I Chronicles 3
1 “Now
these were the sons of David, which were born unto him
in
Hebron; the firstborn Amnon,
of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;
the second
Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess: 2
The third, Absalom the son of
Maachah the daughter of Talmai
king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah
the son of Haggith: 3 The fifth,
Shephatiah of Abital: the
sixth, Ithream
by Eglah his
wife. 4 These
six were born unto him in
he reigned seven years and six months: and in
and three years. 5 And these
were born unto him in
and Shobab, and
Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter
of
Ammiel: 6 Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7
And Nogah, and
Nepheg, and Japhia, 8
And Elishama, and Eliada,
and Eliphelet, nine.
3:9 These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the
concubines,
and Tamar their sister.”
The whole of this chapter is occupied with the descendants
of David: the first nine
verses of it with his own sons, classified according to the place
of their birth,
or
and
Zedekiah (v.16), the grandsons of Zerubbabel (v.21),
and descendants of
Shechaniah (v.24). To the seven years
and six months (II Samuel 2:11) of
David’s reign at
and
three years (II Samuel 5:5; I Kings 2:11) of his reign at
other thirteen sons, viz. four of one mother, Bethshua, and nine of other mothers,
whose names are not given. The list of the six
is
nearly identical with that of II Samuel 3:2-5, although the differences, slight
as
they are, would of the two indicate our list here rather as not copied
than copied
thence. The only noticeable difference, however, is in the name
of the second son,
announced here as Daniel,
instead of Chileab, while the Septuagint has
Daloui>a – Dalouia. This, together
with the circumstance that one word would, as
regards the Hebrew characters, comparatively easily convert into
the other.
renders it probable that it is merely a corrupt text or text
obscure at this point
which has occasioned the difference. The meaning of the name
Daniel, put side
by
side with what we read in I Samuel 24:15, 25:39, suggests strongly that it is
the
right name of the two. It was a name likely to be given by David to his first
child by Abigail.
Additional suspicion is thrown on the name Chileab
through
the
three last letters of it, “leab,” constituting
also the three first of the very next
word,” of Abigail” (lyin"yiba]l") which looks very much like the over-haste of
the
pen uncorrected. It is remarkable that the Syriac and
Arabic versions translate
“Caleb,” both here and in the parallel
passage. For the sons born in
we
have all three parallel lists at command, and the variations are rather
greater.
The other two lists are in II Samuel 5:14-16; and here in
ch.14:4-7. The first of
these omits Eliphelet and
Nogah (possibly they died young or
without issue),
and
the latter calls Eliphelet Elpalet
(fl,p,l]a,). Again, Shimeah and
Elishama
in our passage must
yield, overruled by the consent of the other two, to Shammuah
and
Elishua.
Again, it is to be noticed that the name Eliada (God (la,) knoweth),
on
occasion of its latest occurence (ch. 14:7), appears as Beeliada
(the Lord (l["b")
knoweth), preserving therein probably its earlier form,
viz. that used before a settled
bad
sense had come to be attached to the word Baal.
In v. 5 we have the form
Bathshua for the familiar name Bathsheba, i.e. [W"vAtb" for [b"v,Atb", in which
latter word [b"v,
is a shorter form of h[W;
bv]. In the same
verse we have laeyMi["
here for μ[il; ia’ in II Samuel 11:3.
The former name occurs often, e.g. Numbers
13:12; II Samuel 9:4-5; 17:27; ch.
26:5. The component parts of both words are
the
same, but their order is different — the meaning of the one perhaps “the people
of God;” of the other, “the God
of the people.” V.9 plainly
adds concubines,
perhaps the ten spoken of in II
Samuel 15:16, to the number of the mothers of the
foregoing sons. The mention of only
one daughter of David, viz. Tamar, follows the
manifest ordinary rule, that daughters are not recorded at all,
except for one of two
reasons — either that through a daughter the line was saved, or
that the daughter
had
from some special reason made a place for herself in history.
Checkered Life (vs. 1-9)
To David were given many
elements of joy: he had the outward dignity, the
comfortable and even splendid surroundings, the authority and
influence
which belong to Oriental sovereignty: he reigned altogether
forty years
(v. 4). For this large period of his life the pleasures of regal
pomp, wealth,
and power were at his command. But his was far from a
cloudless day.
In the home circle, where the
sweetest joys are commonly found,
there were abundant sources of trouble and distress. In his “first
love,”
Michal, he was bitterly
disappointed, and she was “childless unto the day
of her death” (II Samuel 6:20-23). His concubines deserted and
dishonoured
him (Ibid. ch.16:22). As we read in these verses (vers.
1-8)
the names of his children, we are struck with the thought —
how little there
was in them to give their father a parent’s joy! How much to cause
him a
profound anxiety, or even poignant grief! If national prosperity or
military
success elated the king’s heart, domestic dissatisfaction, home
troubles,
must soon have clouded his brow. Thus is it with us all: joy
and sorrow may
not spring from these two sources, they may not mingle in
these proportions,
but they are bound up together in the same bundle; they
intermingle and
interlace in every human life. Bodily gratifications, success,
power, the
endearments of human love, the hope of higher and greater things, the
joy
of beneficence, on the one hand; care, loss, toil,
disappointment, regret,
the “wounded spirit,” on the other hand. It is a checkered
scene, this plain
of human life; sunshine and shadow fall fitfully upon it as
we pass on to the
far horizon. This aspect of David’s household, recalling to us
the contrasts
of his experience, may lead us to remember:
been the humble and devout man he was and continued to be, if
he had
enjoyed an unbroken course of triumph and satisfaction. The best
graces of
the human soul cannot thrive in perpetual sunshine; they must
have the
searching winds and the pelting rains of heaven. If God sends us loss and
trouble, if he “breaks our schemes of earthly joy,” it is to foster
in our
hearts those virtues of meekness, resignation, lowliness of
heart,
considerateness of others, etc., which we should not keep alive if the
“barns
were always filled with plenty,” and the cup were always
overflowing with earthly joy. We may especially learn here:
never have left us the psalms which proceeded from his pen if
his earthly
life had not been the checkered thing it was. It was from a troubled
if not a
broken heart that those deep utterances were poured. It was from
a soul
that could find no rest and joy but in the faithful God, “the very present
Help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1), that
flowed the precious passages which
are the comfort of mankind.
Ø
God never calls us to
any estate so high as that of sacred service —
the spiritual help we render our kind.
Ø
We cannot possibly
serve to the full height of our power if we do not
learn sympathy by suffering.
Ø
Therefore God leads His
children into deep waters, that, through such
baptism, they may comfort, heal, and bless the sorrowing and
stricken
souls who wait their ministering hand.
The line of royal descent from David,
is now rapidly carried down in vs.
10-16;
first, as far as good King Josiah, sixteen generations
in all (omitting, quite
consistently, Athalia, who reigned by her own
usurpation for six years on the death
of
her son Azariah); and then, by four successions
(viz. two brothers, sons of
Josiah, and a grandson and great-grandson
of Josiah), to the Captivity.
10 “And
Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, Abia
his son, Asa his son,
Jehoshaphat his son,” - Though the Authorized Version has Abia
the Hebrew
word is hY;bia} both here and in II Chronicles 13:1, 22 (or Authorized
Version,
14:1), in both of which passages, as also elsewhere, our
Authorized
Version has Abijah.
Another form is Abijam (μY;bia}), as in I Kings 14:31 and
elsewhere. A corrupt form (WjY;bia}) is found in II Chronicles 13:20. We have
the
name in the New Testament genealogy (Matthew 1:7-8).
11
“Joram his son, Ahaziah
his son, Joash his son, Ahaziah.” This name is
found as Azariah in II Chronicles 22:6; and,
by a shifting of the derivative part
of
the word, as Jehoahaz
in II Chronicles 21:17; thus, Why;z]j"a} or zj;a;wOhy]
12
“Amaziah his son, Azariah
his son, Jotham his son,” - Azariah. This name
is
found in II Chronicles 26:1; 27:2, as Uzziah; but in the
Second Book of Kings
it
is found sometimes as Uzziah and sometimes as Azariah in the very same
chapter (II Kings 15:13 and 17, 23 and 32.
13 “Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,
14
Amon his son, Josiah his son.”
15 “And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan,
the second
Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the
fourth Shallum.” The
first thing to be
observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress
on the mention of the name
of
Josiah’s firstborn of four sons as
Johanan, this is the only mention of him.
Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of II
Kings 23:30 for him. Next,
that Jehoiakim was
not the original name of the next brother, but a name
slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (II Kings 23:34). If the
dates of II Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt
that, though
Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned
after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and
is
in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah
22:11)
is
another name of the Jehoahaz of II
Kings 23:30-31, 34, and several other
places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four
brothers of this
verse because of his probable usurpation of
the throne, in violation of the right
of his elder brother, Jehoiakim,
and the early fall he met with in consequence.
Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name
(II Kings 24:17)
was
originally Matthaniah, was put on the throne by the King of
Babylon,
and
reigned eleven years in
nephew Jehoiachin
(who could have no son old enough to succeed) was
(II Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon.
16 “And
the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah
his son, Zedekiah his son.”
Of the above four brothers, sons of Josiah, the second, Jehoiakim, or Eliakim,
had
a son called Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin
— essentially the same word. He was
eighteen years of age when he succeeded his father (II Kings 24:8).
A touching
glimpse is given of him in Jeremiah 52:31. His name is shortened
to Coniah
(Ibid. 22:24 and 37:1, though elsewhere in the same
prophet, Jeconiah, and in
one
place Ibid. 52:31), Jehoiachin. The name of Zedekiah occasions
difficulty
in
this verse. In the first instance, following the examples of vs.
10-14, we
should presume that this Zedekiah is set forth as
a son of Jeconiah, and as it
is
not said that he reigned after Jeconiah (for it
was undoubtedly Jeconiah’s
uncle Zedekiah who reigned after him), we need only have read
it as a
statement of one of his sons. Against this, however, there are
two tolerably
decisive considerations; for, first, the verse opens
confessedly by offering
us
sons
of Jehoiakim, and these two, Jeconiah and Zedekiah, will fulfil
the
promise of that plural; and again, the seventeenth verse
enters upon the
formal enumeration of sons to Jeconiah. The question, therefore, returns —
Who was this Zedekiah, son of Jehoiakim?
Some consider him identical
with the Zedekiah of the previous verse, and that “his son” means here
“his successor.” This undoes fewer difficulties
than it makes. If the text be not
corrupt, the likeliest solution is to suppose that
this Zedekiah of v. 16 is an
otherwise unknown brother of Jeconiah,
and son of Jehoiakim.
17 “And
the sons of Jeconiah; Assir,
Salathiel his son,” - Verses
17-24 contain
a
line of descent brought down to a point not merely posterior to the Exile, but
possibly reaching to the time of Alexander. This line, however,
through Solomon
is
lost so soon as the first name, that of Assir, is passed; Salathiel (Authorized
Version) or Shealtiel, being
descended from David, not through Solomon,
but
through Nathan, whole brother to Solomon. This Assir
is not known
from any parallel passage; and Luther, Starke, Bertheau,
and others, followed by
Zoekler (in Lange, ‘Comm. O.T.’) translate the name as captive,
applying it to
Jeconiah.
Not all their reasons, however, for this, outweigh one which must be
pronounced against it, viz. the absence of the article. The
Septuagint and Vulgate
versions agree with our own. The greater probability might be that Assir derived
his
name from being born after Jeconiah was in captivity,
and such passages as
Isaiah 39:7, Jeremiah 22:30, may
throw some light upon the extinction of
Solomon’s line here, and the transfer
of the succession (compare Numbers 27:11).
Salathiel is the Authorized Version incorrect rendering of the
Hebrew Shealtiel.
In Matthew 1:12 it is said, “And after they were brought to
begat Salathiel;” and in Luke 3:27, “Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.”
Now, Neri was in the
direct line of Nathan. There seems only one way of
reconciling these statements
— and the method removes similar difficulties in
other places also — viz, to
distinguish between the descent natural and the
descent royal, and then acknowledge that the former was
swallowed up, where
necessary, of the latter. One as decisive instance of this kind as
that before
us
is most useful to rule other cases. (For an important allusion to the
house and family of Nathan’s descendants, as well known at the
time, see
Zechariah 12:12 — a passage probably dating a few years
previous to the
destruction of
18 “Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama,
and Nedabiah.” Of the name Malchiram and five following, it must be
left still
doubtful whose sons they were — whether of Jeconiah
(compare again II Kings
24:12, 15; Jeremiah 22:30) or of Neri
as possibly brothers of Salathiel, or of
neither of these. The first of these suppositions seems almost
untenable, the
second seems unlikely enough, and the exceeding prevalence of a
corrupt text
would strongly favor the third supposition. At the same time, it may be observed
that v. 19 proves that the names must belong to the royal succession, and
indicates
that, whoever Salathiel was in such aspect, that Pedaiah was, who becomes father
of
Zerubbabel.
19 “And
the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel,
and Shimei:” - Pedaiah
is now
given as the father of Zeraubabel and
Shimei. Of the latter of these
nothing else is
known, unless Lord Hervey’s theory below be correct. The former
is a great name —
its
derivation perhaps doubtful. Strictly it signifies “scattered to
(Gesenius, ‘Lexicon’) if the initial
part of the word be strengthened into [W"rz], the
signification might be “born in
the
treatment just commented on with regard to the name Salathiel
in Luke 3:27.
Zerubbabel is elsewhere invariably described as son of Salathiel, or Shealtiel; but
as
the genealogy of Luke gives the natural descent of Salathiel
as from Neri, so
does our genealogy in this one place give us the natural descent of Zerubbabel as
from Pedaiah, one of Salathiel’s
brothers; while all other passages (e.g. Ezra 3:8;
Haggai 1:12; Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27) give us that for
which the genealogical
table is chiefly designed, viz. the matter of succession,
according to which
Zerubbabel would be-shown as son, i.e. link of succession,
following on Shealtiel.
“and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith
their sister:”
Meshullam. Though this name recurs, and very frequently, in
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, yet the person here denoted
by it — son
of
Zerubbabel — is found here only. Hananiah, the Joanna of Luke 3:27, the
names being the same, but with the component parts transposed,
as in instances
already given above. In the Gospel, Hananiah appears as grandson of Zorobabel,
Rhesa intervening. Shelomith. This person is
mentioned here only. The word,
though evidently a feminine form, is found for the name of a man,
chief of the
Izarhites (I Chronicles 23:18), but very possibly by a mere clerical
error, as the
true form is given in the very next chapter (Ibid. ch.
24:22) for the same character,
viz.
twOmolv].
Review of the Kings (vs. 10-19)
It is specially worthy of notice that, according to His
promise, God preserved the
Davidic line among all the changes through which the
passed; and this became a public testimony to the Divine faithfulness, and
a
constant plea against them when they publicly broke their side of the
conditions
of
the national covenant. We may dwell on:
For some of the kings of
for instance, Ahaz and Manasseh, so
very bad that we marvel at the mercy
which held back judgment on the Davidic dynasty. Exactly what we have
ever to wonder over is the Divine long-suffering towards us, towards
His Church, towards men. God is
infinitely jealous of the honor of His Name
as the Promise-maker and the Promise-keeper, and we may even
think of
God as infinitely hopeful concerning
His people, waiting on and on,
Bearing long with
them, quite sure that they will yet
turn to him and live.
But every new impression of God’s
patient mercy made upon our hearts
only shows up the more hatefully our sin in
keeping on and “despising
the riches of His mercy.” (Romans 2:4)
God’s dealings with men
are the revelation of God’s character. What He
does is designed to
unfold before us what He is, and so to ensure personal
trust in Him. Here mercy blends with faithfulness, and we gain
the conception
of His righteousness blending with His love, justice and
mercy going hand in
hand, the King and the Father making the sublime unity of the
Divine King-
Father. Sometimes we gain
impressions of Divine justice, at other times
impressions of Divine mercy, and we err if we keep these apart. We only
conceive God Himself aright when we can blend them to make the perfect
harmony of Him who is faithful, to all His words — faithful to
punish
and faithful to pity and faithful to preserve.
PURPOSES. For
from the preservation of a particular dynasty we rise to
the promise of the world’s Messiah, who was to be recognized
by coming
in the Davidic line, and bear a royalty which should be a
sublime spiritual
royalty, and found a kingdom which should be an invisible but
everlasting
kingdom. David’s kingdom was, by the promise, to be continued for ever;
and so it is in that Son of David, who yet was David’s Lord,
and who bath
now both an “unchangeable priesthood” (Hebrews 7:24) and an
“unchangeable
kingship.” His dominion shall yet prove to be an
“everlasting
dominion” (Revelation 1:6); He “shall have the heathen for
His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession”
(Psalm 2:8). And into the eternal Davidic kingdom we should enter, and we
may enter, for the King
throws wide the door, and calls “WHOSOEVER
WILL” to come. (Revelation 22:17)
Zerubbabel, the
Builder of the
Among the names recorded here, that of Zerubbabel
suggests an interesting
passage in the Jewish history; and he has a marked individuality,
so that his
work and his times may
be profitably reviewed. It is noticed as a fulfilling
of
the Divine promise concerning the Davidic dynasty, that Zerubbabel
was
a
prince of the house of David, and so the returned captives resumed their
national life under a Davidic leader, and with a fresh and
constantly
effective remembrance of the Divine promise and faithfulness. From
the
narrative in Ezra, details of the work of Zerubbabel
may be given. His
mission concerned three things:
To
patience, cheerfulness, etc., should be fully illustrated.
The erection of a new temple from
the ruins of that of Solomon, and the
restoration of the Mosaic ritual and worship. In this he was aided by
Joshua, the
high priest. Show what further
qualities were demanded by this
work — power to inspire others, personal godliness, an
enkindling
enthusiasm, and, in view of the efforts of the Samaritans, firmness,
unswerving loyalty to God, and a holy jealousy that permitted no
compromises in religion.
people. This was the work
for which he probably had hereditary genius;
and his position and authority, as the Persian Sheshbazzar, enabled him
effectively to carry out his schemes. In him may be illustrated the
threefold
truth:
Ø
that circumstances
call forth the best that is in men;
Ø
that men may to a
large extent mould their circumstances; and
Ø
that God is ever ready to give His grace and strength,
unto the best success, to
every man who sincerely wishes
to be found faithful!
20 And Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushabhesed,
five.” The five additional names of this verse must presumably
stand
apart from the two sons and one daughter of the preceding verse,
for some
reason. What that reason may be is not known. Perhaps the most
natural
supposition is that their mother was not the same. The meaning of some
of
the
names, as especially of the last, Jushab-hesed,
i.e. “Loving-kindness is
returned,” has led Bertheau and others to
the conjecture that they may be
separated as children born to Zerubbabel,
one of the leaders of the return
from captivity, after that return. This seems plausible, except for the
consideration that, the more plausible it is, the more we might expect
the
explanation itself to have been notified.
21 “And
the sons of Hananiah; Pelatiah,
and Jesaiah: the sons of
Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan,
the sons of Obadiah, the sons of
Shechaniah.” The Hebrew text, followed by the Vulgate, not followed by
the
Septuagint, reads here jy;n]n"h}Aˆb,W. Yet some
manuscripts have the plural
“sons,” from which comes our
Authorized Version. The indication is
important. It is doubly interesting, as the only indication in our
Hebrew
text that tends to give confirmation to the very noteworthy differences of
the
Septuagint Version. For although this last, apparently somewhat
perversely, begins its version with “sons,” which plural does not so
well
suit its sequel, instead of the “son” of our Hebrew text, which would suit
it,
yet it proceeds with a translation which must have been obtained from
another text, such text again suiting properly the singular’
— “son” — of
our
Hebrew. The form of its translation is analogous to that marked in the
words of vs. 10-14. “The sons [sic son] of Ananiah, Pelatiah,
and
Jesaiah
his son,
Rephaiah his son,
Arnan his son, Obadiah his son,
Shechaniah his son,” making six (presumably) consecutive generations.
This, therefore, is the reading which (if correct) might
carry down the
genealogy to the times of Alexander the Great, and indeed to a time
a
quarter of a century later. And in doing so, it would certify this
entry as of
later date than probably any other of the canon! If we reject
this position
and
reading, we have to get over the term, repeated several times, the sons
of. To do
this, Bertheau suggests that the intention of
our passage was,
from the name Rephaiah inclusive, not to mention
the individual four
brothers’ names, but to mention them as four distinguished families
among
the
posterity of David — an attempt at explanation certainly not
satisfactory. The conclusion of the matter is, that in this
twenty-first verse
we
have difficulties in either alternative, not satisfactorily explained. Either
we
have the names in all of six brothers, being “sons of Hananiah” — the
last four of whom are styled, not by their individual names, but as heads of
families; or we have six lineal descendants from Hananiah. If this last
supposition were correct, calculate a royal succession at the
lowest
average (say something under twenty years), and the genealogy,
including
what follows in the remaining verses of the chapter, will bring us, as
above,
to
a date that covers the whole life of Alexander the Great.
22 “And
the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah:
and the sons of Shemaiah;
Hattush, and Igeal,
and Bariah, and Neariah,
and Shaphat, six.”
In the obscurity that remains on the subject, there is one
somewhat bright star
of
light in a succeeding name, Hattush, to which this verse leads us. This
verse
purports to help on the line of genealogy by a contribution of two
descents, the
effective names being Shemaiah and
Neariah, the line coming to its close by
aid
of two other effective names, Elioenai and
(say) Hodaiah, contained in the
last two verses of the chapter. Although one manifest error in v. 22
(involved
in
the number “six” when only five sons have been read) betokens the insecurity
of
the text, yet the summary measures of the ingenious Lord A. C. Hervey (see
his
valuable work on the ‘Genealogies of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ pp. 103,
307, 322; and articles in Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’
1:666, 667) can
scarcely be warranted, when he wishes first to omit
altogether the words
and the sons of Shecaniah; Shemaiah; and next, to
regard Shemaiah as
Shimei, the brother of Zerub-babel,
and, as matter of course, those who
followed as the descendants of this brother of Zerubbabel,
instead of
Zerubbabel himself. Now, a passage in the Book of Ezra helps us much
here. Ezra mentions, as one of those of the “sons of David” who went up
with him from .Babylon to
sons of Shechaniah.” There is not
only nothing to prevent this Hattush
being the same as the elder brother of Neariah,
who comes fourth in
succession from Zerubbabel (i.e. on
the hypothesis that the six names of
v. 21 are brothers, not a line of descents), but at the
above-mentioned
average of twenty years the dates will admirably synchronize — the
last
date of Zerubbabel being about B.C. 520, and that
of Neariah B.C. 440;
while the date of Ezra’s journey was B.C. 458. This coincidence
of names and
dates must not be regarded as conclusive; but, pending further
discovery, it
strongly disfavors the idea of the names of v. 21 constituting a
succession, and it
keeps well in check the rate of succeeding generations, bringing
the last
member of the succession to a date that may be harmonized with
others
which have for the most part held their ground. That in v. 22
only five
names are given for what are summed up as “six,” must
lead to the
supposition that one has dropped out; and since no known manuscript of
the
Hebrew text, nor the Septuagint or Vulgate versions supplies us with
the
missing name, the Syriac and Arabic versions, which
supply the name
Azariah between Neariah and Shaphat, must be viewed with some
suspicion. Igeal is, in the Hebrew,
a word (la’giy) identical with the Igal of
Numbers 13:7; II Samuel 23:36 — Septuagint in the latter
passages
jIlaa<l – Igaal – Igaal or jIga>l – Igal – Igal - but in the present place
jIwh<l – Ioael – rendered Igal. Of the other persons in this verse little or
nothing else is known.
23 “And
the sons of Neariah; Elioenai,
and Hezekiah, and Azrikam,
three. 24 And the sons of Elioenai
were, Hodaiah, and Eliashib,
and
Pelaiah, and Akkub,
and Johanan, and Dalaiah,
and Anani, seven.
None of the names in this or the following verse assists as
yet in throwing any
light upon the questions that arise in this fragment of
genealogy. Lord A. C.
Hervey would identify Hodaiah (v. 24) with Abiud (Matthew
1:13) and with
far
as the mere names are concerned, Ezra 3:9; Nehemiah 11:9; compared with
Ezra 2:40; ch. 9:7. His
investigations on the comparison of the genealogies of this
chapter with those of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are well worthy of
attention,
and
may be found in his work above referred to, and in his articles of Smith’s
‘Bible Dictionary.’
The Best Rewards of Piety (vs. 10-24)
This list of the names of the sons of David before and
after the Captivity
suggest three truths:
that his children should sit upon his throne; to Solomon he
gave a brilliant
court and large exchequer. David had the high and lofty
satisfaction of
looking forward to future years, and knowing that his descendants
would
be wielding power and exerting influence for many
generations. Solomon
had his reward in the “things which are seen and temporal” —
in great
wealth, in a large harem, in foreign alliances, in growing
merchandise, etc.
The one reward was elevating,
ennobling; the other proved to be hurtful
and demoralizing. We are
very apt to look for temporal prosperity, earthly
honor, material gratification, as the mark of devotion; but if
this should
be given us, it may end at last in spiritual depression and
failure. God
may
give us our request, but send leanness into our soul (Psalm 106:15).
We should rather desire mental
and spiritual bestowments, delights of the
soul, gladness of the heart
“The
joys which satisfy
And
sanctify the mind;”
those which have no tendency to enfeeble or to mislead, but which
tend
rather to enrich and to enlarge the soul.
with the obscurity of
the names which occur in some of these
verses (vs.
10-24). It is something, indeed,
that a man’s name should find a place,
however humble, in such an imperishable record. But these men
lived and
died without enjoying any such anticipation, and it is nothing
to them now.
The desire for distinction is
natural to noble minds; and if it be honorable
fame, and not mere worthless notoriety they seek, we must pay
them praise
and not accord them blame. But the fact that, as time
proceeds, human
fame becomes of less account, and that the very names of
succeeding kings
may become nothing more than a tedious chronicle, only read by
way of
duty, may well lead us to choose a more worthy and a more
lasting
portion. There are blessings to be sought and gained, the value of
which
does not decline with the passage of the years or even of the
centuries
(Matthew 6:19-20). It is these which the wise will covet, which
the holy
will secure.
list which stands out among the rest as that of a man whom all
the servants
of God “delight to honour” — Zerubbabel (v. 19). To have been the
ancestor or the descendant of such a man was itself an honor. We
regard
his career as one of the worthiest and most fruitful which
even the Holy
Scriptures have recorded. His godly zeal did much to carry on the purpose
of Jehovah from the return of the captives to the coming of
the Lord.
To have lived such a life and to
have done such a work may satisfy the very
largest ambition which the heart of man can hold. To look back
from the
spiritual world on such a work accomplished must be an increase to
heavenly joy. There are few satisfactions, if there be any, which
give a
truer, deeper, diviner delight to the regenerated soul than the conviction
that, by the help and grace of God, we are sowing the seeds
of holy
usefulness, of which future generations will reap the blessed
harvest.
Kings of the Royal Line — Zedekiah: the
Lesson of His Life
(v.
15 – see II Kings 24:10-20)
The portraiture of the Holy Spirit would be incomplete
without that of Zedekiah. In
him
we see how every work of God may be undone, how the fairest fabric may
become a wreck. If in David and Solomon we have that which will
encourage, we
have here a note of solemn warning. What is the lesson thus solemnly taught?
That sin undid
all the work of David and Solomon. Sin ruined the kingdom,
and
lay desolate the
is the
fertile source of all sin —IDOLATRY. Idolatry is the heart going after
something else than God.
Its gross form is image-worship. Its more
refined and
general form is the love of something lower than Christ. The latter is the guiltier,
because done under greater light. From this single
source everything follows —
o
loss of peace,
o
darkness of soul,
o
weakness of intellect,
o
immorality of life,
o
judicial blindness,
and
THE
ENTIRE SPIRITUAL WRECK OF EVERYTHING whether it be in
an
INDIVIDUAL SOUL or in a WHOLE NATION. Let God be supplanted,
and
there is no abyss into which one and the other will not ultimately fall. God’s
first
law
to
and
it is His first law still. Well might the beloved apostle say, “Little children,
keep yourselves from idols” (I
John 5:21). The utter ruin of the
kingdoms of
and
Zedekiah — idolatry. This brought down upon them that wrath of God which has
been resting like a dark cloud on the nation ever since. If David and
Solomon show
us
how we may pass through conflict to peace, Zedekiah shows us how we may pass
from it all to utter desolation. Needful warning to complete this spiritual picture.
"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.