:5 flag applies. Nothing in the parses has been contradicted: the literal renderings are built from the Berean/Strong’s data up, and where the BSB paraphrases (“was forty years old” for “a son of forty years”; “brought grief” for “became a bitterness of spirit”) the divergence is named, not silently followed.

✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)