I
Chronicles
I and II Chronicles are the names originally given to the
record made by the
appointed
historiographers in the kingdoms of
Septuagint, these books are called Paralipomena (i.e.
things omitted),
which is understood as meaning
that they are supplementary to I and II
Kings. The constant tradition of the Jews is that
these books were for the
most part compiled by
Ezra. One of the greatest difficulties
connected
with the captivity and return
must have been the maintenance of that
genealogical
distribution of the lands which yet was a vital point of the
Jewish economy. To supply this want and that each tribe might
secure
the inheritance of its
fathers on its return was one object of the author
of these books. Another difficulty intimately connected with
the former
was the maintenance of the
temple services at
and after him Ezra and
Nehemiah, labored most earnestly to restore the
worship of
God among the people, and to reinfuse something of
national life
and spirit into their hearts. Nothing
could more effectually
aid these designs than
setting before the people a compendious history
of the
to its overthrow; the captivity and return. These considerations
explain the
plan and scope of that historical work which consists of
the two books of the
Chronicles.
I Chronicles contains the sacred
history by genealogies from the Creation
to David, including an
account of David’s reign.
As regards the materials used by Ezra, they are not
difficult to discover.
The genealogies are obviously transcribed from some
register, in which
were preserved the
genealogies of the tribes and families drawn up at
different
times; while the history is mainly drawn from the same
documents as
those used in I and II Kings.
The above introduction is taken from:
A Dictionary of the Bible by
William Smith, L.L.D.
DISCLAIMER: Since I
Chronicles is similar to the books of the Kings,
I have not cross-checked references nor looked for errors or
mistakes –
I Chronicles will be copied straight out of the Pulpit
Commentary,
which is a work that resides in the public domain. May God bless
the work of those who compiled it – CY – 2010)
I
Chronicles 1
A. LIST OF GENERATIONS FROM ADAM TO NOAH (vs.
1-4)
1 Adam,
Sheth, Enosh,
2 Kenan,
Mahalaleel, Jered,
3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,
4 Noah,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
These
verses contain a line of genealogical descents, ten in number, from
Adam to Noah, adding mention of the three sons
of the latter. The stride
from Adam to Seth, and the genealogy’s entire
obliviousness of Cain and
Abel, are
full of suggestion. All of these thirteen names in the Hebrew and
in the Septuagint Version, though not those in the Authorized
Version, are
facsimiles of those which occur in Genesis 5. They are not
accompanied,
however, here, as they are there, by any chronological
attempt. Probably
the main reason of this is that any references of the kind were
quite beside
the objects which the compiler of this work had in view. It is,
however,
possible that other reasons for this chronological
silence may have existed.
The uncertainities attaching to the chronology found in
Genesis, as regards
this table, may have been suspected or evident —
uncertainties which
afterwards proclaim themselves so loudly in the
differences observable
between the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint versions.
Thus the
Hebrew text
exhibits the total aggregate of years from Adam to the birth of
Noah, as
amounting to one thousand and fifty-six; the Samaritan version to
seven hundred and seven only; and the Septuagint to
as many as sixteen
hundred and sixty-two; nevertheless, all three agree in
adding five hundred
years onward to the birth of Shem, and another
hundred years to the
coming of the Flood. It must be remarked of this first
genealogical table,
whether occurring here or in Genesis, that,
notwithstanding its finished
appearance, notwithstanding the impression it undoubtedly
first makes on
the reader, that it purports to give all the intervening
generations from the
first to Shem, it may not be so; nor be intended to
convey that impression.
It is held
by some that names are omitted, and with them of course the
years which belonged to them. There can be no doubt
that this theory
would go far to remove several great difficulties,
and that some analogies
might be invoked in support of it, from the important
genealogies of the
New Testament. The altogether abrupt opening of this book — a succession
of proper names without any verb or predication — cannot be considered
as
even partially compensated by the first sentence of ch. 9., “So all
reckoned by genealogies; and behold,
they are written in the book of the
kings of
look on the first portion of this book as a series
of tables, here and there slightly
annotated,
and suddenly suspended before the eyes.
LIST OF
SONS AND GRANDSONS OF JAPHETH (vs. 5-7)
5 The sons of Japheth; Gomer,
and Magog, and Madai, and Javan,
and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
6 And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
7 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
After the
mention of Noah’s three sons, in the order of their age (though
some on slender ground think Ham the youngest), this
order, as in
Genesis
10:2, is reversed; and the compiler, beginning with Japheth,
the youngest, apparently with the view of disposing of what his
purpose
may not so particularly require, gives the names of seven sons
and seven
grandsons, viz. three through Gomer,
the eldest son, and four through
Javan, the
fourth son. These fourteen names are identical in the
Authorized
Version with the list of Genesis 10:2-4. The Septuagint,
though not identical in the spelling of the four names
Madai, Tiras,
Tarshish, and Kittim,
shows no material differences in the two places. In
the Hebrew, according to the text and edition consulted, very
slight
variations are found in the orthography of Tubal (lB;tuw] here for lb;tuw])
and Tarshish (jv;yvir]t"w] here for vyvir]t"w])and in the
adoption of Riphath
and Dodanim in this
book for Diphath and Rodanim. The names Kittim
and Dodanim look less
like names of individuals than of such family, tribe,
or nation as descended from the individual. At the close of
this short
enumeration, we have in Genesis the statement, “By these were the isles of
the Gentiles divided in their
lands; every one after his tongue, after their
families, in their nations” (v.
5). It is evident here also that,
whether the compiler
borrowed from the Book of Genesis itself, or from some
common source
open to both, his objects are not exactly the same.
Time and the present
position and condition of that part of his people for
which he was writing
governed him, and dictated the difference. Accordingly
we do not pause
here on the colonizings
and the fresh seats and habitations of the sons and
grandsons of Japheth. The subject, one of extreme interest,
and the threads
of it perhaps not so hopelessly lost as is sometimes thought,
belongs to the
place in Genesis from which the above verse is cited.
(I highly recommend
The Genesis Record by Henry
Morris – CY – 2010)
LIST OF THE SONS, GRANDSONS, AND GREATGRANDSONS
OF
HAM (vs. 8-16)
8 The
sons of Ham;
9 And the sons of Cush; Seba,
and Havilah, and Sabta, and
Raamah,
and Sabtecha. And
the sons of Raamah;
10 And
11
And Mizraim begat Ludim,
and Anamim, and Lehabim,
and
Naphtuhim,
12
And Pathrusim, and Casluhim,
(of whom came the Philistines,)
and Caphthorim.
13
And
14
The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite,
15
And the Hivite, and the Arkite,
and the Sinite,
16
And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite,
and the Hamathite.
This list consists of four sons of Ham, of six
grandsons, including Nimrod,
through Cush, the eldest son of Ham; of seven
grandsons through Mizraim,
the second son of Ham; of eleven grandsons through
son of Ham; of two greatgrandsons through
thirty descendants in all. No issue is given of Put,
the third son of Hem.
The
parallel list is found in Genesis 10:6-20. The names agree in the Authorized
Version,
with minute differences, e.g. Put here for Phut there, and so the Philistines
for Philistine, Caphthorim for
Caphtorim, Girgashite
for Girgasite. They are
similarly in agreement in the Hebrew text of the two
places, with minute
differences,
e.g. aT;b]s"w] here for hT;b]s"w] there; am;[]r"w] for hm;[]r"w] for
hm;[]r"w] μyyidWl
for μyyidWl ˆwOdyxi for ˆdoyxi yqir]["h". However,
in
Genesis
10:9-12, the following statements are added to Nimrod’s name: —
“He was a mighty hunter
before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as
Nimrod the mighty. hunter
before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom
was
that land went forth Asshur, and builded
And again,
at the close of the enumeration of sons, grandsons, and greatgrandsons,
follow the statements, “And afterwards were the families of the
Canaanites spread abroad. (I say in
my book My One
Hundred and One
Favorite Artifacts from the
Little River Clovis Complex that I believe
this is a reference to man’s adventures, even into
CY – 2010)
- And the border
of the Canaanites was from
comest to Gerar, unto
and Admah,
and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
These are the sons of Ham,
after their families, after their
tongues, in their countries, and
in their nations” (Ibid. vs.
18b-20). In v. 10 the Septuagint
supplies the
word kunhgo<v after gi>gav. Also after this description of Nimrod, it
proceeds
to the enumeration of the posterity of Shem, omitting all
mention of Ham’s
grandsons through Mizraim and Cainan. Up to that point the names in this book
and Genesis are in agreement in the Septuagint Version. It is
evident that some
of the names in this portion of the genealogy are not strictly
those of the
individual, but of the tribe or nation which came to be,
as, for instance,
Mizraim, Ludim, the Jebusite,
the Amorite, and so on. V. 16 furnishes
us with one illustration of the assertion made above, that the
clues to the
ethnological and ethnographical statements of these most
ancient records
are not necessarily all hopelessly lost. In the name Zemarite, it is suggested
by Michaelis, that we have allusion
to the place Sumra, on the west coast of
Spanish geographer of the first century, Pomponius
Mela (1. 12). But the place
Zimira, in company with Arpad, is found in the
Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon,
B.C. 720,
leaving little cause to hesitate in accepting the identification of
Michaelis (Courier’s
‘Handbook to the Bible,’ p. 233). Certainty, however,
cannot be felt on the subject.
THE
LIST OF SHEM’S DESCENDANTS TO ABRAM (vs. 17-27)
17
The sons of Shem;
18
And Arphaxad begat Shelah,
and Shelah begat Eber.
19
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one
was Peleg;
because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s
name
was Joktan.
20
And Joktan begat Almodad,
and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth,
and
Jerah,
21
Hadoram also, and Uzal, and
Diklah,
22
And Ebal, and Abimael, and
23 And
Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of
Joktan.
24
Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,
25
Eber, Peleg, Reu,
26
Serug, Nahor, Terah,
27
Abram; the same is Abraham.
This list
is broken in two; it pauses a moment exactly halfway to
Abram, at
the name Peleg, to mention Peleg’s
brother Joktan and Joktan’s
thirteen sons. Then, repeating the first five names of
lineal descent, and
picking up the thread at Peleg,
the list gives the remaining five to Abram.
In the
first half of this list, we have apparently the names of nine sons of
Shem, but,
as Genesis explains, really the names of five sons, and through
through Arphaxad the third
son, follows, and through this grandson two
consecutive lineal descents bring us, in the name Peleg, half-way to Abram.
It is here
the lineal table pauses to give Joktan and his
thirteen sons. The
names then in this portion of the list are twenty-six
in number. In the
Authorized
Version they correspond with those in Genesis, except that
Meschech (Ëv,m,w;) here is called Mash (vm"w;) there; Shelah
here is spelled
Salah there; and Ebal
(lb;y[e) here is
written Obal (lb;wO[) there.
The
difference between the Hebrew texts justifies the first
and last of these
variations in the Authorized Version, but in all other
respects those texts
are in entire accord with one another, for this paragraph. The
Septuagint
gives very little of this portion of the list. It
corresponds, whether with the
Hebrew or
the Authorized Version, only as far as to the name Arphaxad,
after which it carries down the line at once to Abram
by the remaining
eight names as given in our twenty-fourth to twenty-seventh
verses. Nor is
it in agreement with its own version in Genesis, which has
points of
important variation with the Hebrew text also. It is then
at this break of the
list that, after the names of Joktan’s
sons, we have in Genesis these words,
“And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount
of the east. These are the sons
of Shem, after their families, after their
tongues, in their lauds, after their
nations. These are the families of the sons
of Noah, after their
generations, in their nations; and by these were the
nations divided in the earth after
the Flood” (Ibid. vs. 30-32). Upon this
follows the account of
summary is furnished in lineal descent only
from
Shem to Abram. It is with the
names in this chronological summary that those in
this second part of our list
(vs. 24-27) are found to agree. But any attempt at
reproduction of the
chronology found in Genesis is again absent here. At this
point a significant
stage of these genealogies is reached. The
ever-broadening stream of
population now narrows again. Two thousand
years have flown by, then
Abraham
appears on the stream and tide of human life. Of that
long period
the life of Adam himself spanned nearly the half. So far we
learn without
partiality of all his descendants in common. But
henceforth, the real, the
distinct purpose of the genealogy becomes apparent, in
that the line of the
descendants of Abraham, and that by one family, alone is
maintained, and
proves to be a purpose leading by one long
straight line to Christ Himself.
With
Abraham “the covenant of innoceney,” long forfeited
in Adam, is
superseded by the everlasting “covenant
of grace,” and we lose sight in
some measure of Adam, the “common father of
our flesh,” to think of a
happier parentage found in Abraham,
the “common father of the faithful.”
LIST
OF THE SONS, GRANDSONS, AND OTHER
DESCENDANTS
OF ABRAHAM (vs. 28-37)
28
The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
29
These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth;
then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
30
Mishma, and Dumah,
31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
32
Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she
bare Zimran,
and Jokshan, and
the sons of Jokshan;
33
And the sons of Midian; Ephah,
and Epher, and Henoch, and
Abida, and Eldaah. All these
are the sons of Keturah.
34
And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and
35
The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel,
and Jeush, and Jaalam, and
Korah.
36
The sons of Eliphaz; Teman,
and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam,
Kenaz,
and Timna, and Amalek.
37
The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.
In the
first of these verses the new form of the name of Abraham is at once used
in place of the old form. And the names of two of his sons are
given, Isaac the
son by Sarah, and Ishmael the son by Hagar, his Egyptian
bondwoman. That
these stand in the inverse order of their birth and
age requires no explanation. The
distinct and separate mention of these two sons, apart
from all the others,
is of course in harmony with Genesis 21:12-13, “In Isaac shall thy seed
be called. And also of the son
of the bondwoman will I make a nation,
because he is thy seed.” Although
stated in the first place in the order of
importance, and Isaac takes precedence of Ishmael, the
name of this latter
and of his posterity are treated of first. To note each clear
instance of this
kind will guard us against inferring, in cases not
clear,
anything positive,
one way or the other, respecting seniority merely from order.
The order
either of age or of historic importance may be given
in the first instance, to
be immediately reversed in favor of the order which shall
enable the writer
to clear out of his way the less important. Vs. 29-31 contain the list of Ishmael’s
sons, twelve in number. The names in the Authorized
Version and in the Hebrew
text are identical respectively with those in Genesis
25:13-15, except that for Hadar
there we read Hadad
here. In the Septuagint we have Idouma,
Choudan,
Iettar here, for Douma, Choddan, and Ietur there. At the
close of this list
in Genesis we have joined on to “these are the sons of Ishmael,” the
clauses, “and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles;
twelve princes according to their
nations. And these are the years of the life
of Ishmael, an hundred and
thirty and seven years: and he gave up the
ghost and died; and was gathered
unto his people. And they dwelt from
Havilah unto Shur,
that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward
he died in the presence of all
his brethren” (Ibid. 16-18). Vs. 32-33,
contain the list of Abraham’s sons by Keturah, here called one of his concubines;
but in Genesis, “a wife,” and apparently not taken by Abraham till after
Sarah’s
death (Genesis 25:1-4). The sons are six; the
grandsons, two by the son placed
second in order, and five by the son placed fourth in
order; in all thirteen names.
But the
passage in Genesis gives also three great-grandsons, through the second
grandson. All the thirteen are in the Authorized Version
identical in the two places
and in the Hebrew text; but in the Septuagint slight
differences occur, as Zembram,
Iexan, Madam, Sobak, Soe, Daidan, Sabai, Opher, Abida, and Eldada
here, for Zombran, Iezan, Madal, Iesbok,
Soie, Dedan,
Abeida, and Eldaga there. It is carefully stated in Genesis 25:5-6,
after
the enumeration of Keturah’s
children, and in spite of her having been
called “wife” in the first verse, that “Abraham gave all that he had
unto
Isaac. But unto the sons of
the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham
gave gifts, and sent them away
from Isaac his sou, while he yet lived,
eastward, unto the east country.” Vs. 34-37 lead us on
to the descendants
of Isaac, the more important branch of Abraham’s family. It breaks again at
once into two, Esau, the less
important, treated of first; and
till we enter on ch. 2. Of Esau, the names of five sons are
given; and of seven
grandsons by the first in order, and four grandsons by the second in order of
these
sons. In Genesis 36:1-5 we have the names of the five sons of Esau,
which
correspond in the Authorized Version and in the Hebrew
text exactly with
those of this list. We have there in addition the
names of their mothers
respectively, who were “daughters of
mother of the first; Bashamath
of the Ishmaelites, mother of the second
(and by these two lines came the seven and four grandsons);
and
Aholibamah of the Hivites, mother of the remaining
three sons. The names
correspond also in the Septuagint in the two places, with
the minute
differences of Eliphaz and Ieoul here, for Eliphas and Ieous there. Then
follow the names of seven grandsons of Esau though his
son Eliphaz, of
whom the first five are found and in agreement (Genesis
36:11), with
the exception of Zephi here
for Zepho there, both in the Authorized
Version and in the Hebrew text. But the sixth name here, Timna, is
explained in Genesis as the name of a concubine of Eliphaz, by whom he
had the son Amalek, who
appears here as the seventh son. There can be no
doubt that we come here upon a transcriber’s error,
and it would be easily
amended if we read “and by Timna,
Amalek,” vice “and Timna
and
Amalek.” If this be
the correct account of the matter, the grandsons of
Esau of
course count one fewer here. These two names also
tally in the
Authorized
Version and in the Hebrew text in the two places; while for all
seven names the agreement in the Septuagint is exact,
except that we read
Gootham here for Gothom there. There remain, in v. 37, four grandsons
to Esau, by Reuel. Their names agree
with Genesis in the Authorized
Version, in
the Hebrew text, and in the Septuagint, except that this last
reads Naches here for Nachoth
there.
LIST
OF DESCENDANTS OF SEIR (vs. 38-42)
38
And the sons of Seir; Lotan,
and Shobal, and Zibeon, and
Anah,
and Dishon, and Ezar, and Dishan.
39
And the sons of Lotan; Hori, and Homam:
and Timna was Lotan’s
sister.
40
The sons of Shobal; Alian,
and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and
Onam. and the sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah.
41
The sons of Anah; Dishon.
And the sons of Dishon; Amram,
and
Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran.
42
The sons of Ezer; Bilhan,
and Zavan, and Jakan. The
sons of
Dishan; Uz, and Aran.
These verses contain the names of seven sons
of Seir and one daughter, and of
grandsons through every one of the seven sons, viz. two
through Lotan
the first, five through Shobal
the second, two through Zibeon the
third,
one through Anah the
fourth, four through Dishon the fifth,
three through
Ezar the sixth, and two through Dishan
the seventh, — twenty-six names
in all, or, including the one daughter, who is introduced as Lotan’s sister,
twenty-seven. The first question which arises is, who Seir was, now first
mentioned here. He is called in Genesis 36:20 “Seir
the Horite,” and
the only previous mention of the name Seir
in that chapter is in v. 8,
“Thus dwelt Esau in
Genesis
14:6, “The Horites in
the
person Seir, then, we are
confined to these two notices — that in
Genesis 36:20 and the one in our text. The name
signifies “rough;” and
whether Seir. the person, took the name from Seir,
the place (a mountain
district, reaching from the Dead Sea to the
would seem plain that the proper name belonged to the
head of the tribe,
which had become located there, and was, of course,
not in the line of
Abraham.
This tribe, called Horites — Hori being the name of Seir’s eldest
grandson — or Troglodytes, (cavemen) acquired their name
from hollowing out
dwellings in the rocks, as at
married at least one of his wives from them; and his
descendants, the
Edomites, in due time dispossessed and superseded them
(Deuteronomy
2:12). No doubt some were left behind, and contentedly
submitted to the Edomites and
became mingled with them. These
considerations put together account for the introduction here
of the names
of Seir and his twenty-seven
descendants, while the particulars of their
genealogy, so far as here given, would lie easily to
hand. The sons of Seir
are called in Genesis also “dukes” (ypeWLa"), a word
answered to by the
later “sheikhs;” and they are called “dukes of the Horites,” or “the dukes of
Hori, among their dukes in the
names under notice agree in the Authorized Version
entirely with
those in Genesis 36:20-27, except that for Homam, Allan, Shephi,
Amram, and Jakan here,
we have Hemam, Alvan, Shepho, Hemdan, and
Akau there. Also in
the Hebrew the texts agree in the two places as regards
these names, with the same exceptions. But in the
Septuagint the names
differ much more in the two places. Thus for Wsa<r, Disa>n (or
Lisa>n),jAlw<n Taibh<l Swfi< Wna>n, Aiq Swna<n Daisw<n jEmerw<n
jAsebw<n, jIeqra<m, and Aka>n here, we have jAsa<r, JRisw<n Gwla<m
Gaibh<l Swfa<r Wma<r jAi>e, jAna> Dhsw<n jAmada<
jAsba<n jIqra<n, and
JIouka>m there. When the name of Anah is reached in Genesis, it is added,
“This was that Anah that found the mules [μybiY"h"Ata,, more
probably ‘hot
springs,’ as the
finder of which Anah is supposed to have been called
Beeri] in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon, his father.” And
again, when Dishon is
mentioned as the son of Anah, there is added, “And
Aholi-bamah the daughter of Anah.” Note is
made of her name, no doubt,
for the same kind of reason as Timna
is mentioned above. Aholibamah (i.q.
“Judith,
the daughter of Beeri the Hittite,” Genesis 26:34)
enjoys notice
inasmuch as she became the wife of Esau; and Timna, as she became the
concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz,
and thereby the mother of Amalek.
LIST
OF KINGS OF
43
Now these are the kings that reigned in the
any king reigned over the children of
and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
44
And when Bela was dead, Jobab
the son of Zerah of Bozrah
reigned in his stead.
45
And when Jobab was dead, Husham
of the land of the Temanites
reigned in his stead.
46
And when Husham was dead, Hadad
the son of Bedad, which
smote Midian in the field of
name of his city was Avith.
47
And when Hadad was dead, Samlah
of Masrekah reigned in his
stead.
48
And when Samlah was dead, Shaul
of Rehoboth by the river
reigned in his stead.
49
And when Shaul was dead, Baalhanan
the son of Achbor reigned
in his stead.
50
And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad
reigned in his stead: and
the name of his city was Pai; and
his wife’s name was Mehetabel,
the daughter of Matred, the
daughter of Mezahab.
These
verses contain a list of kings who reigned in
expressly notified as anterior to the institution of
kings in
point of practical use than has been yet ascertained
may lie in the preservation
of these snatches of
otherwise gratuitous statement, that kings were unknown
in
this line reigned in
obscure point of prophecy, or to subserve
some important chronological
purpose; but wedged in as it is, it cannot be permitted
to count for nothing.
That it
stands in identical words in Genesis 36:31 increases not a little
the attention to be paid to it. Kings had been promised to
Jacob (Genesis 35:11),
as among his posterity, and had been prophesied of by Moses (Deuteronomy
28:36). It may
have been that
been wont to make her boast of them. in comparison of and in presence of her
neighbors, and the remark may have thence
originated.
Lastly, it has been
correctly pointed out that the structure of the sentence
in the original does
not at all necessitate the suggestion (of which in the English
Version there
is confessedly the appearance), that
kings had already been in
the same time, too great stress must not be laid upon this, for
the slight
alteration of translation that would suit the time for
Genesis, would throw
it out again for our text here, and yet the words of the
original are
identical. These kings are eight in number; the parentage
or the land of
each is given. It is to be noticed that the line of
royalty is not hereditary,
and that several dukes, or heads of tribes, or princes of
districts, rule under
the king. The names, whether of persons or places, agree in the
Authorized
Version as
they occur here and in Genesis 36:31-39, except that Saul is
here spelt Shaul,
and that we have here Hadad and Pai for Hadar and
Pan
there. These two differences are occasioned by the
Hebrew text, and are
the only differences between the two Hebrew texts, except that μv;wOj here
is given μv;ju there, and that the incorrect spelling here of twyi[} is found
right (tywi[}) in
Genesis. The superfluous statement, Hadad died
also,
which begins our fifty-first verse, is not found in
Genesis. In the Septuagint
the variations between the two places are greater, as well as
those from the
Hebrew text in either place. Thus we have Asom, Gethaim, Sebla,
Roboth, Balaennor, Achobor, Adad, here, for Asom, Getthaim, Samada,
Robboth, Ballenon, Achobor,
here of the name of the wife of the last king, with
those of her mother and
grandmother, all of which are given in the passage of
Genesis, as found in
the Hebrew text. In v. 44 it is not impossible that this Jobab is one with Job.
The allusions
in Genesis 36:11 to “Eliphaz the Temanite”
have directed
attention to this; and it has been favored by the
Septuagint and the Fathers.
In v. 48 - Rehoboth by the river; i.e.
the
probably from “the city Rehoboth” of Genesis 10:11.
LIST
OF ELEVEN DUKES OF
51 Hadad
died also. And the dukes of
Aliah, duke Jetheth,
52
Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah,
duke Pinon,
53
Duke Kenaz, duke Teman,
duke Mibzar,
54
Duke Magdiel, duke Iram.
These are the dukes of
These, the remaining
verses appear to give a list of eleven dukes of
emphasized apparently as “the dukes of
before or after them. But see Genesis 36:15, 41, 43,
the study of which
can scarcely leave a doubt on the mind that this list is not
one of persons
but of places; e.g. “the duke” of the city, or
region of “Timnah,” and so on.
The places
were dukedoms. The names of these verses, in both Authorized
Version and
Hebrew text, are an exact counterpart of those found
in
Genesis
36:40-43, except that Aliah here (so Alian, v. 40) stands for
Alvah in
Genesis. In the Septuagint we have Golada,
Elibamas, and
Babsar here, for Gola, Olibemas, and Mazar there. Thus this
first chapter
contains those genealogical tables which concern the
patriarchs from Adam
up to
and embracing also tables of
up to the period of kings. The
chapter contains not a single instance of a
remark that could be described as of a moral,
religious, or didactic kind.
Yet not a
little is to be learnt sometimes, not a little suggested, from
omission and solemn silence as well as from speech; no
more notable
instance of which could perhaps be given, when we take
into account time,
place, and circumstances, than that already alluded
to in the omissions
involved in the following of the name of Seth upon that
of Adam. The
genealogies of this chapter, with their parallels in Genesis, are notable
also
for standing unique in all the world’s writing, and far
over all the
world’s mythology, for retracing the pedigree of the wide family of men,
and especially
of the now scattered family of the Jew, to its original.
From the time of the close of our Chronicle genealogies,
supplemented by the
earliest of the New Testament, no similarly
comprehensive but useful,
ambitious but deliberately designed and successfully executed
enterprise
has been attempted. And as Matthew Henry has well said, since Christ
came, the Jews have lost all their genealogies, even
the most sacred of them,
“the building is reared,
the scaffold is removed; the Seed is come, the
line that led to Him is broken
off.”
"Excerpted
text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This material can
be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this
exposition is helpful, please share with others.