I Chronicles 2
The interest of this chapter owes something to the several
unsatisfied
questions which it suggests, to difficult and knotty points
which
nevertheless do not altogether counsel despair, and to
occasional
significant indications of sources drawn upon by the
compiler, certainly
quite additional to the contents of the existing books of
the Old Testament.
We know something of what we have to expect when the name
of
or Jacob, is announced in the first verse, with his twelve
sons — those
“patriarchs,” some of whom (certainly not as many as eleven, for Reuben
was absent, and, with scarcely a doubt, Benjamin), “moved with envy, sold
into
the genealogies and tables and enumeratious of collateral
lines of “all
(ch.9:1). This second chapter leads off with the most
important line of descent of
the twelve — that of
one line, which, on the contrary, stretches as far as to
ch.4:23. Within these limits
there are just that amount of repetition (ch. 2:3; 4:1,
etc.) and appearance of
confusion which betoken the recourse of the compiler to
various records and
sources of information — themselves sometimes but
fragmentary, and probably
to mere memory and the tradition that depends upon it.
The contents of this chapter are best mastered by noticing
that they consist of:
(vs. 3-9).
manifestly significant in one,
and presumably so in the others (vs. 10-55).
TABLE OF
1 “These are the sons of
and Zebulun, 2 Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and
Asher.”
The twelve sons of
the order of children of wives as against those of
handmaids (Genesis 25:23-26),
nor in that of the aged father’s dying blessing (Genesis
49.), nor in that of Exodus
1:2-4. It is the place of Dan which disturbs
the fittest order, and it is suggested
that his place in this text is accounted for by Rachel’s
desire that her handmaid’s child
should be accounted her own; but surely this was not
exceptional, but applied to all
or most of such cases, and should have been far rather
taken into consideration in any
of the other lists than in this. However accounted for, the
order is — lest, the six sons
of the first wife Leah; secondly, the elder son of
Rachel’s handmaid Bilhah; thirdly,
the two sons of the loved wife Rachel; fourthly, the
other son of Rachel’s handmaid
Billah; lastly, the two sons of Zilpah, handmaid of
Leah. As this order corresponds
with nothing in our Old Testament, it may serve as one
slight indication that the
compiler of Chronicles was not dependent on these records
alone. The Hebrew text
and the Septuagint accord exactly with the Authorized
Version here.
THE LINE OF
3 “The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and
Shelah: which three were born unto
him of the daughter of Shua the
Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of
was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he
slew him. 4 And Tamar his daughter
in law bore him Pharez and Zerah. All the
sons of
of Pharez; Hezron, and Hamul. 6 And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and
Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them
in all.” The
line of
well-known object, the first to be taken up, although
and two, Pharez and Zerah, by Tamar,
his own daughter-in-law, under the
circumstances described (Genesis 38:6-30). There all these
names are found in
exact accord in the Authorized Version, in the Hebrew text,
and in the Septuagint.
The Septuagint Version, however (Genesis 38:2), by an
evident inaccuracy of
translation, gives Shua as the name, not of the father, but
of the daughter, h=| o]noma
Saua>. Parallel passages are also found (Genesis
46:12; Numbers 26:19-22). Er
and Onan died without issue, and the descendants of Shelah
are not mentioned till
we reach ch. 4:21-23. The line is now carried on by the twin
sons of Tamar (vs. 5-6).
Pharez, with two sons,
Hezron
and Hamul (Genesis 46:12; Ruth 4:18), and Zerah,
with five sons, Zimri (or Zabdi, Joshua 7:1), Ethan, Heman, Calcol, Dara (or
with
many manuscripts,
followed by the Targum, Syriac, and Arabic versions, Darda).
If these last four names are not identical with those in I
Kings 4:31, they are not to be
found in any available connection elsewhere, and the last
two not at all. Upon this
supposition, it is held by some that this very passage
proves that the compiler drew
on resources not possessed by us. The weight of evidence
seems, however, largely
in favor of the persons being the same. It needs to be
constantly remembered that
an enumeration like the above, of five so-called sons,
does not necessarily involve
their being five brothers, although in this case it
looks the more as though they were
so, as it is said five of them in all. 7 “And the sons of Carmi; Achar, the
troubler of
far seven grandsons to
— Carmi. He is neither described as one of the seven
grandsons nor as descended
from any one of them, but unenviably enough is marked as
the father of Achar —
later form of Achan — the troubler of
link, and states that Carmi is son of Zimri (Zabdi), one of
the aforesaid seven
grandsons. By the punishment of death, visited upon this
Achar, with his sons and
daughters (Joshua 7:24-25), it may be presumed that the line of
him became extinct. (Of all the words of tongue or pen, the
saddest are these,
what might have
been – John Greenleaf Whittier – Think!
of Jesus Christ on the human side. To think that Achan forfeited that relationship
for a goodly Babylonish garment, two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of
gold
of fifty shekels weight! (Joshua 7:21) –
What are you or I forfeiting our
lives and eternal destinies for today? CY – 2011)
8 “And the sons of Ethan; Azariah.” The line
through Ethan, another of the
seven grandsons, seems to stop with Azariah, a name
found nowhere else.
9 “The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him;
Jerahmeel, and Ram,
and Chelubai.” Here the line of
Hezron’s
sons. The
track of genealogy then returns upon Pharez,
and to the name
of Hezron, the most important by far of the seven grandsons. His three sons are
announced, and, as beginning with the firstborn, so presumably in order of seniority.
They are:
10 “And Ram” - Ram (the
Luke 3:33) is taken first in order, at once to push on the
lineage of
great landmark DAVID, who is reached at the seventh
generation from Ram
(Ruth 4:19-22; Matthew 1:3-5; Luke 3:31-33), his name being
ranked last of
seven brothers only, sons of Jesse - “begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat
Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; 11 And Nahshon begat Salma, and
Salma begat Boaz,” - Salma, Hebrew am;l]c";
but Ruth 4:20 – Salmon, hm;l]c"
and in following verse ˆwOml]c. The variation of the first two of these forms has many
parallels, as between Chronicles and the earlier Old
Testament Scriptures.
12 “And
Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, 13 And Jesse begat his
firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second,
and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel
the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:” – These
last three verses give us what we have not elsewhere, the names of the fourth,
fifth, and sixth sons of Jesse, viz. Nathaneel, Raddai
(but see I Kings 1:8), and
Ozem.
But, on the other hand, they make it appear that David was the seventh
of seven, instead of (I Samuel 1610-11; 17:12) the eighth
of eight sons. The missing
son, any way, belongs to the seventh place. The Syriac and
Arabic versions have
taken the Elihu of ch. 27:18, and put him in this place.
Others, following the
Septuagint, suppose this Elihu, if strictly a brother of
David, to be Eliab, the oldest.
The explanation of the absence of the name here may be that
he died early and
without issue, and would accordingly be the less wanted in
a genealogical register.
Lessons from the Story of Boaz (vs.11-12)
The Book of Ruth is preserved to us as a picture of family
and social life in
the disorderly times of the judges. Both Ruth and Naomi
have been made
the frequent subject of public teaching; but Boaz stands
out with sufficient
prominence in the narrative to justify our fixing attention
on him. Give the
story, and especially the gleaning customs of those olden
times; the kindly
relations of masters and laborers; the customs of seeking
protection from
the family goel, (See Goel – To Redeem – this web site) or
avenger;
of confirming covenants by the gift of a shoe; and of
conducting matters
of business in the open space within the city gates. We may
find illustrated in
the conduct of Boaz:
See his gentle and
considerate treatment of the poor gleaner, and his
gentle dealing with her
when she claimed his protection. The essence
of the Christian gentleman
is considerateness for the feelings and wishes
of others, and a gentle way
of doing all things, even hard and painful
things. Find beautiful
illustrations in the tender considerateness of the
Lord Jesus Christ; and
compare Paul’s address to the elders at
and the tone of the Epistle
to the Philippians.
The mark of the good man
that he loves to be trusted, and readily
responds to trust. So Boaz
did when Ruth put herself under his protection.
The Lord Jesus always
looked for faith — trust; and opened His best
treasures for the
opened, trusting heart.
up Ruth’s case at once, and
earnestly, and making himself liable for all that
was involved in the vindication
of her rights. Then work out how Divine
benedictions ever follow right
character and conduct. Ruth and Boaz both
get their reward. The “right”
may not always disclose its issues at once.
They often seem painfully
delayed, but, if we follow on, right is sure to
lead to practical blessing. Right never yet led wrong; and good never yet
finally issued in evil. (Throw
in the idea “There is no right way to
do
the wrong
thing.”)
The Character of Jesse (v. 13)
Biographies usually make much of the parental connections
and ancestral
relations of their hero. It is even discussed whether the
special genius of a
person is to be traced to his father or to his mother. In
the earlier
Scriptures the mother’s name and character are seldom given
(exceptions
may be found in the cases of Sarah, Rebekah, and Hannah);
but in the time
of the later kings the mother’s name is preserved with
care. The
importance of hereditary connections may concern both the
intellectual
forces of the mind and the moral qualities making up the
character. There
is the heritage of goodness as well as of greatness;
and, therefore, Paul
thanks God that Timothy stands in the third generation of
marked faith and
piety (II Timothy 1:5). Almost nothing is known of the
mother of
David, and the absence of information has led to strange
conjecture; Dean
concubine of one Nahash, possibly an Ammonite king, who
under some
circumstances not detailed became a second wife of Jesse,
and by him the
mother of David. All that the narrative suggests is that
David was much
younger than his brothers, and the child of Jesse’s old
age. He is
introduced to us as conversing with Samuel on the occasion
of the
anointing of David (I Samuel 16.); as caring for the wants
of his children
while they were away from home in the army of Saul (I
Samuel 17.); and
as the object of David’s special care when the personal
enmity of Saul put
his relatives, as well as David himself, in peril (I Samuel
22:3-4). The
incident in which the personal character of Jesse is most
fully indicated is
that of sending David with a present to his sons in the
army; and this
suggests that he was a thoughtful and affectionate father,
and permits us to
trace something of David’s remarkable family affection
to his paternity. He
may therefore serve to introduce the subject of paternal
relationships and
duties, and the rewards which those may find in the career
and virtue of
their children who have
not been themselves remarkable for anything save
for being good
fathers. The Divine recognition of faithfulness in this
precise office and relation is indicated in God’s
commendation of Abraham
(Genesis 18:19), “For I know
him, that he will command his children
and his household after him, and they shall keep the way
of the Lord.”
AND RESTRAINTS. Jesse
seems to have had such authority. His sons,
though of full age, promptly
come and go at his bidding. He appears to
have had his household fully
under control, appointing each member his
place and work. The well-being
of families depends on the firmness of the
father’s rule. The first
conceptions of right, and of the duties of submission
and obedience, happily come to
us associated with our reverence for, and
affection for, our father. And
worthy fulfillment, in this respect, of the
paternal duties carries to our
children worthy ideas of the righteousness
and love of “our Father who is in heaven.”
Jesse’s sending his sons to the
army in the time of national peril. How
much he felt their danger is seen
in his anxiety to know of their welfare
while on the battle-field. Such sacrifices have often been required of
parents in times of
national danger, and similar sacrifices in quieter
spheres, especially in devoting sons to
missionary work. Show that
to the true parent such
sacrifices are made with mingled feelings of joy
and sorrow.
CARE; as Jesse’s
life was saved by David when Saul’s enmity put the
family in peril. Loving children have no greater joy than that of caring
for and tending their aged parents who have
toiled and suffered so
much and so long
for them. See our Lord’s care of His mother from
His cross. (John 19:25-27)
16 “Whose
sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah;
Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And
Abigail bare Amasa: and the
father of Amasa was Jether the
Ishmeelite.” These two verses do not say that
David “begat” Zeruiah and Abigail, but that these two
were sisters of the foregoing
seven brethren.
Light is thrown upon this by II Samuel 17:25,
which says that Abigail
was the daughter of one Nahash, and that Zeruiah was her
sister. But it is
to leave us in greater darkness as to who Nahath was:
whether Nahath was
another name for Jesse, or the name of Jesse’s wife, or the
name of a
former husband of Jesse’s wife, to whom she bore these two
daughters
before she became wife to Jesse, and that former husband
possibly none
other than the Ammonite king (II Samuel 10:2) — or whether
none of
these conjectures be near the truth, some of which on the
face of them
seem unlikely enough, is as yet unsettled. Meantime it is
worth remembering
that Zeruiah named one of her celebrated sons, and probably
the eldest of them,
Abishai, after Jesse, Ishai being the same as our Jesse; yet from
the above
premises it is taken that she was strictly sister of
Abigail, and therefore was not
really related to Jesse. The subject is treated
interestingly under the various
names in Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary.’ The husband of Zeruiah
is given nowhere,
while the husband of Abigail, here called Jether
the Ishmeelite, is, in the passage
already referred to (II Samuel 17:25), called Ithra (which
is a slightly altered form
of the name), an Israelite, with little doubt an
error for Ishmaelite. In the same
passage also her own name appears as lg"ybia}, instead of lyig"ybia}, though
many manuscripts have this latter.
18 “And
Caleb the son of Hezron begat children of Azubah his wife,
and of Jerioth: her sons are these; Jesher,
and Shobab, and Ardon.
19 And when Azubah was dead, Caleb took unto him
Ephrath, which
bare him Hur. 20 And Hur begat Uri, and Uri begat Bezaleel.”
The descendants of Caleb (Chelubai), placed third of
Hezron’s sons, are next
dealt with; but the subject is almost immediately
interrupted by resumed reference
to Hezron (vs. 21-24), and by
the table of Jerah-meel and his descendants
(vs. 25-41); after which the table of Caleb, apparently the
same Caleb, is carried
on (vs. 42-49). Taking these broken portions, however, just
as they come, we are
immediately met by a series of uncertainties and surprises.
V. 18 is obscure in that
it says Caleb had children by Azubah (the Hebrew
construction also unusual),
a wife, or indeed strictly a woman
(not even using the ordinary formula “his wife”),
and by Jerioth, of whom nothing is said;
and the verse adds obscurity by saying,
her sons are these, without plainly indicating to which
woman reference is made.
It may be safely presumed, however, from what follows, that
Azubah is intended,
though no other part of Scripture helps us by so much as a
mention of the sons’
names to determine it certainly. Meantime one Hebrew
manuscript and the
Chaldee Paraphrase are found to omit the words “and by Jerioth.”
The
Vulgate, and the Syriac and Arabic versions, make Jerioth
one of the
children — possibly a
daughter — of Caleb and Azubah, and this view is
supported by Kennicott and Houbigant (
1:210). The tone of ver. 19 may certainly he held to offer
some
countenance to the assumption that either Jerioth’s name
ought to appear
as that of a child or not at all. The name Ephrath
in this verse abounds
with interest. The ancient name of the town of
apparently of a district round it, is the same word which
is found here as
the name of a woman. In either case it is more generally
written ht;r;p]a,,
as even in the two other appearances of it in this very
chapter. Two
manuscripts, followed by two ancient editions, and apparently
by the
Vulgate, substitute aleph for the above final he.
In Micah 5:2, Bethlehem is
found united with Ephratah in one compound word. The mother
Ephrath is
here interesting for her descendants given, her son Hur,
grandson Uri, and
great-grandson Bezaleel. Further reference to
these is made in v. 50.
Artistic Gifts Finding Religious Spheres (v.
20)
(For the earlier references to Bezaleel, see Exodus
31:2; 35:30; 36:1-2;
37:1.) Explain the precise endowment of this man and his
companion, and
the assertion of his call by God, who specially “filled him with the Spirit of
God, in wisdom,
and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner
of workmanship” (Exodus 31:3). It
has been said that their work was to be
only that of handicraftsmen. Everything that they had to do
was prescribed in
strict and precise detail. There was to be no exercise for
their original powers of
invention nor for their taste. But this appears to be a
needless limitation of
their mission, especially as we are told that they were
called to “devise
cunning works, to
work in gold,” etc.; and, however minute
patterns of
artistic work may be, even this worthy carrying out
makes demand on
artistic faculty and taste. We are rather disposed to give
Bezaleel credit for
designing much of the ornamentation, and elaborating the
details of a
general sketch furnished by Moses. It is curious to note
that, in a mistaken
apprehension of the commandment (Exodus 20:4), the Jews
would not
cultivate either the arts of painting or sculpture. This
may have been a
safeguard to them under the temptations of surrounding
idolatry, but it
seriously limited their culture as a nation, and possibly
made their
idolatrous love of images and aesthetic worship the more
intense when
once the barriers were broken down. The Divine call and
endowments of
Bezaleel are the Divine protest against the neglect of those artistic faculties
which are an essential part of man’s composite nature, as God has been
pleased to create it. These faculties have their own place,
their right place;
and it is at the peril of an imperfect and one-sided
culture that we, on the
one hand, neglect them, and, on the other hand, push them
into an
exaggerated place.
Illustrations from the arts
of painting, sculpture, music, and poetry,
and show how they bear on
the refinement of human life. Each
holds out an ideal standard
of purity and beauty, and seeking for
absolute grace of form materially
aids in securing real goodness
and purity and truth.
Illustrate by the influence of works of art in our
homes as aids to the
culture of family life. They also bear directly upon
the pleasure of
human life. For most of us the days must be spent in
dull, grinding toil, which
wears out the brightness and romance
of our spirits. Our real world
is hard and depressing. It is of the utmost
concern to us that we may pass
into an ideal world created by the
imagination, and find pleasure
in its winsome and joyous scenes. The arts
take us into
another world, and bring to the
earth-toilers the pleasures of
a paradise. Evidently true of
music and poetry, really true of all.
(Unfortunately, the above, written over two hundred years
ago,
is no longer true. In
of expression” which has reached the cesspool stature of
vulgarity
as Thomas Jefferson had warned. He once said that the press
may become vulgar, but that is a condition against which
there is
no remedy, that is, if the press is to remain free. Of course, this
was in the days before Robert Maplethorpe, Andy Warhol, Ted
Turner, Norman Lear, Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner and numerous
other Mongols who have taken us down this disastrous road –
I say to this – CAVEAT EMPTOR - CY – 2011)
this sphere we still dread their
influence. Yet the decorations of even the
tabernacle and temple reproach
us, and much more David’s elaborate
efforts to secure the
“beautiful” and the “pleasing” in the temple-worship.
Explain that the arts serve in
religion the one great end of keeping the ideal
and the ideally perfect ever
before us, and so they become a perpetual
uplifting inspiration,
surrounding us ever with the symbols and the
suggestions of the Divine and
eternal. They are for us the “figures of
the
true.” (Hebrews 9:24)
HIGHER AND RELIGIOUS SPHERES. The creations of art
must
never be sought for themselves, or they become virtual idols. They may
only be symbols of realities,
and handmaids to truths. As a practical
conclusion, it may be shown that
a man is not responsible for other gifts
than those with which he is
personally entrusted, but he is bound to be
fully loyal to God
in the use of those he has. Sooner or later in life,
every man who
wants to be faithful will discover his
faculty and
find his sphere.
21 “And
afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father
of
she bare him Segub. 22 And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty
cities in the
posterity is now occasioned by a resumed reference to Hezron,
who at the age
of threescore took to wife (as it seems from v. 24) Abiah,
sister to
of the eminent man Machir, who was Manasseh’s oldest
son by an Aramitess
concubine (I Chronicles 7:14). Two
sons of Hezron by Abiah are given (the latter
of them a posthumous child), but the elder having a son
called Jair tracked, no
doubt as one who became famous
by the number of cities he took. He was thus
connected on the father’s side with a great family of
with a great family of Manasseh. He is probably not the Jair of
Judges 10:3, with
his “thirty sons, thirty ass colts, and thirty cities.” And ryaiy; jIa>eirov –
Jairus – Mark 5:22) is not dy[iy; of II Samuel 21:19; ch. 20:5 here. Evident
stress is laid on his maternal descent. Thus (Numbers
32:41) he is styled son
of Manasseh, and hence also the explanation of the last
clause of v. 23, infra,
all these belonged to the sons of Machir the father of
cities alluded to are the Havoth-Jair (Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14;
Joshua 13:30), in
English, translated as the “groups of
dwellings of Jair.” They
lay in the trans-Jordanic district Trachonitis, the modern
El-leyah and Jebel-Hauran.
It is not possible to harmonize exactly the numbers of the
cities given here with
those in passages quoted above; nor is the translation of
v. 23, Authorized Version,
very certainly the correct one. Translate “And
Geshur and
Havvoth-Jair from
them with Kenath and her daughter-towns, sixty cities.”
“Took” is supposed to mean here “retook,” or “recovered.” Though
this suits
the Hebrew syntax better, it does not suit so well our
immediate context; nor
have we any other information of such recovering of them.
23 “And he took Geshur, and
with Kenath, and the towns thereof, even
threescore cities.” Geshur was a
small district between Argob and Bashan; and
i.e. the ancient
subduer Nobah (Numbers 32:42), and retaining this name at the
time of Gideon,
and Zeba and Sahnunnah subsequently vindicated the life of its old name,
and
regained it, replaced in the present day by Kenawat. And
the towns thereof;
Hebrew literally, her daughters; i.e. the small,
subordinate groups of people
(Numbers 21:25, “All
the villages thereof,” literally, daughters). “All these
belonged to the sons of Machir the father
of
possessions of Machir, the possessor of
The Prowess of Jair (vs. 22-23)
The story of this man is given in Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy
3:14; Joshua 13:30.
From the repeated mention of him we may assume that he was
a remarkable man
for military genius, and was in so large a degree
successful in his warlike enterprises
as to stand out before the ages as a prominent example of
the warlike endowment,
and its place in the Divine purposes. The brief notice of
this man suggests for our
consideration — The consecration to God of the military
talent. We cannot
accept fully the facts of human history without recognizing
the Divine gift
of the genius of the warrior. Different views are held on
the righteousness
of war. From the Christian standpoint all offensive war
must be at once and
entirely condemned, but defensive war — and aid to those
called to
defensive war — appears to be fully consistent with
Christian principles.
Still, we shall unfeignedly rejoice when the principle of
arbitration can be
universally adopted, and the “nations learn war no more” (Isaiah 2:4).
It is, even in its best forms, a terrible human scourge and
evil. But, whatever
our view of it may be, history keeps her testimony, and
declares that, in the
long story of our race, war has been one of the
important agencies used by
God, and overruled by Him, to the accomplishment of His
gracious ends; and
that He has, again and again, raised up men who had “war’
for their life-mission,
and the military endowment as their precise trust. There
have been the
Joshuas, the Davids, the Maccabees, the Marlboroughs, and
the
possible agency for the punishing of wrong and the
deliverance and
confirmation of the right. Still, we should distinctly
observe that warfare is
the creation of man’s lust of power and dominion, his
ambition to be
supreme; and that the “God
of peace” does but — if we may so say
— fit,
temporarily, into the circumstances thus created, until He
can get fully
established His kingdom of righteousness in which WAR WILL BE
UNKNOWN!
Over other men finding one particular mode of expression. This is the
essence of it, but
it is combined with the constructive faculty, the power of
organization, courage, bodily skill, quickness of
invention, etc. — all, it
may be pointed out, endowments
which may find other spheres than
battlefields.
GIFTS. It is
characteristic of the soldier that he is loyal to his king, and this
loyalty finds expression in
instant and unquestioning obedience. So the
soldier among us is a plea
urging us to maintain similar relations to our
Lord, who is the “King of kings.”
So far as we can see, it would be a loss
to the moral health of a nation
if the example of soldierly loyalty and
obedience were removed. Paul was
essentially a loyal soldier. When a
command came from his Lord, he
tells us, “Immediately we conferred not
with flesh and blood.”
(Galatians 1:16)
MILITARY MEN. Lord
Nelson’s words embody the witness all soldiers
make. We must work for, suffer
for, and, if need be, die for, duty.
“
self-seeking, money-getting age
we cannot afford to lose any agency which
renders public witness to the
fact that there is something nobler than even life —
it is duty. (I am of the opinion that one of the by-products of a “godless
secular society” is the LOSS OF PATRIOTISM - CY – 2011). If it
could be so that, in the world
of the future, the military genius was no
longer needed, still even a
world at peace would need the story of the
heroic ages, and its witness to
the dignity of endurance, obedience,
promptitude, sacrifice for a
high idea, and above all to the paramount
claims of duty.
24 “And
after that Hezron was dead in Calebephratah, then Abiah
Hezron’s wife bare him Ashur the father of
Tekoa.” The remaining verse
of this section brings another point of difficulty
unsolved yet. No place
Caleb-ephratah is known, and no sort of accounting for Hezron dying anywhere
but in
have to suppose that Caleb did leave
to Ephratah, and then there fails any strong connection
(but see Septuagint,
in loc.) between that fact and what is said about Abiah.
Still, the explanation
might receive some countenance from the fact that it is
said that Abiah’s son
became the father — or founder — of
Tekoa, a place near
In vs. 25-41, we reach the second interruption in the
account of Caleb’s posterity.
Jerahmeel (v.9), though the eldest
Hezronite son, has as yet been passed by in
favor of Ram and in favor of Caleb, so far as regards part
of his descendants.
Jerahmeel himself is mentioned nowhere else, but his people
collectively are
(I Samuel 27:10; 30:29). On the other hand, this place alone
supplies the lists
of names, and we have not the aid of any collation.
25 “And
the sons of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron were, Ram the
firstborn, and Bunah, and Oren, and Ozem,
and Ahijah.” This verse gives
five sons of
Jerahmeel by his first wife, her name not
given. The absence of the
conjunction “and,” however, in the Hebrew text before the last name, Ahijah,
suggests that this may be the name of the first wife the
presence of which seems
greatly required by the contents of the next verse, some particle
being required
for the sense.
26 “Jerahmeel
had also another wife, whose name was Atarah; she was
the mother of Onam. 27 And the sons of Ram the firstborn of Jerahmeel
were, Maaz, and Jamin, and Eker. 28 And the
sons of Onam were,
Shammai, and Jada. And the sons of Shammai;
Nadab and Abishur.
29 And the
name of the wife of Abishur was Abihail, and she bare
him Ahban, and Molid. 30 And the sons of Nadab; Seled, and Appaim:
but Seled died without children.
31 “And the sons of Appaim; Ishi. And the
sons of Ishi; Sheshan. And
the children of Sheshan; Ahlai. 32 And the sons of Jada the brother of
Shammai; Jether, and Jonathan: and Jether
died without children.
33 And the
sons of Jonathan; Peleth, and Zaza. These were the sons of
Jerahmeel.
34 Now Sheshan had no sons, but
daughters. And Sheshan
had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was
Jarha. 35 And
Sheshan
gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to
wife; and she bare him Attai.”
The Authorized Version is not justified in substituting children
for the Hebrew
“sons;” the object evidently being to make this statement
reconcilable with
v. 34, which says that Sheshan had only daughters. The
difficulty can be removed,
possibly, by supposing that Ahlai died
(yet see ch. 11:41), or that, at the time to
which v. 34 refers, only daughters were in question. A
conjecture, that
Ahlai of v. 31 is the same with Attai of v. 35,
would have more probability if
aleph were not the
initial letter of the one, and ayin of the other. Still, as all the
other “sons” of
this passage mean sons strictly, it would be unlikely that sons
of Sheshan only should mean “grandsons.” The genealogy now
proceeds through
Sheshan’s daughter, name not given (unless possibly Ahlai),
married to his
Egyptian servant Jarha, down to (v. 41) Elishama,
at the twentieth generation
from Jerahmeel. The
Egyptian servant Jarha is not heard of elsewhere; that he
was enfranchised before his marriage with Sheshan’s
daughter is likely enough
(Deuteronomy 23:8; I Samuel 30:11). The language of the end
of v. 33, “These
were the sons of Jerahmeel,” would seem to
exclude the following thirteen
descendants of Jarha and Sheshan’s daughter from the
genealogy. Yet this is
scarcely likely to be the intention, which perhaps was
satisfied with simply
marking a distinction by the pause.
36 “And Attai begat Nathan, and Nathan begat
Zabad,” The
name Zabad
throws considerable doubt on the opinion that no one of
Jerahmeel’s descendants
given in this genealogy can be found elsewhere in the Old
Testament; for compare
again ch.11:41. 37 “And Zabad begat Ephlal, and Ephlal begat
Obed,
38 “And
Obed begat Jehu, and Jehu begat Azariah,” - So
also compare
Azariah with II Chronicles 23:1.
These two names are abundantly interesting here.
Zabad, the tenth from Jerahmeel, or fourteenth from the patriarch
Judah himself,
brings us to the time of David, by exactly the same
interval as seven other perfect
genealogies, four of these having the very same number of
steps, viz. fourteen, two
having fifteen, and that of David himself having eleven
steps. An analogous and
equally interesting correspondence can be traced with the
name Azariah and
evidence of the genealogy in the fact of its twenty-fourth
and last name tallying well
with the time of Hezekiah, the sixth king after Athaliah (I
Chronicles 4:41).
39 “And Azariah begat Helez, and Helez begat
Eleasah,
40 And Eleasah begat Sisamai, and Sisamai begat
Shallum,
41 And Shallum begat Jekamiah, and Jekamiah begat
Elishama.”
42 “Now
the sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were, Mesha his
firstborn, which was the father of Ziph;
and the sons of Mareshah the father of
Shema.
44 And Shema begat Raham, the father of
Jorkoam: and Rekem
Begat Shammai. 45
And the son of Shammai was Maon:
and Maon was the
father of Bethzur.
Verses 42-49 are occupied with the resumption of the
descendants of Caleb —
the Caleb apparently
of vs. 9 and 18, though, this being so, the last clause in
v. 49, the daughter of Caleb, Achsah, will
require accounting for. This statement
would lead us to suppose that we were assuredly reading of
Caleb the son of
Jephunneh; but it cannot be so. The name of Caleb, with the questions
gathering
round it, will be best considered here. Of the nine times
in which it occurs in this
chapter, the mere duplicates (of vs. 20, 46, 48) may be at
once counted off. The
compound “Caleb-ephratah” of v. 24 has been already dealt
with. Nor need we
for the present suppose v. 50 to have any real meaning
inconsistent with its apparent
meaning, viz. that Caleb is the name of a grandson (son of
Hur) as well as of the
grandfather. There remain the occasions of the occurring of
the word in vs. 9,18,42,49.
in a form different from that in
which it appears the other times in this
chapter or elsewhere, viz. as yb"Wlk], instead of blek; (or once as a
patronymic, I Samuel 25:3, yBilioK). The Vulgate follows the Hebrew,
but the Septuagint has at once
substituted Caleb. The Syriac Version has
Salchi, and the Arabic Sachli,
both of them, no doubt, mere transcribers’
errors through the mistake of a
letter. This form “Chelubai” is, then, an
a[pax lego>menon –
hapax
legomenon – once named - and no different
account has yet been given of
the name appearing thus on this one occasion.
The name might be translated the
“Cheluban” or “Chelubite” and treated
as a synonym of Caleb in vs. 18
and 41)
and now “Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel,” some have endeavored to
identify with Caleb the son of
Jephunneh. This latter is a well-known figure
in history. He, together with
Joshua, was among those who, departing from
to enter into the
promised land. This is enough to give
him distinction and
a prominent place before the
eye. To this Caleb unmistakable reference is
made in twenty-eight passages,
in sixteen of which he is called “son of
Jephunneh,” and in
three of those sixteen “son of Jephunneh
the Kenazite.”
Now, he tells us himself
(Joshua 14:7) that he was forty years old in the second
year after the Exodus. But
it seems (Genesis 46:12, 26) that Hezron, grandson
of Judah, and the father of
the Caleb of this chapter, was, however young, one
of those who went down into
chronology, which must
render it impossible for any son of his to have been
alive and only forty years
of age at the time of the Exodus. This being so, either
the statement already
referred to, found at the close of v. 49, that “the
daughter of Caleb was Achsah,” must be an interpolation from some
ignorant transcriber’s marginal
annotation, or, unlikely as it is, Caleb the
son of Hezron and Caleb the son
of Jephunneh both named a daughter
Achsah. It is, moreover, likely
enough that the frequent describing of Caleb
the son of Jephuuneli in this
style was occasioned by the desire to
distinguish him from some other
Caleb, not a contemporary, indeed, but
already well known m a
generation preceding but not too remote. Other
considerations decidedly concur
with this view: e.g. Ram is brother of
Caleb the son of Hezron; he has
a grandson, Nahshon, of great
distinction, “a prince of the children of
Aaron married; he was the elect
of the
Aaron in the first numbering of
the people (Numbers 1:7). Great prominence
Is given to him (Numbers 7:12;
10:14). He was clearly (Matthew 1:4;
Luke 3:32) fifth in descent from
table of this chapter. Now, it
was this grandson of the elder brother of
Caleb who was contemporary with
Caleb the son of Jephunneh. Similarly,
The Bezaleel of this chapter (v.
20), a great-grandson of Caleb the
Hezronite, is spoken of (Exodus
31:2; 35:30) at the same date exactly
at which Caleb the son of
Jephunneh says he was still but forty years of age!
Jephuuneh is supposed by some,
but is not clear. It appears to be asserted,
without explanation, in the
articles “Caleb” and “Ephrath,” signed A. C. H.,
Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’
though in the second part of the latter article it
is alluded to as only possible.
On the other hand, it may rather be that
Caleb the son of Jephunneh,
instead of being identical with this Caleb the
son of Hur, is so called in
order to distinguish him from this latter as a
contemporary. Again, it has been
happily conjectured (‘Speaker’s
Commentary,’ in loc.)
that just as ver. 33 closes the table of Jerahmeel
with “These were the sons of
Jerahmeel,” so v. 49 should close the
table of Caleb (v. 42) with the
words, These were the sons of Caleb.
With a slight alteration, ve. 50
would then begin The sons of Hur, etc.
This is, however, only
conjecture. V. 42, then, must be considered to
give us another family of Caleb,
i.e. a family by another wife, of name not
given, just possibly the Jerioth
unaccounted for in v. 18. The first
statement lands us in
perplexity. Mesha ([v"yme) is the firstborn (i.e. by
the wife or woman in question),
and the father/founder of Zip? And amid
some omission or corruption of
text, we are then confronted with the words,
and the sons of Marsehah (hv;yrem;) the father (or again,
perhaps
founder) of
of these passages, and may come
from a Hebrew text that we have not.
The substitution could, however,
scarcely be accounted for as a mere
clerical error, considering both
the omission of a resh and the replacing of
an he with an ayin. The
sentence refuses at present any treatment except
the unsatisfactory one of pure
conjecture. But employing this, it may be
noted that the omitting of the
words, “the sons of,” before Mareshah
would most help to clear the
verse of confusion. In this and following
verses, Ziph,
of places certainly, whether or
not they are all of persons.
Verses 46-49 give the names (the first of which appears as
that of a man also, next
verse and ch.1:33) of two additional concubines of Caleb,
and of their descendants.
46 “And Ephah, Caleb’s concubine, bare
and
and Gesham, and Pelet, and Ephah, and
Shaaph.” This
verse offers us another
name, Jahdai, not
to be accounted for with any certainty. It is not linked to the
context, and nothing is known of the six sons assigned to
the person owning it.
That Gazez occurs twice in the previous verse is
remarkable, and suggestive,
possibly, of mistake. The Septuagint omits altogether the
clause in which it is
found the second time.
It might be that Jahdai is the name of yet another
concubine of Caleb. 48 Maachah, Caleb’s concubine, bare Sheber, and
Tirhanah. 49 She bare
also Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva
the father of
Machbenah, and the father of
Gibea: and the daughter of
Caleb was Achsah.” Machbenah is an another a[pax lego>menon – one time
name (for Madmannah and Gibea, see Joshua 15:31,
57). The last sentence of
this verse is treated above.
50 “These were the sons of Caleb the son
of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah;
Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim.” This verse has
also been already
discussed. It may be now added (see Keil, ‘Commentary,’ in
loc.) that
some would understand the words as though they meant, These were the
sons of Caleb, in the descending
line of Hur, Ephratah’s firstborn. This
rendering is got at by altering “the son of Hur” into “the
sons of Hur,”
which seems to have been the reading of the Septuagint
manuscripts, and
which, at all events, their rendering has. The remainder of
v. 50, with the
following four, give three sons of Caleb: 51 “Salma the father of
Hareph the father of Bethgader. 52 And Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim
had sons; Haroeh, and half of the Manahethites. 53 And the families of
Kirjathjearim; the Ithrites, and the
Puhites, and the Shumathites, and the
Mishraites; of them came the Zareathites, and the
Eshtaulites,
54
The sons
of Salma;
and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites. 55 And the families of the
scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the
Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and
Suchathites. These are the Kenites that
came of
Hemath, the father of
the house of Rechab.”
Joshua 9:17; 15:9, 60;
18:14-15), on the border-land of Judah
and Benjamin, and about ten
miles from
Emmaus (Nicopolis).
It is to be identified, almost with certainty, with
the modern Kuriet-el-Enab.
Other references of exceeding interest are
I Samuel 6:21; 7:2; II Samuel 6:5; ; ch.13:6;
II Chronicles 1:4;
Ezra 2:25; Nehemiah 7:29;
Jeremiah 26:20; Psalm 132:6. This Shobal
(v. 52) had two sons, “Haroeh,” i.e. Reaiah (ch. 4:2), and
the progenitor,
whatever his name, of half of
the people called “Manahethites”
(Authorized Version) — a form
probably suggested by the Masoretic
printing of v. 54 — or Chatsi-hammenon-choth
(Hebrew text), which
Gesenius treats as a proper
name, and which means “the midst of quiet
places” (Psalm 23:2),
from which comes the patronymic of the next
verse but one. From the
Kirjath-jearim family were derived (v. 53), the
“Ithrites, Puhites,
Shumathites, and Mishraites,” of
none of whom,
except probably the Ithrites (II
Samuel 23:38; ch.11:40), do we find
other mention; and from the
Mishraites again were derived two
offshoots, the Zareathites and
Eshtaulites, the towns of both of whom
are with great probability to be
tracked (Joshua 15:33; 19:41; Judges
13:25; 18:2). They were situated
in that part of Judah called the
“low” country, or the Shefelah,
stretching from Joppa to
the
2. “Salma, father of” (prince of Bethlehem). The so-called “sons” here
attributed to him, six in
number, including
betoken families rather than the
names of individuals. The town
Netophah (Ezra 2:21; Nehemiah
7:26) gave the gentile noun
“Netophathites” (v. 54;
II Samuel 23:28; Jeremiah 40:8). “Ataroth,
the house of Joab” (i.e. “crowns” of the house of Joab), is not
mentioned elsewhere; but the
reason of its being distinguished thus
may be due to the fact that
there was another Ataroth of Gad
(Numbers 32:3, 34), and yet
another of Ephraim (Joshua 14:5; 18:13).
“The Zorites”
- (y[ir]xi) Gesenius thinks to be another gentile form
from h[r]x;
with yti[;r]xi, but of them we do not read elsewhere.
V. 55 should not have been
separated from the last word of the previous
verse. “The families of the scribes” is
linked on by the conjunction and
(which has coupled the former
sons of Salma also two and two) with
“the Zorites.” This
sixth set of descendants from Salma is exhibited to us
in the shape of a trio of scribe
families, the heads of which will have been,
presumably, “Tira, Shimea, and Suchah”. They are
said to have “dwelt
at Jabez,” - a place not
ascertained; and scarcely to be put into connection
with the Jabez of ch.
4:9. These families, it appears, were not purely of
Judah; but very interesting it
is that, though of the people whose land and
possessions were to yield to the
descendants of Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21),
yet friendship and intermarriage
had found them apparently a lasting place
in
themselves when he was about to
smite the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:6).
Though nothing is known of the
link of connection given here in the name,
yet the house of the “Rechabites”
is well known (II Kings 10:15, 23;
Jeremiah 35:2, 5, 18; and cf. II
Samuel 4:2-3).
3. In v. 51 Hareph (prej;) only here; though pyirh;, found in Nehemiah
7:24; 10:20; Ezra 2:18, may
possibly be connected with it. There is
nothing further said of any
people derived from him except that he was
“father of Beth-gader”. The identification of this place is not certain.
Gesenius thinks it perhaps the
same with Gederah (Joshua 15:36), but
it is more probably the Gedor of
same chapter (v. 58), on the road
between Hebron and Jerusalem.
The
This people is first mentioned in Genesis 15:19. They were
a nomadic
tribe, and their principal seat seems to have been the
rocky tracts in the
south and south-west of
Jethro was a Kenite. Jael was wife of Heber the Kenite.
Saul spared them in his
expedition against the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:6). David maintained friendly
relations with them (I Samuel 30:29). The house of the
Rechabites belonged to
this tribe. The friendly feeling between the two tribes,
based on the conduct of the
Kenites at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 18:10-19; Numbers
10:29-32), led to
their intermixture and almost amalgamation with the
Israelites — Kenite families
not only dwelling among them, but being actually regarded
as of one
blood. Their semi-monastic austerity is their chief
feature. They preserved
their nomadic life and customs even when dwelling in the
midst of the cities
of
husband of Jael: “Between Hazor, the capital of Jabin, and
Kedesh-
Naphtali, birthplace of Barak — each within a day’s journey
of the other
— lies, raised high above the plain of Merom, amongst the
hills of
Naphtali, a green plain. This plain is still and was then
studded with
massive terebinths (a small tree of the cashew family).
Underneath the
spreading branches of one of them there dwelt, unlike the
inhabitants of
the surrounding villages, a settlement of Bedouins, living,
as if in the desert,
with their tents pitched and their camels and asses around
them, whence the
spot had acquired the name of ‘The Terebiuth,’ or ‘Oak,’ of
the ‘Unloading
of Tents.’” It is from this peculiarity of the Kenites that
we learn their mission.
MERCIES. For they
had once been what the Kenites then were — a
mere tribe or aggregation of
tribes. But God had, in a most glorious and
gracious way, made them a
nation, and given them a land. Such a
reminder
brought home to them the claims
of Jehovah, and should have renewed
their devotion and
allegiance to Him.
FOR THE NEGLECT OF THE COVENANT. They were loyal to the
customs and rules of their
founder, whatever disabilities such loyalty might
seem to entail. Illustrate by
the story of testing the Rechabites with the
offer of wine, given in Jeremiah
35. Impress that we need still the witness
of virtue and excellence in
those who are not with us; who are among us,
but not of our party. And in
this we may see some good in the association
together in one nation of
differing religious sects. Each may teach the
others some valuable lessons,
and find effective expression of some
essential virtue. Our Lord, in
His teachings, even ventured to draw lessons
from the quick-witted example of
the bad man. We may learn something of
God and duty from all those with
whom we are brought into even casual
contact.
"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.