I Chronicles 5
THE SONS OF REUBEN (vs. 1-10)
1 “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he
was the
firstborn; but forasmuch
as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was
given unto the sons of
Joseph the son of
be reckoned after
the birthright. 2 For
brethren, and of him came
the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s:)”
The tribe of Reuben is now taken third in order by the
compiler, though Reuben
was
the first of all the sons of
respecting the degradation of Reuben and his loss of the rights of
primogeniture,
are
not to be understood, however, as mentioned in any way to account for his
standing third here. That Judah takes in any genealogy the first
place needs
no
other apology than that contained in this passage, “
above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler” (i.e. David, and in him
“David’s greater Son and Lord”). And that Simeon is taken immediately
after
him,
and because his tribe, in journeying, in settlement, and in
acknowledged friendship, was so nearly related to that of
important historical fact, a lesson and stern memento of crime, that
the tale
of
Reuben is here as elsewhere told. Indeed, in the remarkably exalting
language applied to Reuben (Genesis 49:3-4) by the dying father in
those
“blessings” of his sons which were
so marvelously living with prophecy,
that “blessing” seemed weighted with hard reality, and may really carry
this meaning: “O Reuben! Though
thou art my firstborn, though my might
and the beginning of
my strength, though the
excellency of dignity and the
excellency of power,” yet, because of thy boiling lust (Genesis 35:22)
“thou shall not excel.”
In that endowing charter of the patriarch’s deathbed,
the
birthright of Reuben is not in so many words given to Joseph and
his
sons, but what is given to Joseph is so abundant above the lot of all the
others, that we find no difficulty in accepting the formal
statement of the
fact here first found in this passage. The large measure of promise meted to
Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) rests, no doubt, upon the title
already referred
to.
There would seem to be also a righteous moral reason in Joseph after
all
becoming heir to the birthright, inasmuch as he was the eldest child of
her
who was
practice, would have been his first wife. How he remembered her,
and with
what determined practical consequence, the affecting passage, Genesis
48:1-7,16,21-22, sufficiently
reveals; yet compare Deuteronomy 21:15-17.
The meaning of the last clause of v. 1 is evidently that,
though thus
Reuben was the natural firstborn, and Joseph had really the
birthright, the
registration did not proceed in this instance (probably partly for the
very
reason of the ambiguity) by the order of birthright, but
everything yielded
to
the special call for precedence on the part of
The tribe of
genealogies. Reuben was the firstborn, and Joseph had the birthright;
but
precedence was given to
language in which Jacob, upon his dying bed, spoke of this one of
his
sons and the tribe of which he was the progenitor. (Genesis 49:8-12).
When the tribes were
numbered under Moses, that of
to exceed all the others in number. When the Israelites were
organized
for the war against the Canaanites,
the vanguard of the army. A similar precedence is accorded to
the tribe
of
ROYAL HOUSE.
Of
family of Jesse, and of that family the youthful David. The great
King of
when the separation of the kingdoms came about, the
was distinguished in many ways, both civil and religious,
above the sister
TRIBE SPRANG THE MESSIAH. JESUS, THE SON OF
DAVID was a
descendant from
tribe of
Mark the hand of God in family history.
and
sets down another. Families are sometimes selected to fulfill high
purposes; and when they are found faithful to their vocation honor
is put
upon them by Him who says, “them that honor
me I will honor.”
(I Samuel 2:30)
3 “The sons, I say, of Reuben the firstborn of
Pallu,
Hezron, and Carmi.” The four sons of
Reuben here given are first
enumerated in Genesis
46:9; then in Exodus 6:14; and again in Numbers 26:5-7,
where are also found the corresponding chief families of the
tribe, the
total of their fighting numbers amounting to 43,730, compared
with 46,500
at
the time of the Sinai census (Numbers 2:11), a
diminution due to the
plague for the idolatry of Baal-peor
(Numbers 25:9).
4 “The sons of Joel;” – From
which of the four sons of Reuben the line came
in
which Joel would appear, we do not know. Juntas and Tremellius say
Hanoch, others Carmi, while the Syriac
Version has Carmi vice Joel. It
is
to
be remarked that in Numbers 26:8-10 a line of descent through
Pallu is given, but reaching
only to the second generation, “Shemaiah
his son,
Gog his son,
Shimei his son, 5 Micah his son, Reaia his son, Baal his son,
6 Beerah his son,” - Beerah in the present list will be only ninth at furthest
from Reuben, so that it is evident that it is a very fragmentary genealogy,
whether the hiatus be only one, viz. between Reuben’s son
(whichever it may
be
in question) and Joel, or whether both there and elsewhere also. Of none
of
the eight persons beginning with Joel and ending with Beerah is anything
else known, unless either Shemaiah or Shimei may be
identical with the
Shema of v. 8, in which case it might be also that the Joel
of v. 8 is identical
with that of v. 4. In this passage
and ch.8:30 Baal appears as the name
of
a man. In this passage, and in v. 26 and II Chronicles 28:20, we
have a different form in each part of the word, of the Tiglath-pileser of
II Kings 15:29; 16:7. These slight differences in the
position of the
radicals, with the introduction or omission of the a, make as many as four
different readings in the Hebrew - “whom Tilgathpilneser king of
carried away captive: he was
prince of the Reubenites.” Tiglath-pileser,
the
second Assyrian king who came into conflict with the Israelites, reigned
about B.C. 747-727. Gesenius thinks that the former half of the
word is the
same as Diglath, i.q.
Nabo-polasaris, is from an
Assyrian verb meaning “to guard.” He translates
the
word as “Lord of the
Tigultipal- tsira (Smith’s
‘Bible Dictionary’), or Tukulti-pal-zara (‘Speaker’s
Commentary,’ in loc.). The Captivity is spoken of further in the last verse
of
this chapter and in II Kings 15:27-31. The Septuagint reads vs. 4-5
differently: “The sons of Joel,
Semei and Banaea his son; and the
sons of Gog the son of
Semei,” etc., and this in all three editions —
7 “And his brethren by their families, when the genealogy of
their
generations was reckoned,
were the chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah,
8 And Bela the son of
Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Joel, who
dwelt in Aroer, even
unto Nebo and Baalmeon:” Of Jeiel, Zechariah,
Bela, and Asaz nothing further is known. Shema and Joel
may be those
of
v. 4, as above. The expression, his
brethren, i.e. the brethren of Beerah,
must be read generally. The intimation,
when
the genealogy of their
generations was reckoned, is probably explained by the contents of
v. 17
(of which hereafter). Aroer (r[ero[}
or r[ewOr[]); a place east of the
overhanging the torrent of Arnon,
which was a boundary between
and
the Amorites, and afterwards between
little
doubt that Burckhardt has identified the
ruins of Aroer (see Numbers
32:38; Deuteronomy
2:24, 36; 3:8, 12, 16; Joshua 12:1-2; 13:9, 16;
Judges 11:13, 26, where note transposition of letters in
the Hebrew;
II Kings 10:33). Moab seems to have regained it later
(Jeremiah 48:1-47; see
“Arnon” and “Aroer,” Smith’s’ Bible
Dictionary’). Nebo and Baal-meon
are
also mentioned together in Numbers 32:38; and Baal-meon with
Ezekiel 25:9. This Nebo, the town, is distinct
from Mount Nebo. It is remarkable
that it is not mentioned, unless under one of the “changed” names (Numbers
32:38), in the list of the towns of
Reuben (Joshua 13:15-23). Nebo was the
name of a heathen deity, known among the Chaldeans (Isaiah 46:1),
Babylonians, and Assyrians; and this constituted one
reason, if not the
reason, for changing its name when it had been affixed to the
Moabite city.
Birthrights and Supremacies (v. 2)
A significant fact of the early history of the patriarchs
is here brought to
remembrance. It is one so curious as to carry suggestions and lessons
for
all
the ages, and so is recorded for our instruction. By providential
arrangement the tribal birthright was Reuben’s; he, however, lost it
through his wrongdoing, and his father shifted it from the eldest
son of his
first wife to the eldest son of his second but really his own
chosen wife —
from Reuben to Joseph. Man’s
adjustments of the Divine order are not
always sealed by God.
Jacob’s were not in this case. As the years passed
on,
this tribe came the permanent Davidic dynasty. Joseph, represented by the
tribe of Ephraim, struggled, age after age, to keep the
birthright place, but
in
vain; and in the conflict of the two tribes we may find illustration of the
hopelessness of pressing mere human adjustments against the
providential order. Neither the individual nor the community may ever
hope
to “resist
God and prosper.” It is ever ILL WORK “running
upon the bosses of Jehovah’s buckler.” (Job 15:26)
is exactly what we, in
our self-will, are ever striving to do. Even
when we know what is God’s will, we try to get it twisted about
so
that it may at least
seem to conform to our will. This is a
very
common but very subtle form of Christian error and
sin. We
know
what we wish or want, so we deceive ourselves into the idea that this
is what God wishes or wants for us, and fail in that simple
openness to
Divine
lead which is the right spirit to cherish. Scripture illustrations may
be found in Rebekah, whose will was to gain the
birthright and blessing
for her favorite son, so she took the Divine order into her own adjustment,
and won those things for him by
deceptions which, very properly, brought
heavy penalties on her and on him (Genesis 27). Or in
Balaam, who
professed to do exactly what God wished him to do, and yet evidently did
what he himself planned to do, forcing from God that fatal “Go.”
(Numbers 22:20,35; see
31:8). Or in
Saul, who could not simply wait
God’s time and the arrival of his
prophet, but, arranging the Divine order
according to his own self-will, must himself offer the sacrifice. (I Samuel
15) The forms in which nowadays men take the ordering of their lives
into their own hands
may be illustrated, and, as a contrast, mention
may be made of David, who, though tempted to slay King Saul,
would
not interfere with the Divine order, though he might easily
have seemed
to himself to have been only fulfilling the Divine promise. WE MUST
WAIT FOR GOD AS
WELL AS ON HIM!
ORDER. Not in
the helplessly passive way of poor aged Eli, but in an
active and loyal way, we may say, “It is the Lord; let him do what
seemeth
Him good.” (I Samuel 3:18) Keble expresses
the right state
of mind for the child of God, in his picture of the man sanctified by affliction,
“wishing,
no longer struggling, to be free.”
The Divine order for our life may
differ wholly from the
order of our own planning. It may even seem to flesh
and blood painful
and humiliating. Still let life unfold, and it proves the way
of best blessing
for us and for others through us. (“And we know that
all things work together for the good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28).
Let eternity unfold, and we sing through all the ages of the “good
way
wherein the Lord our God led us.”
David shows us the attitude to
which the Divine order is revealed. “The meek will He guide in
judgment, and the
meek will He teach his way.” (Psalm 25:9)
HIGHER THINGS THAN HIS BIRTH PROMISED. Illustrate from
weakness of hereditary disease, who have been led in God’s
providence to
high place, powers, and usefulness. Let us find our faculty and
endowment.
It is THE KEY TO GOD’S PURPOSE IN OUR LIFE, let us develop it.
Life will then bring to us its
best. Let us but follow on along the line of our
Divine endowment,
and even the “least may become the first.”
Reuben (vs. 1-8)
Reuben was the eldest son of Jacob. The birthright which
was his, included
dominion and a double portion; both of
these were forfeited by sin (see
Genesis 49:3-4) and were transferred to Joseph. But as
Joseph’s
posterity was not mentioned first, the historian explains by saying
that the
genealogy was not to be reckoned by birthright, as the
superior honor
and
privilege had been previously conferred on
preeminence over all the tribes, not on account of Judah himself, but
because Christ, “the chief Ruler” (see v. 2), was to come out of it.
Reuben’s sin comes in here as a parenthesis. God will brand sin wherever
He sees it. It is no trifle with Him, nor does He ever forget
it. Only
one thing
can blot it
out — THE
BLOOD OF THE LAMB! We may forget it, but
He will make it to come in as a parenthesis in OUR OWN LIFE or in
that of our posterity, that we may learn what an evil and bitter thing it
is, and that
He will not trifle with it. But these fruits of sin,
these parentheses, how they
come in ages after:
o
marring the
brightest escutcheon,
o
hindering our
blessing, and
o
tarnishing God’s glory!
The curse of our crime is handed down through generations,
and the innocent
child is humiliated and thrown back and its fairest prospects
blighted. Again
we have
Christ brought before us, at the
opening of this chapter, in the
prominence given to the tribe of
so
always. Nature’s order is reversed in the
be
first, and the first shall be last” (Mark 9:35).
This is the law of God’s
kingdom. Man’s rejected is God’s chosen.
Grace, and not nature, takes the lead.
Little did Reuben’s posterity judge of the chief reason why he was set
aside. Little
did
down one and raising up another with reference to the future manifestation
and
glory of His dear Son. To human eye this did not appear. Thus was
God working behind the scenes, working out the counsels of
His own will,
and
all with a view to the glory of Christ. So it is now. We see the sin of
man
as in Reuben; we see the counterworking of Satan, crossing, to all
human appearance, the purposes of God; but BEHIND ALL GOD IS
WORKING! God is raising up one and putting down another, and all
with
reference to the advancement of the kingdom and glory of His dear Son.
It does
not appear so to our
short-sighted judgment, but we are no judges of God’s
ways and thoughts: “His ways are
not our ways, nor his thoughts our
thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Behind every
little event in your daily life
God is working. And He is never more really carrying out His purposes of
wisdom and grace and love than when those events seem to run counter to this
end.
Judge of God’s
ways by the opposite. The more apparently opposed the
more really He is there.
Reuben might have had a far more honorable and influential
position than he and
his
posterity enjoyed. Circumstances favored it; God would have been willing to
sanction it. But he forfeited it by
his sin (v. 1). His shameful
incontinence lowered
the
level of his fortunes
and of those of his children. Had he been a
better man he
would have held a larger share of prominence and power. Character is a
strong thread in the cord of human destiny. What we shall be in
the world, to what
we
shall rise, and what heritage we shall leave to our children, — all this
depends in very large part indeed on the character we form in
youth;
o
purity,
o
sobriety,
o
honesty,
o
diligence,
o
sagacity,
o
courage,
o
civility (pleasantness of
address),
these are the constituents of success. When these are absent,
life must be a
failure; when present, it is almost certain to be a success. But
there is one
thing not to be overlooked, viz. that we may make sure and must
make
sure of the destiny of the good and holy — “the
heritage of them that fear
God’s Name.” Apart from this, success is short-lived and superficial.
With
this, temporal misfortunes may be calmly borne, for beyond is an everlasting
portion which will make these soon to be forgotten.
9 “And eastward he inhabited unto the entering in of the
wilderness
from the river
the
yet
others apply it to Joel It would
seem nearest the facts to apply it to the
main subject
of the paragraph — Reuben. Gilead (Deuteronomy 3:12-16)
had
for its boundaries, on the north Bashan, on the south
east the
invasion and frequent encounter with desert tribes (Joshua 17:1;
Numbers 26:29-30).
10 “And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites,
who fell
by their hand: and
they dwelt in their tents throughout all the east
presumably from Hagar or Ishmael (though ch. 27:30-31, and Psalm 78:6
are
somewhat needlessly interpreted to be opposed to this) is here
alluded to.
It takes us to the time of Saul, and from that time up to
the time of “the
Captivity” (v. 22) the victorious Reubenites, Gadites, and
people of the
half-tribe Manasseh had the benefit of enlarged domain at their
expense:
“They dwelt in
their steads,” after seizing great spoil.
It is exceedingly
likely that we have the perpetuation of the name Hagarenes in the
Agraeei
(modern Hejer) of Strabo, 16:767; Pliny, ‘Hist. Nat.,’ 6:32; Dionysius, ‘Perieg.,’
956;
Pt. 5:2. Hagarenes, Hagarites: (named after Hagar), a people dwelling to
the east of
Saul. (vs. 10,18-20)
The same people, as confederate against
mentioned in (Psalms 83:6) It is
generally believed that they were named
after Hagar, and that the important town and
district of Hejer , on the
borders of the
The Tribe of Gad (vs. 11-17)
The tribe of Gad
occupies but few lines. Gad was born seventh in order of all
the
sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:9- 12), and first of the children of Leah’s maid
Zilpah. The compiler seems to pass easily on to Gad, from the mere
circumstance
of
the name of the tribe being so constantly linked with that preceding, in the
matter of local settlement on the east of
wilderness (Joshua 13:7-8). The geography in vs. 11 and 16 offers
very little
difficulty. Compared with the time of the first settling of the
Gadites
(Deuteronomy 3:10-13; Joshua 13:25, 30), it is evident that
they
had
pushed their borders further to the north, trenching somewhat upon the
lot
of the half-tribe Manasseh, as they also in turn extended their limits
northward to Hermon (v. 23). This reconciles Joshua 13:30 with the
present passage.
11 “And the children of Gad dwelt over against them, in the
land of
probably to be identified as the modern Sulkhad, at the
extreme eastern
point of the plain Hauran, which is bordered by the
desert. “In Gilead in
Bashan” may be read, with some, as two coordinate places,
separating them
by
a stop; or may point to a time when
the
well-known Sharon of Carmel and the
unmentioned elsewhere, probably distinguished sufficiently
from it by the
absence of the article, which is invariably prefixed to the other.
Stanley’s
suggestion (‘Sinai and
exceedingly apt, that it is one in fact, as one in derivation and
meaning, with
the
Mishor (i.e. “level ]ands,” “table-land”) of Gilead and
explanation, however, the term “suburbs” does not so well agree. Upon
the
other side, distant as the well-known
be
found with it, in that the other Manasseh half-tribe stretched into its
plains; and in that case the last word of the verse, μt;wOa[]wOT, might
mean (Joshua 17:9) “the outgoings” of
the land or regions in question to
the
“sea”-coast.
12 “Joel the chief, and Shapham the next, and Jaanai, and Shaphat
in
connection with the same persons elsewhere. The Septuagint translates
Shaphat as “the scribe,”
applying the description to the foregoing Jaanai.
13 “And their brethren” - This chapter (see v. 7) seems to introduce the use
of
this word, which must be understood generically. The seven persons are
nowhere else mentioned -
“of the house of their fathers were, Michael, and
Meshullam,
and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven.”
14 “These are the children of Abihail” - i.e. the seven “brethren” of the
preceding verse. A rapid line of descent, or rather of ascent,
consisting of ten
generations, from Abihail to Guni, here follows -“the son of Huri, the son of
Jaroah, the son
of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai,
the son of Jahdo,
the son of Buz;” The division between these verses has
unfortunately cut in half one name, i.e. Buzahi. The translators of the Septuagint
saw
that the two verses composed one line of ascent, but instead of piecing
“Ahi” to “Buz,”
translated it as “brother.” Though
this line takes us some way
back, we find nowhere else any clue or identification of any of these ten
persons.
Of the twenty-one persons in all, therefore, named as
belonging to the tribe of
Gad, nothing else is known; and we have nothing to guide us
to connect
them with any one rather than another of the original “sons of Gad”
(Genesis 46:16; Numbers 26:15-18) 15 Ahi the son of Abdiel, the son of
Guni,
chief of the house of their fathers. 16 And
they dwelt in
Bashan, and in
her towns, and in all the suburbs of Sharon, upon their
borders.”
17 “All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of
Jotham king
of
the
language of this verse would indicate that
two genealogies are intended.
This quite tallies with the fact
that there were two chronicles,
one for each
division of the nation, i.e. “the chronicles of the kings
of
15:6) and “the
chronicles of the kings of Israel”
(Ibid. v.11), in which same
chapter both Jeroboam II of Israel and Jotham of
Judah are spoken of, the
latter beginning to reign in
very confused here) after the death of the former. Although presumably it
would be an object of closer interest with
the
registration of the Gadite genealogy, yet it was most just that
should do so as well. This would both vindicate Judah’s own right
place
and
be a happy omen of the continued predominance of her position
compared with that of
actual registration, however, it is quite possible that, so long
as history ran
by
the side of history. Israel would gather and keep all it could of Judah,
and
The next five verses appear to be the fuller development of
the war in Saul’s time,
mentioned in v. 10 — the account apparently there delayed till the
genealogy of
the
tribe of Gad had been given, and which still seems premature till the contents
of
vs. 23 and 24 should have been given.
18 “The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and half the tribe of
Manasseh, of valiant
men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and
to shoot with bow,
and skilful in war, were four and forty thousand
seven hundred and
threescore, that went out to the war. 19 And they made
war with the
Hagarites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and Nodab.
20 And they
were helped against
them, and the Hagarites were delivered into their hand,
and all that were
with them: for they cried to God in the battle, and He was
intreated of them; because
they put their trust in Him.” The name of Nodab
we
have not elsewhere; but those of Jetur
and Nephish are names from the very
origin of the tribe of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13-16; ch.1:29-31). It would be
possible to consider
them here as in apposition with the description, the Hagarites
(respecting whom see note on v.
10); but they may more probably be regarded as
favorite names, still repeated in the descendants of the
tribe. The people of
Nephish have not made their mark deep on the page of
ethnographic history;
but
the people of Jetur have done so. Their stinted territory appears in the name
Ituraea (Luke 3:1). Their people reappear also (Josephus, ‘Ant.,’
13. e. 11, § 3;
Strabo, 16:518, 520). Nor is it an unnoticeable contribution to the truth of our
history here to put, side by side with the description of the
qualities and of the
arms
and weapons of warfare of the Manassites and their helpers of Reuben
and
Gad (v. 18), those of the Ituraeans, their antagonists (Virgil, ‘Georg.,’
2:448; Cicero, ‘Philippians,’ 2:44; Luean, ‘Pharsalia,’
7:230).
21 “And they took away their cattle; of their camels fifty
thousand, and
of sheep two
hundred and fifty thousand, and of asses two thousand, and
of men” – literally, of the soul, i.e. life of men (compare
II Kings 7:7 with
Jeremiah 44:7, in illustration of the twofold application
of vp,n,; see also
Numbers 31:19, 28, 32-35) - “an hundred thousand. 22 For there fell
down many slain,
because the war was of God. And they dwelt in their
steads until the
captivity.”
The Half Tribe of Manasseh (vs. 23-24)
“The half-tribe of Manasseh” is here very briefly mentioned. Manasseh and
his
brother Ephraim stand in the place of Joseph, both the children of Joseph’s
Egyptian wife, Asenath, and born before the famine. Though Manasseh
was
the
elder, Jacob gave the chief blessing (Genesis 48:10-22) to Ephraim. The
Manassites were descended from Manasseh through his son
Machir, born of a
Syrian concubine (Septuagint, Genesis 46:20; 50:23; Numbers
26:28-34;
Joshua 17:1-3; ch. 7:14-15). Machir evidently was spes
gregis (hope of the
flock), though apparently
not the only son, for see Asriel, or Ashriel, in
above references), and is repeatedly mentioned with his son
probable that the division of the tribe was determined partly
according
to
the energy of those who composed it at the time of division — the more
warlike being more adapted to the east of
distinctly mentioned westward, as well as with
Judges 5:14-17; Joshua 13:29-31). (For the further
prosecution of this part
of
the subject, see Exposition on ch.7:14-19.)
23 “And the children of the half tribe of Manasseh dwelt in
the land:
they increased from
need scarcely be read as different names for exactly the same region, but
as
designating different sides or heights of what was essentially one and
the
same well-known mountain district, with which would agree Psalm
42:6, “Therefore will
I remember thee from the land of Jordan and of the
Hermonites, from the hill
Mizar.’ So Deuteronomy 3:8-10 tells
us that
Hermon was called Sirion by the Sidonians; Shenir, i.q. “and Senir,”
(rynic], exactly the same word in the Hebrew text in all the four
places
of
its occurrence — Song of Solomon 4:8; Ezekiel 27:5), by the Amorites.
And the suggestion of Grove is likely enough, that Baal-hermon
was the
Phoenician cast of the name. If any point were to be gained
by reading
the
names, however, as intended to cover exactly the same tract, it may be
noted
“even;” and
Hermon itself, would so far favor it.
“and unto mount Hermon.”
24 “And these were the heads of the house of their fathers,
even Epher,
and Ishi, and Eliel,
and Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and
Jahdiel, mighty
men of valour, famous men, and heads of the
house of their
fathers.” Epher; same root with Ophrah (Judges 6:11, 15).
Of the seven
heads of this half-tribe here quoted, no individual mention is
made elsewhere. Chapter 12:19-22 confirms their renown for
valor.
The “transgressors” here described include manifestly not this half-tribe
Manasseh alone, but the other tribes of
25 “And they transgressed against the God of their fathers,
and went a
whoring” – (Wnz]Y"w"); so II Chronicles 21:11, 13. This verb, in one form
of
its root or another, occurs as many as ninety-seven (97) times in the
Pentateuch, Judges, Joshua, Psalms, Proverbs; and prophets,
for only
twice in Kings and four times in Chronicles, in all the rest of
the Old Testament
writings - “after the gods of
the people of the land, whom God destroyed
before them.”
26 “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of
Assyria, and
the spirit of
Tilgathpilneser king of
These two were chosen ministers of God’s will, if not ministers of Himself.
We can identify the date of this punishment which befell the transgressing
Israelites east of the
(II Kings 15:15-20), may be interpreted and might have operated as a lesson
and
a warning. He was bought off with a
thousand talents of silver. It seems
to
be said with significance, “So the king of
not there in the land.” It was in the reign of Pekah, the usurping successor of
Menahem’s son Pekahiah, that the completer punishment fell,
and
Tilgathpilneser effected the
captivity spoken of here and in II Kings 15:27-29.
The name Pul cannot, it would appear, be a pure
Assyrian name, and there
is
reason to think it may be identified with Vul-lush (grandson of the
Shalmaneser who warred with Benhadad, etc.), a name found
on Assyrian
monuments, and belonging to a king who reigned at
(see “Pul,” Smith’s ‘Bible
Dictionary’). Tilqath-pilneser (see notes on
v. 6) was probably the founder of the lower dynasty of
Assyria, and first
king of the new empire. His first invasion was one chiefly of Israel and
Samaria (II Kings 15:29; Isaiah 9:1). His second was of a
much
more significant character. Called in to aid Judah under Ahaz against Pekah
of
brought into vassalage
28:6-8; Isaiah 9:1). “and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and
the Gadites, and the
half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto
Halah, and Habor,
and Hara, and to the river Gozan,” – This
enumeration exceeds that of II Kings 17:6 by the addition of Hara,
important as helping with consistent witness to the antiquity of the
region
described. Halah (not the “Calah” of Genesis 10:11) is
believed to be
identifiable with Chalcitis, its verbal resemblance to which
comes out a
little more evidently in its Hebrew form (jl"j}). A trace of it possibly
remains in the name of a hill, Gla, on the Khabour, i.q.
Habor of this
passage, an important tributary of the
Ezekiel. This name Khabour is found in an Assyrian
inscription dating
upwards of eight centuries before Christ. The mention of Habor in
II Kings 17:6 and 18:11 is, in the Authorized Version, made
to convey the
impression of a place “by ”the
“
Hebrew says, “the
the
Authorized Version, incorrectly translated as a river itself, instead of
the
region of a river. It is, according to the testimony of Layard (‘Nineveh
and Babylon,’ pp. 270-312), a remarkably fertile tract,
being the
Gauzanitis of Ptolemy,
and substantially the Mygdonia of Polybius and
Strabo. Hara; hr;j;, with little doubt,
the same as ˆr;j;,
(Genesis 11:31), the ancient adopted home of Abraham, in
Padan-aram,
in
Mesopotamia, on the Belik, a small tributary of the
Greek Carrhae of Strabo and
Polybius. These four names purport to
give
us,
probably in brief, the information that those of the Captivity here
alluded to were divided — some to settle at Halab on one river,
some in
Hara on another, and the rest in
the district called Gauzanitis. The region
called Halah and that called Gauzanitis, however, were both
watered by
the
Khabour, and therefore the insertion of the name
inserted occasions some difficulty - “unto this day.”
Devotion, Declension, and Doom (vs. 18-26)
In this brief story we have a painfully characteristic
piece of human history
— first, spiritual soundness; then consequent
prosperity; then laxity and
sin; then punishment and disaster. We trace the steps.
These two tribes and a half were
brave and godly men: “valiant men”
(v.18);
godly men also, for they “cried
to God in the battle, and they put their
trust in Him” (v.
20); and it is clear that they were acting so much under
the direction and in the service of Jehovah that it could be
said of their
struggle “the war was of
God” (v. 22). It is possible that a
war of the
same kind, a struggle between contending armies, may now be “of
God,”
and that godly soldiers may cry, with genuine and acceptable
devotion, for
Divine succor. But such engagements are rare. The illustration of this
truth is found now in other fields:
Ø
in the battle of life;
Ø
in the struggle
against particular evils, such as drunkenness, impurity,
Ø
in the great missionary campaign.
Here are three principal virtues
in all moral and spiritual warfare — valor (v. 18),
prayer (v. 20), and trust in His Word (Ibid).
helped against them, and the Hagarites were
delivered into their hand,”
(Ibid). Beside the security and joy of victory came possessions
(Ibid. v.21)
and a home (vs. 22-23). Those who, in the battles they fight
under God,
strive in accordance with His will, manfully, prayerfully, and
expectantly,
will certainly be rewarded with
Ø
the joy of victory,
Ø
increase of power and
spiritual wealth, and
Ø
the approval and reward of the Divine Captain.
Too often — ALAS FOR HUMAN INFIRMITY — comes:
their fathers,” (v. 25). Their
comfortable prosperity led to free
intercourse with ungodly neighbors, and this to laxity of
thought and
word, and this,
ultimately, to defection and rank
disobedience. So is it
only too often in the history of men, of Churches, of nations.
Their early
piety leads to an enjoyable prosperity; this leads to intimate association
and intercourse with those LESS
DEVOUT AND PURE and this
to
CONTAMINATION and CORRUPTION It is the course which
humanity has taken in every dispensation, in every land, in every
Church;
not necessarily, but with a lamentable frequency. So common is
the case
that all prosperous piety may well hear a loud voice bidding it
BEWARE!
(Deuteronomy
6:10-12). Spiritual declension is unperceived in its
beginning; spreads through the soul — through the ranks — with
perilous
subtlety; grows with gathering rapidity; is increasingly hard to
overcome; is
fatal in its final issues. (The chains of habit are too light to
be felt until they
are too strong to be broken) - It leads to:
DEFEAT and EXILE — in NATIONAL DESTRUCTION
(v. 26).
It ends, with us:
Ø
In utter defeat and failure;
so that the purpose of our life, whether
individual or collective, is wholly thwarted.
Ø In spiritual exile; in DISASTROUS SEPARATION FROM
GOD. He is no longer with
us as He once was; (Consider the
case of Samson – “he
awoke out of his sleep, and said, I
will go
out as at other times before, and shake myself.
And he wist not that
the Lord was departed from him.”-
Judges 16:20). He is no longer in
us. (Because we no longer
keep His commandments – John 14:23 – CY – 2012) We live
apart from Him in a far country
(like the prodigal son – Luke 15)
Ø
In saddest disappointment. The Master is grieved that His
church (his disciple) has fallen from its (his) high estate; the
good
and wise grieve over
one more deplorable defection.
The Sin of Idolatry and Its Judgments (v.
25)
In the Divine wisdom it had been planned that the idolatrous
Canaanites
should be wholly dispossessed, so that no remnants of the race
should
exert an evil influence on God’s people when settled in their
lands. Such a
plan distinctly intimates the Divine sense of
the peril in which the contact
of idolatry
would place an unsophisticated people.
And such the Israelites
were, for though their fathers had known Egyptian idolatry, the race that
entered
to carry out fully the
Divine plan. Some of the Canaanites were
left
unconquered through the hurry of the tribes to locate themselves on
their
alloted lands. Some were left because the people had not faith in
God
enough to conquer them. And these
remnants became a snare and a trap to
the
simple people, who were easily fascinated by ceremonial and licence.
We learn:
spiritual Christianity, we sometimes wonder how any one can be
attracted
by the helpless and often hideous idols of heathen nations,
or deceived by
the claims of their priests; and yet the appeal of idolatry
being to certain
marked features of human nature, a little searching might show
idolatry, in
a skilful disguise, even imperiling our spiritual
Christianity, and it is not
quite certain that any of us could claim the right to “cast the
first stone.”
To what in man does idolatry
make its appeal?
Ø
To the sensuous element. We want everything
brought within
the sphere of the senses, and we only consider that we know
what
the senses can apprehend. So it is ever attractive to man to
offer
him his God as within the grasp of his senses. He will delude
himself
into the idea that the sense-form only helps him to realize the
spiritual
and invisible Being, the great Spirit, but almost inevitably the sense-
hold becomes
a slavery, and the thing seenis
accepted as the reality.
Ø
To the aesthetic element, or taste, the love of the
beautiful. A
Spiritual and invisible God
asks from His creatures a spiritual and
invisible worship, with a material expression held within careful
limitations. A God within sense-limits only asks sense-service,
and man satisfies
himself with making it ornate, elaborate,
and the perfection of taste, according to the sentiment
of the age.
Illustrate from refined Greek humanism.
(Humanism
has again raised its ugly head in our day in the form of
“secular humanism.” It is hardly any more than a form of
“SELF-WORSHIP” – CY – 2012)
Ø
To the active element. Idolatry has
something for its votaries to do,
many prayers to say, pilgrimages to take, sacrifices to bring,
good
works by which to win favor.
Ø
To the sensual element. All idolatrous
systems are more or less
immoral, and give licence to the bodily lusts and passions. The
purity of the claims of
spiritual religion constitute, for man as he is,
one of its chief disabilities.
covenant; what may be known of God by them declares Him as above
His creation,
and naturally claiming first and sole allegiance (see Paul’s
speech at
within the covenant; a
special aggravation is its sin against light and against
its own pledge. Idolatry is a rash sin, for it sins against
the basis commandment,
which requires us to
love God first. Its sinful character
is sufficiently
revealed and declared in its corrupting
and debasing influence. It “brings
forth death.” (James
1:15)
the deterioration of the nations that serve idols. It is usually also
MATERIAL and is seen in the mental, moral, and governmental slavery
of the nations where idol-gods are
sought. Divine judgments often — we
can hardly say always — take their
character from the sins which they judge.
John’s counsel, is “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
(I John 5:21)
"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.