I Chronicles 4
After the large space given to the “sons of David,” of the
tribe of
verses to group together a few additional ramifications of the
same tribe,
whose registers were for some reasons, perhaps not very evident,
preserved and known. The first verses follow in the direction
already
indicated in ch. 2., near the end of which
we were left with Shobal and
Haroeh, probably the same with Reaiah
(the same name as Reaia, ch.5:5,
though not the same person).
1 “The sons of
Shobal. 2 And Reaiah the son of Shobal begat Jahath; and Jahath
begat Ahumai, and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathites.”
The Carmi of v. 1
is considered to lie doubtful between the Carmi of ch.2:7
or
the Chelubai of v.9 of the same chapter, in which
last alternation the five
names of this verse would repeat the line of descent with which ch. 2 had made
us
familiar. Even then the object or advantage of repeating the first four of
these,
so
far as what follows is concerned, is not evident. We keep near the close
of
ch. 2. also in respect of
another allusion to the Zorathites (v.53), whose
families were replenished by the two sons of Jahath,
Ahumai and Lahad, of
all
of whom this is all we know.
3 “And
these were of the father of Etam; Jezreel,
and Ishma, and Idbash:
and the name of their sister was Hazelelponi: 4 And Penuel the father of
Gedor, and Ezer the
father of Hushah.
These are the sons of Hur, the
firstborn of Ephratah, the
father of
the
name of a place (II Chronicles 11:6) in
Tekoah (v. 5, and ch. 2:24)
and
first clause may possibly be supplied by “the families of” from the last
verse, or, more fitly, by “the
sons of,” inasmuch as some manuscripts have
it
so. The Septuagint, however, and Vulgate displace “the father of” (i.e.
chief of), replacing it by
“the sons of.” The Syriac Version leaves out any
notice of the sister, Hazelelponi,
and gives the former part of the verse
thus: “These are Amina-dab’s
sons, Ahizareel, Nesma, and
Dibas, Pheguel
and Husia; These are the sons of Hur,
the firstborn of Ephratha, who was
the father,” etc. With this the Arabic Version is partly in agreement,
but
closes the verse with the words, “These are the sons of Hur, son of
Ephratha, the father of
whom [plural] was of
Targum translates, “the rabbis dwelling at Etam.” This variety indicates
the
difficulty felt by each in turn. The verse, however, purports to give the
names of three brothers and one sister (Hazelel-poni,
i.e. the shadow
looking at me) connected with Etam, as
in the following verse Penuel with
Gedor (ch.2:51) and Ezer with Hushah (ch.11:29;
II Samuel 23:27).
Of no one of these, in all six other descendants of Hur, additional to those
found at the close of ch. 2., is
anything distinct known. It is to be noted that
Hur himself is here called father of
Salma is so called.
5 “And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two
wives, Helah and Naarah.
6 And Naarah bare him Ahuzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and
Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. 7 And the
sons of Helah
were, Zereth, and Jezoar, and Ethnan.” Another
before-mentioned person
(ch.2:24) is brought forward, viz. Ashur,
the posthumous son of Hezron by
Abia, now again, as there, styled father, or chief, of Tekoa, a town, as above,
near Etam,
wives, with four children to the latter of them and three to the
former, may
be
given. The Roman Septuagint unaccountably gives different names to
the
mothers, and reverses the groups of the four and three children.
Nothing else is known of these nine persons. The last two
names of the
group of four more resemble in form the name of the head of a
family than
an
individual name; and for Jezoar,
the middle name of the group of three,
the
easy Keri of “and Zohar” is followed by the
Septuagint, and was
followed by our 1611 Authorized Version.
8 “And Coz
begat Anub, and Zobebah,
and the families of Aharhel
the son of Harum.” The link of
connection between the persons named in this
verse and the tribe of
as
it is, is, however, paralleled by many others immediately following in
this chapter, as well as elsewhere. Nothing has yet been produced in
elucidation of any one of the persons designated by these names, or of
their
relation to the context.
9 “And Jabez was more honorable than his brethren: and his mother
called his name Jabez,
saying, Because I bare him with sorrow.”
This is not less true of the name of vs. 9-10, which,
however,
has
made its own mark amid the whole scene. The episode of these two
verses, offering itself amid what should seem, superficially, a
dry mass of
dead names, is welcome and grateful as the oasis of the desert, and it warns
us
that life lies hidden at our every footfall on this ground, spread over
though it is with monument and inscription, and hollow, as we
thought,
with the deadest of the dead. But the glimpse of old real life given us in
this
brief fragment of a biography is refreshing and is very
suggestive. It seems
an
insufficient and unnatural method of accounting for the suddenness of
the
appearance of this episode to suppose (‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ in
lee.) that
the name of Jabez was well known, from any cause, to
those for
whom Chronicles may be supposed to have been primarily intended. We
prefer by far one account of it, viz. that the work in our
hands is not in its
original complete state; or, variously put, that it is in
its uncompleted
original state. No root corresponding to the characters of this
name in
present order is known; it is possible that some euphonic reason
makes the
name xB[]y"
out of the real word (future Kal) bxe[iy", i.e. he
causes pains.
We cannot suppose there would be any “play” appreciable on
a
transposition of alphabetical characters for mere play’s sake.
The
resemblance that almost each part of this brief and abruptly
introduced
narration bears to incidents recorded in Genesis 34:19; 33:20;
4:25; 29:32; 28:20) and Exodus speaks for itself, and
strongly
countenances the supposition that it is a genuine deposit of the
genuinely
olden history of
the
language and matter and form (Genesis 17:18-20; Exodus 32:32)
of
the prayer of the child, when presumably he was no longer a
child; and the discriminating use of the words Elohim (v. 10) of
compared with the name Jehovah (ch.2:3; v.41 here),
generally
found here, — all help to produce this impression, although some
of these
particulars would carry little conviction by themselves; e.g. a
mother’s
reasons for assigning the name of her child long outlived the
earlier times
alone. Upon the whole, and regarding the passage in its present
place, we
may
say that it must be very much misplaced, or else must be understood
to
connect Jabez with some branch of the family of Coz.
There is the more
room to assume this in the vagueness of the last preceding clause, “The
families of Aharhel the son of Harum.” The origin of the theories of some
of
the older Jewish writers, to the effect that Jabez
was a doctor in the law,
with a school of scribes around him, is probably to be found in the desire
to
find a connection between his proper name, Jabez,
and the place so named
(ch.
2:55), and where, as we are told, “families
of scribes
dwelt,” belonging to the Kenites. That
these were connected with
of
a family connected with
enough by a long way to countenance the thought, in spite of Targum and
Talmud (Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ sub
vet.). The Targum, as well here as
in
(Ibid) , identifies Jabez with Othniel
“son of Kenaz” (Joshua 15:17; Judges
1:13; 3:9), or more probably “the Kenizzite”
merely; but there is nothing to sustain
such an identification. The description, he
was more honorable than his brethren,
finds a close parallel, so far as the word honorable goes,
in Genesis 34:19;
although the honorableness of Shechem,
the person there in question,
does not come out to anything like the same advantage with that of Jabez,
nor
at all in the same direction. The word, however, is precisely the same,
is
often used elsewhere, and uniformly in a good sense, although the range
of
its application is wide. The essential idea of the root appears to be
“weight.” The phrase may therefore
be supposed to answer to our
expressive phrase, a “man of weight “ — the weight being
sometimes due
chiefly to character, at
other times to position and wealth in the first place,
though not entirely divorced from considerations of character. We
may
safely judge, from what follows, that the intention in our
present passage is
to
describe Jabez as a man of more ability and nobility
than his brethren. It
can
scarcely be doubted that the meaning that lies on the surface is the
correct interpretation, when it is said that his mother named him Jabez,
saying, Because I bare him with sorrow. The sorrow refers to
unusual
pains of travail, not to any attendant circumstances of domestic
trial, as e.g.
that the time of his birth was coincident with her own widowhood, as
happened to the wife of Phinehas, when
she named her offspring “Ichabod”
(I Samuel 4:19-22).
10 “And Jabez called on the God of
wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and
that thine
hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil,
that it may not grieve me! And God granted him
that which he
requested.” When Jabez grew to manhood he has
learnt to estimate rightly
the
value of God’s blessing. He invokes it, and depends upon it. His
language implies the confidence that he had in the reality of
providential
blessing. For the expression, enlarge my coast, see Deuteronomy
12:20: 19:8; and though we know nothing as matter of fact
about the
occasion of this prayer, we may assume that it was one when not
selfishness and greed of larger territory, but just opportunity, had
awakened a strong desire for enlargement of borders. It may have
been a
legitimate occasion of recovering his own, lost or wrongfully taken
from
him
or his predecessors before him, or of expelling successfully from their
hold upon it a portion of the original inhabitants of the promised land of
God’s people. That thine
hand might be with me. Many are the
beautiful
parallels to be culled from the Word of God for this expression, as e.g.
Ezra 7:9; Psalm 80:17; 119:173; 139:5, 10; Isaiah 42:6. And
that
thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! This, the
last
entreaty of the prayer, is the largest and most far-seeing. Warned
by his
own
name, forewarned by his mother’s emphasizing of her own pains in
him,
he thus concludes. Having begun in the evil of pain and excessive
sorrow, he prays that he and his career may not so determine and
end. He
does not necessarily pray to be preserved from all suffering, but from such
baneful touch of evil itself, its principle, its tyrannous,
merciless hold, as
might bring him to real and irreparable grief. Thus closes the
whole prayer,
each succeeding clause of which has been under the rule of the initial “if,”
translated with us, Oh that. This well-known Hebrew form
of prayer
supposes a solemn engagement, and that the answered prayer shall
meet
with the fulfillment of a vowed promise on the part of the suppliant,
according to the pattern of Genesis 28:20. In the absence of that
engagement here, we may notice, with Keil,
the greater grace of the
passage, in that it closes with the statement of the readiness to
hear, and
the abounding readiness to answer, on the part of Divine beneficence:
And God granted him that which he requested. Evidently the thing that he
Asked pleased the Lord (I Kings 3:10, 12); although it was
in this case some
form of riches, and long life for self, and the life of his enemies, that he
asked, and was not altogether and in so many words “a wise and
understanding heart.” Perhaps, also there was in the way of asking, and in
the
exact occasion, unknown to us, something which quite justified the
matter of the prayer, and which thus pleased the Lord. The
remarkable and
arresting episode could not have closed in more welcome or
impressive
way
than when it is thus briefly but conclusively said, “And
God granted
him that which he requested.”
The Prayer of Jabez (vs. 9-10)
“And Jabez… enlarge
my coast.” No syllable
nor whisper is heard by us of
the
child that cost the mother so much suffering in bringing into the world,
from the time that he was named till he is now arrived at manhood. Then
he
is again introduced with this testimony, that he is “more honorable than
his brethren.” The probability is that this expression does not refer
exclusively to honorableness of moral and religious character. It is
an
equal probability, considering the remarkably uniform usage of
the word in
a
favorable sense, and the balance of its use in even a high sense, that it
does by no means exclude these elements. The intermediate time is left to
our
imagination to fill up. It was not like that intermediate time of our
Saviour’s life, lit up only by the incident of the temple and the
discussion
with the doctors, when Jesus was but twelve years of age. We are
warranted in permitting imagination to depict all that interval
as one
continuous growth of goodness and display of spotless holiness, and
it is
for
quite other reasons that we there bid imagination learn reverence and
caution, and chasten itself. Not so here; in the darkness and the
silence of
some twenty years or more, we are sure that there mingled error and
imperfection and sin, with whatever else there was of redeeming feature
in
character and conduct. Still maturity finds Jabez
an honored man.
Considering all things, that was not a little thing
to say. But better and
more to our purpose, it reveals him a man of prayer — a man who knew,
who
believed in, who practiced prayer. Nay, there is something in the first
opening of his mouth in this prayer which prepossesses us, and
invites
special consideration. Let us notice:
OF HIS PRAYER.
He prays to the “God of
words are not found here within the borders of the prayer
itself, but it is
also true that the historian says that it was to the “God of
prayer of Jabez was directed. This
descriptive designation of God would
mean at least three things with Jabez.
The God of Israel is for him,
Ø
the God of his
fathers;
Ø
the God who had often wrought
wonderful works of interposition,
of deliverance, of victory and conquest, on behalf of His
people; and
Ø
He is especially the
God whose pronounced and most gracious
Covenant of truth and mercy
was with
The aids of memory are great
aids for faith. A lively memory of
long-past
mercies also tends to kindle gratitude. He who comes with gratitude into the
Divine presence wins fresh
favor, gains fresh gifts. So also to have promises is
one thing. These we all have. To take hold of them, avail
ourselves of them,
grasp them, is another and far greater thing. To live by the light, and in the
strength and joy of the covenant, is
the grandest privilege any man
could possess.
PRAYER, It is the prayer
of well-defined petition. Jabez wants a blessing,
knows the blessing that he wants, asks it with fervor. He asks
it with
earnest emphasis. All argues his belief in the need of superhuman help, in
the reality of such a thing as superhuman help, and in the
availing power of
prayer to obtain. This constitutes genuine prayer. It is not,
indeed, any one
of those high forms of spiritual exercise, the meditation of
the unseen, the
apprehension of Divine realities, the spirit’s communion with the
Father of
all spirit, and refreshment from His presence. But, on the
other hand, it is
the prayer which links on earth to heaven, and shows a human
hand taking
hold, with the free permission of mercy, of God. Jabez goes far on to say,
“I will not let thee go, except thou
bless me” (Genesis 32:26), when he says,
“Oh that thou wouldest bless me
indeed!” The emphasis “indeed” is the
emphasis of importunity, not of distrust. The meaning, as every
reader of the
Hebrew knows at once, is “Oh that thou wouldest greatly bless me!” As
though Jabez meant, “Unworthy as I am,
oh that thou wouldest grant me a
great blessing!” How often our posture is prayer, our language
prayer, our
prayer tone, yet the reality, the definiteness, the heart of
prayer, is far from us!
We ask and have not (James 4:3),
because we really know not what our
own asking is. In the midst
of vague form and heartless performance,
nothing is asked.
drawing into a precedent, of prayer offered, and acceptably
offered, the
burden of which is temporal good, family and private advantage,
substance
and possession. These all belong to the very structure and
texture of our
present human life and character. They much tend to make or mar
our
character. The way in which we get them, use them, give them again, is
often the criterion, and very decisive criterion, of everything
with us, for
good or for harm. The great man of business and the man of
great property
are borne on a strong current, are tossed on deceitful,
dangerous tides; but
it may none the less be that, under certain conditions, they
are fulfilling
appointed and most important offices in the general scene of the
world’s
traffic. But how much securer
that man must feel who has gained, and
gained much, not by sharp practice, chicanery,
unscrupulousness, but by
clear views, determined wishes, diligent devotion, and the
liberal
“blessing,”
the “great” blessing of God! Desire
for earthly substance is
Not necessarily mere earthly
desire. It is too true that it is too often this, but
not always. Some of the greatest men of business in the world
have been,
and are to-day, the best men of business in the Church. By their liberality
and charity, by their beneficence and philanthropy, the “cords have
been lengthened, the stakes strengthened,” of the tabernacle of the
Lord God of
sustained Christian consistency and humility, have been an example far
and wide.
with me.” This
amplifying petition follows significantly upon the more
definite and specific entreaty of the beginning of the verse. It
also takes us
into the ancient workshop of language. The countenances of us
all, and their
infinitely various expression, come from the different combinations
of a very
few features and other elements. All our words come from the
immense
number of combinations possible between and among twenty-six
letters.
And the amazing proportion
of the whole vast mass of our language comes
from the figurative and the analogic
appropriations of what would otherwise be,
and once was, a very scanty vocabulary. This is especially
observable of our
religious and devotional language, though none truer of it
than of our ordinary
language. The twenty-third
psalm, and very many sentences of other psalms,
give abundant illustrations of the way in which figurative
language at once
doubles, but in point of fact far more than doubles, language. And
the
sentence of the text is one of the most elementary and most plain
of all
illustrations of the kind. The first uses of a hand, the many uses
of a hand,
lend a wealth of imagery, and thereby of enrichment, to
language. From the
suggestion of the prayer of Jabez to the
effect that “the hand” of God
“might be with” him, let us take opportunity to view some of the chief
scriptural representations of the exercise of the Divine hand and of
the
effects thereof, and thus lead up again to the prayer before us.
And we
often read of:
Ø
The Creative
Hand. Man is spoken of as
the work of God’s
creative hands: “Thy hands have made me and fashioned me”
(Psalm 119:73). So also the
heavens: “The
heavens are the
work of thy hands” (Ibid.
102:25). So, again, the earth and the sea:
“The sea is His, and He made it: and His hands formed the dry land”
(Ibid. 95:5). And all
living things and things inanimate: “Thou madest
him
to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put
all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the
beasts
of
the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and
whatsoever passeth through
the paths of the seas” (Ibid. 8:5-8).
(See also glorious
reminiscences to the same effect, Job 10:8;
14:15; 34:19; Isaiah 48:13;
64:8.)
Ø
The Hand of the
Sovereign, Absolute Owner (Job 5:18;
12:10;
Daniel 5:23; Ecclesiastes
9:1; I Chronicles 29:12,16; Psalm 31:15.)
Ø
The Hand of the
Perpetual, Bountiful Giver (Psalm
95:7;
104:28-29; 145:16.)
Ø
The Hand of One
that Delivers, Uplifts, and Upholds
(Exodus 32:11; Deuteronomy
5:15; Ezra 7:9; Nehemiah 2:8;
Psalm 44:3; 63:8; 73:23;
Isaiah 51:16.)
Ø
The Hand of the
Corrector and Chastiser. (Judges 2:15;
Psalm 32:4; 38:2; 39:10;
106:26; Job 2:10; 19:21.)
Ø
The Hand of Widest
Sway and Sovereign Control
of power to rule and power to overrule. (Isaiah 40:12; 48:13;
Proverbs 21:1; Daniel
4:35.)
Ø
The Hand that
Exalts to Real Honor. (See the
splendid description of Isaiah 62:3; Psalm 16:11.)
(“at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” –
and to think that people run to and fro throughout the
earth looking for that which does not satisfy. Come to
the presence of God for “joy….pleasure” – CY – 2012)
Ø
The Hand that
Pledges and Secures Absolute and
Everlasting
Safety. See such passages as more than satisfy
the soul; they go far even “to ravish it with the thoughts” of
the glory
signified. “I have graven thee on the palms of my hand” (Isaiah
49:16); “They shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck
them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is
greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them
out of
my
Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29). And, as
during
all our lifetime it had been the lesson to be learnt that our
breath is in
God’s hands, and all our
ways and our times in His sovereign hand,
so at last it is permitted us to breathe the spirit into that
same mighty,
merciful, safe hand: “Into thy hands I
commit my spirit” (Psalm
31:5; Luke 23:46). Perhaps
it was not all of these powers of the
Divine hand that could have
been as familiar to Jabez as they may
be to us; yet it is evident that he knew and had prized the
meaning
and the virtue of the hand of God. And he does not ask
to know it
in one particular way nor in another. He does not dictate or
suggest, at least, not beyond a certain very wide margin. He prays
that the Divine hand may be “with”
him — now to help on, now to
stop; now to uphold, now, if necessary, to cast down; now to
put it
on his lips, and to bid his mouth be dumb, and himself wait
the sovereign
will of a sovereign God — patient, content, trustful; now to
release those
lips and open his mouth, that he might render grateful praise
to the
bountiful Giver of all good, or the loving and careful Protector of
all those
who put their trust in Him. When Jabez
says, “Oh that thine
hand might
be with me!” he puts
himself into that vast and secure hand of God, and
wishes nothing more, nothing better for himself, than as the
little child,
feeble, uncertain, and easily wearying, to take the strong hand
of his
Father. He had simple faith
that the hand, the presence of which “with”
him he entreated, would be under all events a “good hand upon”
him. The
surrender of dependence betokened by the prayer was justly as
hopeful
as it was trustful. We need
nothing more than that the hand of God,
in
all its varied
exercise, should be with us. But when we have thus
prayed, we may not forget what our prayer has been. And in great
variety of experience on our own part — experience of
sorrow, and
difficulty, and toil, and slowness, as well as in all the converse of
these
respectively — we must remember to trace and acknowledge the
tokens of that hand for which we prayed being with us,
and not another hand, inferior in goodness and wisdom as well
as
power. For often the
variety and contrasts and reverses of our own
mutable state reflect the ever-varying and adapting presence and
grace of One who is
in Himself THE UNCHANGING! How
often has our own hand misdone, how
often has
the hand of others
misled or misdirected us! How blessed is he who can say that, for
his
prayer, God has “beset him behind
and before, and has laid
His
hand upon him!”
keep me from evil,
that it may
not grieve me.” This is the last petition
of
the prayer of Jabez. While the
foregoing petition was very comprehensive
and wide-reaching in one sense, this is comprehensive and
farseeing in
another. There could scarcely be a larger or a wiser entreaty than
that God
would vouchsafe the perpetual presence of His hand — the hand
that
makes, that gives, that leads, that upholds, that shields, that
at last saves
with an everlasting salvation. Nor, on the other hand, could there easily be
offered prayer that should more betoken self-knowledge,
self-distrust, and
a wise estimate of the constantly endangered position in
which any man
may justly describe himself as placed in this present world,
than the prayer
with which Jabez now sums up what he
has to say: “And that thou
wouldest keep me from
evil, that it may not grieve me!” Of the
few
petitions of our Lord’s Prayer, this forms one, and an emphatic one,
“Deliver me from
evil.” Evil is a large enemy. In one
shape or another,
it is ever threatening to attack. And if in anything we need
superior help,
it is in combating a foe so ubiquitous, so persevering, so
subtle, and so
essentially disastrous. We may observe here:
Ø
THAT THERE ARE SIGNS OF A USEFUL LESSON HAVING
BEEN LEARNED FROM PAIN. Pain is intrinsically evil in this
world. It was no original
part of it. It is now utilized in many
a
direction. It is now overruled to many and high advantages. But it
is
none the less to be noticed as foreign in itself to the nature
of God, to
the conception of a perfect creation, to the bliss of man. Yet
as things
are, and as we are, it is wise to learn from even bodily pain.
It is often
because we will not learn from other suggestions that we are
compelled
to learn from the actual experiences of pain. We may probably
put
down something higher to the credit of Jabez.
We do not know as fact
that he himself had been called to endure much pain, or any at
all
noteworthy. But he knew his own name.
He knew what it meant,
and how it had come to be given to him. He took the warning of
it,
and the forewarning of his mother’s method of emphasizing what
were her opinions and convictions on the subject. It was not
the mark
of Cain that was on his open brow. But the name of a mother’s
love
and anguish mingled was named upon him. And he prays to the
Mightier than he, to
preserve him so from evil, that it might not bring
him to fulfill in his nature what was confessedly his name.
Two things
may be ever well remembered respecting pain:
o
that it must
faithfully and honestly be ranked among the enemies
of God and the antagonists of perfect nature; but
o
that for a time, and
for our present condition, it may be a timely
lesson, a source of valuable suggestion, the adapted caution of
the hour, the safeguard that may act with the quickness and
the
certainty of an instinct. Yet,
whatever may be said justly and
correctly respecting the acquired uses of pain, Jabez offers his
petition deprecatory of that evil, the fruit and end of which is
mere pain.
BEEN LEARNED ABOUT EVIL ITSELF. It is evident, from the very
words of Jabez’s prayer, that he
distinguishes between evil and gratuitous
pain, or unrewarding “grief,”
as it is here expressed. Evil, i.e. suffering,
calamity, more or less of occasional adversity,
disappointment, are the
absolute lot of man here.
It would be vain to shut the eyes to the fact, folly
to deny it. But there are immense differences within the
range and the
limits of what is called evil. Jabez
had learnt this. He does not pray to be
kept from all suffering, vicissitude, adversity,
disappointment, though
doubtless he would fain be kept from as much of this as may be. But
we
are to understand that he earnestly deprecates the baneful
touch of evil
itself. He discerns what its
essential principle is. He dreads its tyrannous
rule, its merciless hold, its mocking treatment of those who
have trusted it,
and, if unstayed, its destructive
results. He prays, accordingly, to be kept
from the evil that would “assault and hurt the soul,” and prove the herald
of irreparable grief. It is such intrinsic form of evil which
the
uncompromising petition of our Lord’s Prayer puts upon the lips of all
his
disciples. How certain and distinct this difference is! How much “evil”
there is, through which we all are called to pass! But the deep
water does
not overflow us. (“When thou passest
through the waters, I will be
with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee…
For I am the Lord
thy God, the Holy One of
Isaiah 43:2-3) How much disappointed hope and sorrow’s
visit there is
for the very best of men, by which in part they have been
helped to become
what they already are, right and excellent and devout, and by
which the
best of today become yet better tomorrow! This is the “evil we receive
also at the hand of God, as well as” his good (Job 2:10). It is chastening,
purifying, elevating. But contrast with this the sorrow that worketh death.
Contrast with this the “wounded
spirit.” Contrast with this the evil that
Hardens hearts, sears
consciences, cradles remorse, and is fruitless of
everything else but unavailing regret. And we shall be ready to join
to pray,
“That thou wouldest keep me from
evil, that” its
gratuitous “grief”
may not be mine.
SUPERIOR HELP IN THE PRESENCE OF SOME FOES HAD
BEEN WELL LEARNED. There are some passages of life when the
best and hardest work
is the best and most earnest prayer. Not so here.
It is said the sailor always has his enemy before
him, and the battle ceases
not till the haven
is won. And men live in such a scene of evil, such
surroundings of evil, such
dispositions of evil, such a very atmosphere of
evil, men are tossed
upon such an ocean of evil, that the danger will prove
overwhelming in some direction, unless a man “pray always” (Luke
18:1),
and pray this prayer of Jabez. No armor of one’s own, no
self-knowledge,
no vigilance, no pride of foreknowledge, no mere creed of
distrust of the
vain world, and the wicked heart, and the soul’s chief adversary,
will suffice. This living,
hearty, earnest prayer will alone command the
sure victory in the most critical of warfare.
We may note that this verse ends
with “And God granted him that
which he requested.”
11“And Chelub the brother of Shuah begat
Mehir, which was the father
of Eshton. 12
And Eshton begat Bethrapha, and Paseah, and Tehinnah
the father of Irnahash.
These are the men of Rechah.” Of the whole of
the
group of names, contained in these two verses, it must be said that we are
in the
dark. The suggestion of Grove, in his article, “Ir-enahash”
(Smith’s ‘Bible
Dictionary’), is worth notice, that possibly the verses may be
a reminiscence of
some Canaanitish graft on
Shua ([W"v)of ch. 2:3; Genesis
38:2. Beth-rapha (the house of
the
giant) looks more like the name of a place than of a person, though the
text needs a person, and such may be covered possibly by this name,
though it be of a place. Ir-nahash (the city of the serpent). Jerome, in his
‘Quaestiones Hebraicae
in Parah,’ asserts or repeats the assertion of some
one
else that this is no other place than
synonym with Jesse. Unlikely as this is, no place of the name is
known.
13 “And
the sons of Kenaz; Othniel,
and Seraiah: and the sons of Othniel;
Hathath. 14 And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Seraiah begat Joab, the
father of the
of Caleb the son of Jephunneh;
Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah,
even Kenaz.” We return here
to the neighborhood of names not quite
strange. From comparison of the many passages in Numbers, Joshua,
and
Judges, which contain references to Othniel
and Caleb (son of Jephunneh),
the
stronger conclusion to which we are led is that Othniel
was the younger
brother of Caleb (probably not by both the same parents) and Kenaz a
forefather, of course not literally father. The conclusion is not
arrived at
without difficulty, or with any real certainty. In the present
instance, e.g.,
why
should Othniel, if the younger brother and so
expressly and repeatedly
mentioned, be taken first? For the possible Kenaz
of this passage, we might
then refer to ch.1:53; Genesis 36:42. Hathath. The marginal reading, which
joins Meonothai at once to Hathath,
and then supplies “who” before
“begat Ophrah,” is decidedly to be adopted. Joab son of Seraiah
is not to
be
assumed to be one with Joab son of Zeruiah. The valley
of the Charashim
(see also Nehemiah 11:35), i.e.
smiths, or craftsmen, lay east of
behind the plain of Sharon; and is said by Jerome, in his ‘Quaestiones Hebraicae
in
Paral.,’ to have been, according to tradition, named so because the architects
of
the temple came thence. Iru.
Perhaps the real name is Ir, and the final vau
rather an initial for the next
name. Elah. Probably another
name is wanting after
this, which the vau will then join to Kenaz;
otherwise, as vau will not translate
“even,” the following name will become, as in the
margin, Uknaz. The wanting
name might
be the Jehalaleel of the next verse.
This last name is in the Hebrew
identical with the Jehalelel of our
Authorized Version (II Chronicles 29:12).
16“And the
sons of Jehaleleel; Ziph,
and Ziphah, Tiria, and Asareel.” Of
none of the characters of this verse can anything be said beyond what
appears here.
17
“And the sons of Ezra
were, Jether, and Mered,
and Epher, and
Jalon: and she bare Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of
Eshtemoa. 18 And his wife Jehudijah
bare Jered the father of Gedor,
and Heber the father of Socho,
and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.
And
these are the sons of Bithiah
the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took.”
From the tangle of these verses it is hopeless to attempt
any certain conclusions.
The fact of the antithesis of the Jewess wife (by some
assigned as wife to Ezra),
and
the presumably Egyptian wife mentioned in the latter verse, is perhaps just
enough in the general obscurity to suggest that Mered, the
asserted husband of
the
latter, is to be understood as the husband of the former also But to compass
so
much as this, we have to overlook omission in v.17 and inversion in v. 18.
There is a tone about the verses, due to names they
contain, that might
suggest to us the times of
not
fail to come to view in Jerome (‘Quaestiones,’ etc.;
see also art.
“Meted,” Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary’). The four places, Eshtemoa, Gedor,
Socho, Zanoah, may all with
tolerable confidence be identified in
Joshua 15:48-58, as of the number of the cities “in the
mountains,”
though Zanoah and Socho
are found also “in the valley” (Ibid.
ch.15:33-
36). In this passage the
Septuagint gives us no help, but betrays its own
perplexity, offering to make Jether the father of Miriam; while
the Syriac
and
Arabic versions simply skip the verses as incoherent.
19 “And
the sons of his wife Hodiah the sister of Naham, the father of
Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maachathite.” The first clause
of
this verse in the Hebrew is, And the sons
of the
wife of Hodiah. The
margin
offers the Jewess again for Hodiah. Nothing is
known explanatory of the
descriptive word Garmite here. Its meaning, according to Gesenins,
is “bony.”
Eshtemoa is here distinguished from
the same-spelt word in v.17 by the
description the Maachathite, Maachad being a
region at the foot of Hermon,
bordering on and belonging to
20 “And
the sons of Shimon were, Amnon, and Rinnah, Benhanan, and
Tilon. And the sons of Ishi
were, Zoheth, and Benzoheth.” The names of
this verse obtain no light from other passages. The Septuagint (Alexandrian), in loc.,
speaks
of “Someion, the father of Jomam,” in the former verse which probably
stands for this Shimon.
Also the
Septuagint for Vulgate, instead of counting
Benhanan as the name of a
third son, translate it, as of Rinnah “son of Hanan.”
Ishi; not to be confused with ch. 2:31,
son of Appaim. Our Authorized Version,
following the Vulgate, does not translate Ben-zoheth, while the Hebrew would
read naturally “Zoheth,
and the son of Zoheth.”
21 “The
sons of Shelah the son of
and Laadah the
father of Mareshah, and the families of the house
of them that wrought fine linen, of the house
of Ashbea, 22 And Jokim,
and the men of Chozeba,
and Joash, and Saraph, who
had the dominion in
the potters, and those that dwelt among plants
and hedges: there they dwelt
with the king for his work.” The first of these verses takes us back to ch.2:3,
where the first three of the patriarch Judah’s sons are
introduced in the genealogy,
as
Er, Onan, and Shelah; where of Er it is said, “He was evil in the sight of the
Lord; and He slew
him;” and where nothing is added of Onan or Shelah. It would
appear now that Shelah gave the name of
the slain
brother to his son. Respecting this
Er
of Lecah — with little doubt the name of a place —
and Laadah, nothing else can
be
adduced; but Marebah (Ibid.
v.42) is the name of a place in the Shefelah, given
in
the same
passage with Kailah and Nezib
(Joshua 15:44; see also II Chronicles
11:8; 14:9). The fine linen (xWB) here spoken of is, according to Gesenius,
equivalent in this passage and in the later Hebrew, to the byssus of the Egyptians
(Exodus 26:31; II Chronicles 3:14), the vve, from which the
Syrian byssus
(Ezekiel 27:16), to which xWB
does more strictly apply, is distinguished in
some other places. It
was of fine texture, costly, and used as the clothing of
kings (ch. 15:27), of priests (II
Chronicles 5:12), and of the very wealthy
(Esther 1:6; 8:15). Gesenius says
that, after long research and dispute,
microscopic investigations in
threads of the cloth of byssus
are linen, not cotton. Ashbea ([Beça") is not
yet
recognized elsewhere. Jokim. Gesenius considers this name (μyqiwOy) as
a
contracted form of μyqiy;wOy
(Joiakim) of
Nehemiah 12:10. Chozeba.
The meaning of this name is “lying;” not found elsewhere,
it is probably the
same as the byzika", a town in the tribe of Judah (Genesis 38:5), and
that is probably the same
as the Byzika", of the “valley” list of
(Joshua 15:44) and of Micah 1:14, where it is mentioned in
near
connection with the Mareshah, which also
accompanies it in the above
“valley” list. Joash. This name
appears in three forms: va;wOy, as in the
text
And II Kings 12:20; va;wOjy], as in Ibid. v.1; and v[;wOy, as in ch.7:8. Seraph.
This is the word the plural of which gives us our seraphim
(Isaiah 6:2), and is from
a
root of somewhat uncertain meaning. The different significations to which the
root
seems to lend itself in the substantive, according as it is used
in the singular or plural,
are
startling (see Gesenius, ‘Lexicon,’ sub voce).
The apparent meaning of this
verse is that there was a time of old, when the above, of whom
we can
ascertain nothing elsewhere, ruled over
made a strange rendering of this verse by translating some of the proper
names, and reading at least one of them, the first, as though it
were a form
in
the Hebrew (μyqiy;), which it is not.
Thus Jokim is turned into
Elimelech,
and the men of Chozeba into Mahlon
and Chillon of the Book
of
Ruth, and Jashubi-lehem into Naomi and Ruth; and the
last clause of the
verse is equivalent to citing the Book of Ruth.
1:179) regards Jokim as Shelah’s third son in this enumeration; and ethers
regard Jashubi-lehem as his fourth son.
The preposition l] prefixed
to
ba;wOm
and following the verb, is to be noted v.
23 brings us to the last of
obscurity which has lately involved it. The plants and hedges are
probably
an
instance of inopportune translation of proper names, which should
rather appear as Nelaira and
Gedara, the former place or people not found
elsewhere, but the latter possibly referred to in Joshua 15:36.
Again, who
they were that were the potters, is not clear — whether all of the preceding
verse, or the last mentioned. From the last clause it may be
probably safely
concluded, that those designated, whoever they were, were employed
habitually in the service, not indeed of one king necessarily, but of
the
succession of royalty. Passages that may be taken to throw
interesting light
upon this subject are ch.27:25-31; II Chronicles 26:10; 27:4; 32:27-29.
Weavers, Husbandmen, and Potters (vs. 21-23)
This portion of the book contains the record of the
descendants of Shelah,
one
of the sons of
employments of several of these ancient families. Some were engaged in
weaving byssus, or fine linen.
Others were occupied in tilling the estates
and
tending the herds and flocks of the king. Others, again, pursued the
calling of the potter. Now, there is no reason for surprise in
meeting with
such references in a book of the canonical Scriptures. There is a religious
side to all such useful and respectable vocations. Those who follow them
may
not always be aware of the fact; but a fact it certainly is.
MATERIALS WHICH A KIND
The soil which is tilled, the
vegetable substances which that soil produces,
the minerals which are dug from it, are all of God. “The earth is the
Lord’s,
and the fullness thereof.” (Psalm 24:1)
EXERCISE AND EMPLOY ARE ENTRUSTED BY THE CREATOR.
The limbs of the body, the
strength of the muscles, the skill of the
intelligent and
designing mind, are all needed for the production of the results. Every
artificer
is himself a miracle of creative power and wisdom; and He who framed
the workman is glorified in the handiwork.
THE CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH LABORS, IS A PART OF THE
DIVINE PLAN. The arts, useful and aesthetic, tend to the comfort and the
development of humanity. All the conveniences of human life are
instrumental in furthering the purposes of God.
ADHERENTS, SUPPORTERS, AND PROMULGATORS. The busy
And useful classes of society
furnish the largest proportion of strength to our
Churches. These have often been the salt of society, when the
wealthy,
luxurious, and dissolute on the one hand, and the idle and predatory
on the
other, would have introduced corruption and death into the body
politic.
The Dignity of All Work (vs. 21-23)
These verses set before us the interesting fact that God
recognizes a man’s
occupation, and knows precisely his sphere and his work. Another
striking
illustration of the precision of the Divine knowledge, and the
observation
even of a man’s handicraft, is found in Acts 10:5-6, where God gives
these minute directions: “Send
men to Joppa, and call for one Simon,
whose surname is Peter; he lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner,
whose
house is by the seaside.”
In these verses different occupations are
honorably mentioned; some wrought fine linen; others were potters
and
gardeners and hedgers; and so is suggested to us the honorableness and
usefulness of all kinds of work. There was no such sentiment among the
Jews as unhappily prevails in all so-called highly
civilized countries, that
there is a kind of degradation in having to work for your own
living. Every
Jewish boy was required to learn a trade, and the greatest
rabbis preserved
their dignity and learning along with service to the community
in some
humble occupation. (“in the sweat of
thy face shalt thou eat bread.”
(Genesis
3:19) - Consider:
there is one law more absolute for mankind than another, it is
that they
shall work. They are set in this earth-garden, as Adam
was in
win it, to use its forces, to dress it, to keep it. For “work’
man is endowed.
He has muscles with the needed
physical strength, and hands with the
needed physical skill, and brains with the needed guidance and
control.
And he is in the midst of conditions
that demand work; the earth will only
yield her stores and her increase in response to man’s work. If a man “will
not work,” then the
law God has put into the very creation of the earth is,
that, “he shall not
eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10) And THIS
WORK-
CONDITION IS
DESIGNED BY GOD to bear directly on man’s
moral training. Only by and through
work can character grow
and unfold. Toil is testing and
trial, out of which alone can virtue
be born. So all work is noble and holy.
is lost. It becomes a diversified and complicated thing. As
men live
together in cities a thousand fresh wants, real and fancied, become
created,
and trades are multiplied for the supply of the thousand
wants. Work is
divided and subdivided; sometimes it seems a higher kind, and
sometimes a
lower. While some must work by hand, others are called forth to
work by
voice, and pen, and brush, and chisel, and brain. Thousands must
toil in
various ways to supply the necessaries of life, and tens of
thousands must
toil to supply the ever-increasing demand for luxuries. And so,
in civilized
times, work seems too often to grow into man’s curse; and he
toils at
sweat of brain as well as of face; and spends strength and
health and life in
winning bread from those who “fare sumptuously every day, and are
clothed in purple and fine linen” (Luke 16:19); and we cannot greatly
wonder that men should grow hard, and lose the high and inspiring
thought
of the DIGNITY OF WORK!
DIGNITY. Its usefulness to others. It must be done “not unto selL”
And
so God has “set the
solitary in families” (Psalm 68:6), and
put fathers
and mothers under the pressure of family responsibility, that
in toiling for
others they may win the joy of work.
TRUE PLACE. It must be done as service to God. Then work bears
upon the culture of religious character, and becomes a
stepping-stone upward
to the heavenly. Character is both exhibited and cultured by
it; and no kind of
occupation can be regarded as mean into which character can be put,
and by which others may be served, and God may be
glorified. Potters,
gardeners, hedgers, and workers in fine linen may all win the “Well done,
good and faithful servant.” (Luke 19:17)
24 “The
sons of Simeon were, Nemuel, and Jamin,
Jarib, Zerah, and
Shaul: 25 Shallum his
son, Mibsam his son, Mishma
his son.
26
And the sons of Mishma;
Hamuel his son, Zacchur his
son, Shimei
his son.
27 And Shimei
had sixteen sons and six daughters: but his
brethren had not many children, neither did all
their family multiply,
like to the children of
and occupies but small space as compared
with Judah preceding, or Levi and
Benjamin when their turn comes. The comparison of the
enumeration of
the
sons of Simeon here with that in Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15, is
helpful in detaching the idea that the compiler of Chronicles
copied direct
from Genesis and Exodus, or that he depended exclusively on identical
sources of information. That comparison shows six names in both of
those
passages for only five here, and it shows also difference in three
of the
names, viz. Jemuel, Zohar, and Jachin, for Nemuel, Zeta, and Jarib.
On the
other hand, the list of Numbers 26:12 is in exact agreement with
our
list here (the omission of Ohad in both being
sufficiently accounted for by
one
and the same reason), with the exception of Jarib
here for Jachin still
there; and this solitary difference may justly be suspected to
be nothing but
an
early corruption of resh for caph and beth
for nun. V. 25 contains three
descents from one of these — Shaul. Of Shallum, the first, it may be noted
that there are fourteen others of the same name in the Old Testament; and
of
Mibsam and Mishma (whom some call brothers, surely in error), that
there were others of the same name (and certainly given as
brothers), viz.
the
sons of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13-14; ch. 1:29-30). V.
26 adds apparently
another three descents, viz. from Mishma. Of the first-named of these,
Hamuel, it may be noted that the name appears in many Hebrew
manuscripts as Chammuel; of the
second-named, Zacchur, that six others
of
the same name (though the Authorized Version gives them Zaccur)
are
found in Numbers, the First Book of Chronicles, and Nehemiah;
while on
the
third, Shimei (of which name the Old Testament
contains fifteen
others), our attention is especially detained as father of
sixteen sons and six
daughters, though it is observed that his brethren (query Hammuel and
Zacchur) had not large families. The smallness of the whole tribe
relatively
to
census of Numbers 1:23, 27; 2:4, 13; 26:14. It is possible that
this
Shimei is the same with Shemaiah of v.
37.
28 “And
they dwelt at
29 And at Bilhah, and at Ezem, and at Tolad,
30 And at Bethuel,
and at
Hormah, and at Ziklag, 31
And at Bethmarcaboth, and Hazarsusim,
and
at Bethbirei, and
at Shaaraim. These were their cities unto the reign
of
David.
32 And their villages were, Etam, and Ain, Rimmon, and Tochen,
and Ashan, five
cities: 33
And all their villages that were round about the
same cities, unto Baal. These were their
habitations, and their genealogy.”
These “thirteen cities with their villages” and “five cities” are found, with some
slight differences, in Joshua 19:1-9 (compare 15:26-32, 42). They
were carved out
of
the “portion of
that elapsed between the first settlements,
viz. of
the
completion of the settlements westward
of Jordan (Joshua 18:1-6; compare
Judges 1:3,17). From the second of
these groups, Tochen (see suggestion in’
Speaker’s Commentary,’ in loc.) is omitted in Joshua 19:7, where
only
“four cities” are
summed. The allusion (v. 31) to the reign of David is
sufficiently explained by the fact that during his persecuted
wanderings he
was
often in the portion of Simeon, to three of the cities of which he sent
presents from the spoils of the Amalekites
(I Samuel 30:26-31); and
Ziklag became his own (I Samuel 27:6), special mention being made
of
how
it passed into the tribe of
given as Baalath-beer in Joshua 19:8,
where it is followed by the
addition “Ramath [height] of the
south.” It may be noted that this
description of the allotment of Simeon begins with Beer-sheba and ends
with Baalath-beer. The expression (v. 33), and
their genealogy” —
μc;j]y"t]hi infinitive
Hithp., used as a noun — will be more properly
translated,
their table of genealogy,
or their registration. The following μh,l; may then
refer to “their habitations” rather than themselves, so that the
clause, as a whole,
would mean, “These were their dwellings, and their registration
was correct to
them.” Bertheau, however, takes the meaning to be,
“And there was their family
register to them,” i.e. “They had their own family
register.”
Dwellings and Genealogies (v. 33)
In many instances the chronicler records not only the names
of the families
of
the
tribes. In this way family relationships and sentiment were
closely
connected with territorial possession. Even certain households were
attached to estates and villages. And as the Hebrews were an
agricultural
and
pastoral people, it was natural that they should cherish an hereditary
regard for the lands tilled by their fathers. The sons of Simeon
transmitted
to
their posterity certain cities and. villages. “These were their habitations,
and their genealogy.”
SANCTIONED.
There are many who, as travelers and explorers, as
soldiers and seamen, etc., may serve society without having any
fixed
abode; and homelessness may be profitable discipline in youth.
But,
generally speaking, a home is the best sphere of labor, the
best pledge of
diligence, the best guarantee of responsibility; and it is well for
those who,
from generation to generation, can retain the same feelings
towards an
ancestral abode.
WITH SUCH DWELLING-PLACES, ARE OF UNDOUBTED
SERVICE. The
public census, the domestic register, the family tree, the
civil and ecclesiastical registration of births, deaths, and
marriages, are all
valuable. They may be abused by pride, but they are more likely to
foster
humiliation. They are useful for civil purposes, contributive to
family
feeling and promote patriotism. The squire, the
yeoman, the laborer, are
all susceptible to the influence of hereditary feeling and
local associations.
places and certain families have been noticeable and memorable
for piety.
And true religion is not content
to deal with the individual; it seeks to
leaven families with its influence, and to penetrate villages,
cities,
and nations with its light and spiritual power and grace.
34 “And Meshobab, and Jamlech, and Joshah, the son of Amaziah,
35 And
Joel, and Jehu the son of Josibiah, the son of Seraiah, the son
of Asiel, 36 And Elioenai, and Jaakobah, and Jeshohaiah, and Asaiah,
and Adiel, and Jesimiel, and Benaiah, 37 And Ziza the son of Shiphi,
the son of Allon,
the son of Jedaiah, the son of Shimri,
the son of
Shemaiah; 38 These mentioned by their names were princes in their
families: and the house of their fathers increased
greatly. 39 And they
went to the entrance of Gedor,”
- The
place Gedor cannot be identified in
this connection. There is a town of the name situated in the mountainous
district
of
It is evident that this cannot be the place we require
here. There is another town
of
the name (ch. 12:7), probably belonging to Benjamin,
and which as little admits
of
being fitted in here. Both the Alexandrine and the
however, evidently read r;dG] for rdoG]. Now, Gerar of the Philistines
would suit
well for position and description, and also (Genesis 10:14) for the allusion
found here
(v. 40) to the dwelling there “of old” of the people of Ham. The Hebrew word,
however, generally applied to the
here of Gedor (ay]g;h", ravine).
Not only are references frequent to the fertility of
Gerar, but the significance of that in II Chronicles 14:14 speaks for itself. This
alteration of reading, however, with acceptance of the Septuagint
manuscripts,
cannot be regarded as altogether satisfactory – “even unto the east side of the
valley, to seek pasture for their flocks. 40 And they found fat pasture and
good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and
peaceable; for they of Ham
had dwelt there of old. 41 And these
written by name came in the days of
Hezekiah king of Judah, and smote their
tents, and the habitations that
were found there,” - So the
Authorized Version, which has mistakenly Anglicized
a
word which should have been left a proper name, “the Maonites,”
i.e. the people
elsewhere called in the Authorized Version the Mahunim.
In doing this, our translators
followed the Targum, copied by Luther and
Junius (but see Gesenius,
‘Thesaurus,’
1002 a; ‘Notes on Burckhardt,’ 1069; Bertheau,
in ‘Chronik.;’ and
Septuagint reading). Unto this day,
in this verse, as also in v. 43, must
not
be understood to mark the date of the compiler of Chronicles, but that
of
the document or authority upon which he as a compiler drew — anterior,
of
course, to the Captivity - “and
destroyed them utterly unto this day, and
dwelt in their rooms: because there was pasture
there for their flocks.”
These verses record an organized and determined movement in
quest of new
and
rich territory on the part of some of the tribe of Simeon. They were thirteen
princes of the tribe of Simeon who led the movement, possibly
representing
respectively the “thirteen cities” given above. The movement took place
in the
days of Hezekiah king of
had
increased greatly is probably mentioned as some explanation of the cause
of
the movement. Though in one name out of the thirteen (v. 35) the ancestors
are
traced to the third generation, and in another (v. 37) to the fifth, no name is
reached of the sons of Simeon enumerated in vs. 24-27. These mentioned
by their names is to be translated strictly these coming by names;
and it is open
to
question whether the word of v. 41, μybiWtK]h, be not omitted after
μyaiB;h"; so that the passage would read, “These that came, written by
names, were princes in
their families.” Of the names, twenty-two
in all,
found in these verses, just so much is known as is here written.
42 “And
some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men,
went to
and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi. 43 And they
smote the rest
of the Amalekites
that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day.”
These verses give the further exploits, with a view of
settlement, of certain of
the
tribe of Simeon. And of them we should prefer to apply to those already
mentioned (vs. 34-41), did the expression stand alone. But the
following
clause in apposition, of the sons of Simeon, seems intended to prevent
the
supposition that they are the Simeonites
to whom alone allusion is made. It is
a
question whether the movement of v. 42 is to be understood as arising out
of
that other the account of which closes in v. 41, or whether it were not a
coordinate movement. It still would probably enough spring from the
same
intrinsic causes. The allotment of the tribe of Simeon carved out of
that of
not
of the most numerous. Nor is it necessary to suppose — perhaps it is
rather necessary to correct the impression — that this
expedition, issuing
in
a permanent settlement, lay at all near the conquests of the “thirteen
princes.”
It is, on the whole, most natural to consider that one
event concludes with v. 41,
and
that the following events (vs. 42-43) are distinct and independent. All
requisite light as to who these “smitten Amalekites”
were, is for them too
significantly furnished by comparison of I Samuel 27:8; 30:1; II Samuel 8:12;
with I Samuel 14:48; 15:7. Of the names, five in number,
found in this verse,
just so much an no more is known.
The Simeonites
(vs. 31-43)
This tribe is classed with that of
taken out of their extensive territory (see Joshua 19:1). As
Simeon had
only a limited portion of the
accommodation elsewhere. In consequence of their sloth or cowardice,
some of the cities within their allotted territory were only nominally theirs,
and
were never taken from the Philistines till David’s time, when, the
Simeonites having forfeited all claim to them, he transferred them to
the
tribe of
first, with reference to this transfer, and second, with
reference to the sad
results that followed the supineness or
cowardice which characterized it.
Jacob, and that righteous retribution followed. Also we see how one sin
begets another. Cruelty has in
its train cowardice. True bravery and
magnanimity is the result of a nature ennobled by Divine grace.
Wherever
we find cruelty, there we may be certain to find cowardice
and supineness.
One strengthened
grace strengthens every other in the man. One
indulged sin weakens every grace, and begets sins which bear that
sin’s “image and superscription” at every turn and throughout
many generations. Simeon’s descendants, though not
personally guilty
of their father’s sin, have
the brand upon them. Their sins are
but the
outward ripple on the stream where their
father cast in the first stone
of crime. Thus Simeon’s sin
lived in
his generations. Thus men live long
after they are dead. All true living influence begins to be potent after we
have disappeared from the scene. How solemn, then, how awfully
responsible, is
each one’s life!
fight the Philistines and gain possession of their cities, David
took them
from them and allotted them to
our Lord’s words, “To him that hath [
and from him that hath not [Simeon] even that he hath
shall be
taken away”! (Matthew 25:29) See another consequence of this
supineness.
They sought larger territory, and found it in the pastures of
Gederah. For a time all
seemed bright and prosperous. But soon they
were attacked by foes, and had to fly to
been unnecessary had they been valiant, fought the Philistines, and
become possessed in reality of what they had only nominal
possession before. Reader, learn the solemn warning. “Fight
the good
fight of faith, lay
hold on eternal life” (I
Timothy 6:12); “Make your
calling and election sure” (II Peter 1:10). Make that nominal
possession of Christ — that profession of religion you wear — a reality,
a true and living possession. Thus will you, too,
save yourself from similar
results, and will reap your reward.
"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.