The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Esau’s Wives
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.
34When 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
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And Esau was a son of forty years, and he took a woman: Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Where the English smooths the original
But by thus inter marrying with idolaters Esau violated the great principle laid down by Abraham ( Genesis 24:3 ), forfeited thereby his birthright, and, as such marriages were illegal, is even called a fornicator in Hebrews 12:16 .Ellicott reaches forward to the New Testament verdict on Esau (Hebrews 12:16), reading these marriages as the act by which he “forfeited… his birthright.”
Esau married two wives in the 40th year of his age, the 100th of Isaac's life ( Genesis 25:26 ); and that not from his own relations in Mesopotamia, but from among the Canaanites whom God had cast off.Keil fixes the chronology (Esau’s 40th year = Isaac’s 100th) and names the offense precisely: Canaanites “whom God had cast off,” not kindred from Mesopotamia.
Both Hittites, the worst of the Canaanites, Ezekiel 16:3 ; which, from his grandfather Abraham’s severe charge, Genesis 24:3 , he must needs know would be highly displeasing both to God and to his parents.Poole presses Esau’s culpability: he “must needs know” the marriages were forbidden, having Abraham’s “severe charge” of Genesis 24:3 before him.
Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; whom Aben Ezra takes to be the same with Adah, and so does Josephus; and in this they may be right, since the name of her father, and his nation or tribe, agree, Genesis 36:2 .Gill works the discrepancy with Genesis 36:2 carefully, accepting (with Aben Ezra and Josephus) that Basemath is the “Adah” there because father’s name and tribe agree, while rejecting the harmonization of Judith with Aholibamah.
we may easily imagine how much his pious heart was wounded, and the family peace destroyed, when his favorite but wayward son brought no less than two idolatrous wives among themJFB voices the human cost the bare genealogical notice hides: the wound to Isaac’s “pious heart” and the ruin of “family peace” when his favorite son brought two idolatrous wives into the covenant household.
35And 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
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And they were a bitterness of spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah.
Where the English smooths the original
Which were a grief of mind (literally, bitterness of spirit ) unto Isaac and to Rebekah - possibly because of their personal characters, but chiefly because of their Canaanitish descentThe Pulpit Commentary gives the literal “bitterness of spirit” and weighs the two causes — the wives’ characters and (chiefly) their Canaanite descent.
a grief of mind ] Heb. bitterness of spirit . Cf. Genesis 27:46 , Genesis 28:8 . Isaac and Rebekah regarded a mixed marriage with the people of the land as a source of dishonour to the race; cf. Genesis 24:3 . By “a grief of mind” we should understand soreness and disappointment; cf. Proverbs 14:10 . The LXX ἐρίζουσαι , Lat. offenderant animam , took the meaning to be that Judith and Basemath were quarrelsome, and had given offence to Esau’s parents.Cambridge supplies the literal Hebrew, the parallels (27:46; 28:8), and frankly records the divergent LXX/Vulgate reading that the wives were “quarrelsome” — the tradition preserving rather than hiding the textual variant.
the women themselves he took for wives were very disagreeable on all accounts, partly because of their religion, being idolaters, and partly by reason of their temper and behaviour, being proud, haughty, and disobedient; as all the three Targums intimate.Gill, drawing on the Targums, adds the wives’ idolatry and proud temper to their foreign descent as causes of the parents’ bitterness.
Because to their idolatry and other wickedness they added obstinacy and incorrigibleness, despising their persons and godly counsels, whereby they invited them to repentance.Poole reads the bitterness as deepened by the wives’ “obstinacy and incorrigibleness” — they spurned the godly counsel that called them to repentance.
It grieved his parents that he married without their advice and consent. It grieved them that he married among those who had no religion. Children have little reason to expect God's blessing who do that which is a grief of mind to good parents.Henry draws the devotional application: marrying against parental counsel and outside the faith is a grief that forfeits the expectation of God’s blessing.
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.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
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.”
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.”
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.
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 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.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
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 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
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:
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)