Good evening, and welcome to EBible Fellowship’s Bible study in the book of Genesis.  Tonight is study #15 in Genesis 36, and we will read Genesis 36:11-16:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife. And these are the sons of Reuel; Nahath, and Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah: these were the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife. And these were the sons of Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon, Esau's wife: and she bare to Esau Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah. These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah.

I will stop reading there.  In our last study, we were trying to answer some questions that arose as we closely look into the statements God is making here, the genealogies He is giving, and the names He is mentioning.  This is Scripture, and all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and all Scripture is perfect, and it is without error or mistakes in the original Hebrew and Greek.  That means when we come across apparent contradictions, we have to search the Bible all the more to answer the questions that come up because we know there is an answer that will show the Bible to be true and faithful.  Typically, man is careless and lazy, and if he sees an apparent contradiction, he automatically assumes it is an actual contradiction.  But that is their carelessness in that they do not look into the Bible carefully find the solution, and it is also probable that God is resisting them because these are typically unregenerate men, so God resists the proud, and He does not show them the solution.  So we would have to say that God allows them to smugly go away from the Bible thinking that the Bible has errors.

I remember there was a psychologist I worked with when I worked at a diagnostic center for alcohol and drugs, and he said to me, “You know, the Bible is full of errors.”  I told him there were no errors, but he was very sure of that, and it was probably due to statements like what we are finding here in Genesis 36. 

And one of these apparent contradictions has to do with the son of Eliphaz that are said to be sons of Esau and his wife Adah.  Again, we read in Genesis 36:11-12 of six sons, apparently, and there is no mention of a son named Korah, but when the sons are listed with the titles of duke there is an additional son named Korah, as it seems.  Did he just come out of “thin air”?  And, again, it is not the Korah mentioned as the son of Aholibamah; she had three sons – Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah – and they are always listed together.  And that was a son of Aholibamah, not the son of Adah, so this is a different son.  And we have the task of figuring out who he is, and that is a mystery. 

You know, God wrote the Bible as a mystery in every verse.  The Bible says that Christ spoke in parables, and without a parable He did not speak.  The disciples asked Jesus, “Why speakest thou to them in parables?”  And Christ said to them, “It is given unto you to know the mysteries (parables) of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”  So we, as God’s people, have the honor of searching out these things, according to Proverbs 25:2: “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.”  That is our honor, and we delight in it.  We are like investigators as we try to solve these mysteries, and it is something that is very satisfying to us when a mystery is solved.  So this is our mystery: “Who is Korah?”  In order to solve that problem, we are going to have to solve another problem, and that is the question: “Who is Timna?” Again, let us read Genesis 36:11-12:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife.

We read that Timna was concubine to Eliphaz.  That answers the question, does it not?  Timna was a concubine, and she was probably a handmaid to one of Eliphaz’ wives, but the wife is unnamed.  Is that not strange that the wife of Eliphaz who bore five sons, according to verse 11, while Timna only bore Amalek, according to verse 12, is not named, while Timna the concubine is named?  That would certainly be insulting to the wife.  It is unusual.  Why name the concubine?  One question we have is whether God did mention the name of the concubine.  And we might say, “Well, of course He did because there it is.”  But we have to look at this because we have to solve the mystery of duke Korah, so we have to look at every possibility.

The theologians in their commentaries have thought that the Timna mentioned in verse 12 is the sister of Lotan that we read of in Genesis 36:20-22:

These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, And Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan: these are the dukes of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom.And the children of Lotan were Hori and Hemam; and Lotan's sister was Timna.

So commentators think that this person Timna mentioned in Genesis 36:12 is the sister of Lotan, who would be a descendant of Seir the Horite.  I think that this influenced them when they saw the name Timna in Genesis 36:12 to think she was a concubine.  (You probably do not understand where I am going with this.)  But we also understand that there is a male named Timnah in Genesis 36:40:

And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names; duke Timnah…

I am not saying that is the same person, but the reason for looking at this is that this Timnah is a male, and it is the same word translated as “Timna” in verse 12 and verse 22.  It is Strong’s #8555 in the concordance, and as far as the consonants are concerned, they are identical.  There may be slightly different vowel pointing, but I do not think we can tell whether Timna is male or female by the name itself.  (And keep in mind that the vowel points were added later, and God did not give the vowel points.)  It is just like in our English language where there are certain names, and they could either be male or female.  And that seems to be the case with Timna.

In Genesis 36:22 where we read that Lotan’s sister was Timna, we have evidence that she is a female because she is called a sister.  Someone might say, “We also have that evidence in Genesis 36:12 because Timna was a concubine, and concubines were females.”  And that is probably what the commentators thought – they thought that Timna was concubine to Eliphaz.

But there is something else we have to look at, and I think this will begin to shine some light on this matter, and we will begin to understand.  Let us turn to 1Chronicles 1 where God gives a parallel account of the genealogy of Esau.  It is very similar in many ways.  We read in 1Chronicles 1:35:

The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah.

Actually, in this verse we have the sons of the three wives of Esau.  Eliphaz was born to Adah; Reuel was born to Bashemath; and Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah were born to Aholibamah (and again these three are mentioned together).  Then it says in 1Chronicles 1:36-39:

The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. And the sons of Seir; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan. And the sons of Lotan; Hori, and Homam: and Timna was Lotan's sister.

We are practically reading word-for-word, except for verse 36: “The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek.”  Timna and Amalek are listed.  We have seven sons listed.  Again, go back to Genesis 36:15-16:

These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek: these are the dukes that came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah.

How many dukes do we have here?  Seven.  So we have seven dukes (seven sons) of Eliphaz listed in 1Chronicles 1:36, so we have a match.  However there is a difference in the names.  Timna is listed in 1Chronicles 1:36, and Korah is in Genesis 36:16.  Therefore, we can conclude that Korah and Timna are the same son.  This son has two names, and as we saw with the wives.  It is not uncommon in the Bible for a person to have more than one name.  Just think of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, who also went by Reuel, and Hobab. 

So we now have that mystery solved.  Korah is Timna, according to 1Chronicles 1:36.  That is the only explanation.  Now we understand there were seven sons, and that is what 1Chronicles 1:36 tells us.  We have the answer.  Korah is Timna.  But hold it!  Where did Timna come from?  Let us go back to Genesis 36:11-12:

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna …

Stop. That is where we stop, but then it goes on to tell us about a concubine to Eliphaz who bore Amalek, the seventh son.  Now look at the order of the seven sons, in1Chronicles 1:36:

…Teman and Omar…

And the first two sons listed in Genesis 36:11:

…Teman and Omar…

Then back to the third, fourth, and fifth sons listed in 1Chronicles 1:36:

…Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz…

And this agrees with the next three sons listed in Genesis 36:11:

… Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.

(Zepho is the same as Zephi.)  These are listed in the exact order, and then we are told in Genesis 36:

And Timna…

And in 1Chronicles 36:

…and Timna, and Amalek.

Amalek is listed last.  It is the very same order, only the translators made a mistake.  The translators got this wrong, and they thought Timna was the name of a concubine.  But as I mentioned, that would have been unusual since Eliphaz’s wife was not mentioned, so why would God mention the concubine?  And the reason was that they mistakenly thought it was Lotan’s sister whose name was Timna.  So they thought that this person must be Eliphaz’ concubine, but they were incorrect.

And notice that the conjunction “and” begins the verse in Genesis 36:12:

And Timna…

If Timna were a concubine, this statement should have started, “Timna the concubine to Eliphaz,” and there would be no reason for the conjunction connecting the sons listed in the previous verse, but it is a continuous listing of the sons.  Do you see the flow?  “And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna…”  So we have the solution, and it is biblically justifiable.  The stating of the sons continues right into verse 12, and then we would read the rest of Genesis 36:12 like this: “There was a concubine (unnamed) to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife.”  Now we have harmony.  We understand that there were seven dukes, one of which was named Korah, but that was Timna’s other name.  It is just like Esau having the name Edom.  So Timna is Korah, and 1Chronicles 1:36 confirms the whole thing.