Genesis 36:31-39

"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom; and the name of his city was Dimhabah. And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead. And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the land of Moab, reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Avith. And Hadad died, and Shamlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead. And Shamlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his stead. and Shaul died, and Baalhanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead. And Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matted, the daughter of Mezahab."

"Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel ..." As noted in the chapter introduction, there would have been no point whatever to such a remark as this except as a warning derived from the disastrous experience of the Edomites in their adoption of government by monarchy. The usual, knee-jerk comment by critics, of course, makes this "proof" of a late date for Genesis after the rise of the monarchy in Israel. Willis asserted that this expression, "shows that this verse was written after Saul had taken the throne."[19] Such a deduction is absolutely unnecessary, as many able scholars have pointed out:

"This does not refer to the time after the monarchy was introduced into Israel under Saul, but was written with the promise in mind, that kings should come from Jacob (Genesis 35:11), and merely expresses the thought that Edom became a kingdom before Israel."[20]

This reference to the kings to which their sister nation had submitted (was) a warning against the desires of the children of Israel to have kings.[21] (Kline and Francisco also both follow this same line of thought).

And what a warning this monarchy was for Israel! Every single one of the kings was succeeded by another one who was not his son. The inference that they were overthrown violently is irresistible. That this was some kind of benign "elective" or "democratic" monarchy is actually ridiculous. No such monarchy ever existed anywhere. The very word, "king" forbids such a view. Of course, exactly this same pattern developed during the reigns of the last series of kings in Northern Israel. Israel had their warning quite early in their history, but they heeded it not.

The fourth king on the list was distinguished by his fighting the Midianites on the field of Moab. The Midianites were south of Edom, and the Moabites were north of Edom, Edom being squarely between them; and some have suggested that this presents a problem. The only problem is the total disappearance from history of any reference to such a war, except for this brief note in Genesis. Most Americans would have no problem with a statement that, "Andrew Jackson fought the British in New Orleans." How did the British happen to be in New Orleans? They went there; and that is exactly how the Midianites came to be in Moab.

Before leaving this paragraph, it should be noted that the capital of the monarchy was moved with the accession of each new king. What a scramble that was!