I Chronicles 7
1 “Now the
sons of Issachar were, Tola, and Puah,
Jashub, and Shimrom,
four.” The great
tribes of Judah and Levi being now passed, as well as the
minor ones of Simeon, Reuben, and Gad, we reach the sons
of Issachar. Issachar
was
Jacob’s fifth son by Leah (Genesis 35:23). In the list of Genesis 46:13 our
Puah (ja;Wp) appears
differently spelt as Phuvah (jW;pu), and Jashub is
found as
Job, which is corrected by the Samaritan Codex to Jashub,
and this reading the
Septuagint follows. In the other parallel passage (Numbers 26:23)
the Phuvah
form obtains, but the other names are the same as here. Tola. We read (Judges
10:1-2) of another person of this name, who judged
Shamir, in
Dodo,
a man of Issachar.” This is a good
instance of how the use of the same
names, though in different order, clung to a tribe or family
through long periods.
2 “And the
sons of Tola; Uzzi, and Rephaiah, and Jeriel, and Jahmai,
and Jibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their father’s house, to wit, of
Tola: they were valiant men of might in their
generations; whose
number was in the days of David two and twenty
thousand and six
hundred.” The six sons of Tola given
here are stated to be the six heads of
the
house at the time of the census of David (II Samuel 24:1-17). The verse
further states that the Tolaites had
grown to number at that time twenty-two
thousand six hundred, and as this fact is
not stated elsewhere, it is pretty clear
proof that the compiler had other sources of information in
addition to those
possessed by us.
3 “And the
sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and
the sons of Izrahiah; Michael,
and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah,
five: all of them chief men.” The names of
Izrahiah’s sons count up only four; but if, with four of Kennicott’s
manuscripts,
the
words, and the sons of Izrahiah, should be omitted,
the five will count right
for
sons
of Uzzi, and the little clause beginning this verse
will correspond exactly
with that beginning v. 2. The Syriac,
however, does not omit “and the sons of
Izrahiah;” but alters the numeral “five” to “four.”
4 “And
with them, by their generations, after the house of their fathers,
were bands of soldiers for war, six and thirty
thousand men: for they had
many wives and sons. 5 And
their brethren among all the families of
Issachar were valiant men of might,
reckoned in all by their genealogies
fourscore and seven thousand.” The meaning of these verses, especially of
the
former of them, is not quite evident. This seems to say that as the Tolaites
were in David’s time twenty-two thousand six hundred, so the Uzzites taken
from among them (or the “sons of Izrahiah,” as the case may be) numbered
thirty-six thousand additional. But were not the Uzzites included in the
Tolaites?
and did not the figure thirty-six thousand embrace the
accumulated numbers, whilst the balance of fifty-one thousand
necessary to
make up the eighty-seven thousand of v. 5, was drawn from all the other
branches of the Issachar tribe? This is not the view, however,
generally
taken, and if the numbers of vs. 2 and 4 are distinct, the
balance needful
for
v. 5 will, of course, be twenty-eight thousand four hundred. It cannot
be
denied that this view is favored by the special description applied to
these Uzzites, or Izrahiahites,
as bands of soldiers for war; their
disposition
and
their training constituting possibly the reason of their being singled out
for
further description from among the sons of Tola. The
statement of the
total number of the tribe of Issachar in David’s time is
wonderfully
corroborated by the two censuses of Moses — Numbers 1:28-29, fifty-four
thousand four hundred; and Numbers 26:23-25, sixty-four thousand
three
hundred. The total of Issachar, four score and seven thousand, is a good
proportion of the aggregate total of all the tribes, given (II Samuel 24:8-9)
as
eight hundred thousand. Grove, however, adds
all the above numbers, and
makes thereby Issachar’s total (see Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’
1:901 b) one
hundred and forty-five thousand
six hundred, which seems disfavored by the
numbers at the second census
of Moses. At the time of this census Issachar
came third of all the tribes, only
Judah and Dan taking precedence. The
expression bands of soldiers for war culminates in the word (μydiWdg])
“bands,” which is
applied (Genesis 49:19) to Gad, and almost invariably to
the
irregular but special bodies of fighting men of the nations round (Authorized
Version, ch.12:23 is incorrect,
the Hebrew word being different). The
examples are too numerous to quote, but some of the more important
instances are II Kings 6:23; 13:20; 24:2; Hosea 6:9; 7:1.
The Divine Gift of Physical Strength (vs.
2-5)
It is remarked as being the peculiar trust and endowment of
some men that
they were bodily strong. They are spoken of as “valiant men of might.” In
the
line of this endowment came their life-mission, and in the use of this
trust they would be finally judged. On Paul’s principle that the
“body
is
for the Lord, and the
Lord for the body” (I Corinthians 6:13),
we are delivered
from sentimental undervaluing of our physical frame, and consequent neglect
of
its culture into health and vigor, or monastic efforts to humble it into a
due
subjection to the spirit. In view of the relations between bodily
strength and religious life, we ought to regard health, vigor,
energy of
frame, as great gifts from God and, as all Divine gifts are, great and
responsible trusts. In the older times
physical strength found its readiest
sphere in armies and wars. So the vigor indicated in these verses
took the
form of valor. The modern sentiments concerning peace and war
materially differ from those of earlier ages. The modern admiration
of
peace and horror of offensive war befit a condition of advanced
civilization
and
the tolerably complete division of the earth’s habitable countries
among the different races and nations. Still, we must fully
recognize that
war
has had its important place in the ordering and training of the world. It
has
often proved to be the best judgment on, and corrective of, serious
moral evils; and so there has always been a place and a work for
the
“mighty man of valor.” On
Joubert’s principle, “Force till right is ready,”
the
physical restraints of social order must come before the intellectual and
moral ones; and in such early times and first stages of national
development, physical strength, warlike skill, power of command, and
valor, are properly recognized as Divine gifts, and they are as
truly such
as
are the gifts of statesmanship, diplomacy,
and arbitration in quieter,
more developed, more civilized times. The laws that regulate the use of all
our
bodily gifts may be effectively illustrated in relation to this one of
valor. It may be pointed
out:
piety.
And there is still the place and the work for the gift of
physical strength, though
not
so much call for it in armies and battlefields. Great things have been done for
humanity by the physical endurance of explorers and travelers, such as
Livingstone
and
Stanley and the members of Arctic expeditions (Space Age – CY – 2012).
Great things are done in the saving of life by strong-armed
and brave-hearted
sailors in our lifeboats, and by firemen in our great cities. Still the demand
for
manual labor and bodily strength is made, in field and workshop and yard.
And though so large a proportion of modern toil is mental
rather than bodily,
and
consequently physical vigor is unduly despised, it remains true that the
man
of mind imperils his mind by failure to culture his body into strength.
It remains true for
the intellectual nineteenth century (now 21st century –
CY – 2012), as for every other, that bodily strength is a gracious
DIVINE GIFT which
should be treasured, kept, cultured, exercised,
and put to all noble and holy uses. Appeal, especially from the Christian
standpoint, that CHRIST EXPECTS
FAITHFULNESS to the whole trust
which He
commits to us; and holds us responsible for the measure of
bodily health and energy we maintain, as well as for the culture of character,
mind, and soul
which we may gain. “BODY, SOUL AND SPIRIT” together
make the living sacrifice, which is our “reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1-2)
6 “The
sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher,
and Jediael, three.”
We have four passages for our authorities as to the sons of
Benjamin, and
it
is not altogether easy to bring them into verbal harmony. They are
Genesis 46:21; Numbers 26:38-41; the
present passage; and ch. 8.
Our present passage mentions three sons, as though they
were all, and
immediately proceeds to their posterity. The list in Genesis mentions
ten, of
whom, however, we know (Numbers 26:40; ch.8:3-4) that three, Naaman, Ard,
and
order in which the two former stand in Genesis is remarkable.
Again, while
Becher is given as the second son in both Genesis and our present
place, he is
not
mentioned in Numbers 26:38-41 and in ch.8:1. Ashbel, who in Genesis is
given as the third, is expressly called the second son. Among
the Ephraimites,
however (Numbers 26:35), a Becher, with
his descendants the Bachrites, is
mentioned, and it is not improbable that, by marriage, the family
were at that
time, for manifest reasons of inheritance and possession,
reckoned in this tribe,
though by blood of the tribe of Benjamin. Lastly, Jediael of this
passage and
v. 10 is not found in Genesis, in
Numbers, or in our ch. 8. This name seems to
have superseded in our passage the name Ashbel in
Genesis, though it is
impossible to speak certainly. It cannot be supposed to designate the
same
person, but rather a descendant in the same branch, whose family
had come
to
importance “in the days of David.”
7 “And the
sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth,
and Iri, five; heads
of the house of their fathers, mighty men of
valor; and were reckoned by their genealogies
twenty and two
thousand and thirty and four.” And the sons of Bela. The first and last
of
the five (descendants or heads of families) here given, viz. Ezbon and Iri,
are
not found
in previous places among Benjamite families, but are
found
(Genesis 46:16; Numbers 26:16) among Gadite families. It
would seem that
by
David’s time they had become in some aspects ranked among the
Benjamites, though not originally of them.
8 “And the
sons of Becher; Zemira, and
Joash, and Eliezer, and
Elioenai, and Omri, and Jerimoth, and Abiah, and Anathoth, and
Alameth. All these are the sons of Becher.” Joash.
This name, of
which nothing else is known, is spelt with an ayin, not with an aleph,
as
are the names of the seven other persons called (Authorized Version)
Joash.
Jerimoth. This name is
spelt with a tsere, and not, as the Jerimoth
of
v. 7, with khirik. All the names of
this verse must be regarded as those
of
heads of families, and not the literal sons of Becher.
9 “And the
number of them, after their genealogy by their generations,
heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men
of valor, was twenty
thousand and two hundred. 10 The sons
also of Jediael; Bilhan:
and
the sons of Bilhan; Jeush, and Benjamin, and Ehud, and Chenaanah,
and Zethan, and Tharshish, and Ahishahar.” Bilhan; Jeush. Both of these,
as
well as the name Bela, are of Edomitish origin (Genesis
36:5,18,27,32).
11 “All
these the sons of Jediael, by the heads of their
fathers, mighty
men of valor, were seventeen thousand and two
hundred soldiers,
fit to go out for war and battle. 12
Shuppim
also, and Huppim, the
children of Ir, and Hushim, the sons of Aher.” Shuppim… and Huppim.
These two, called (Numbers 26:39) “Shupham
and Hupham,” and ch. 8:5
“Shephuphan and Huram,” are mentioned (Genesis 46:21) as among those
who
went down
with Jacob into
and
are described
as “sons of Benjamin.” They are here described as sons
of
Iri, or
Ir, which would make them great-grandsons of Benjamin, a thing
impossible. Hushim, the sons of Aher. Nothing
can be said with
confidence of either of these names. The Hushim
of Genesis 46:23
(called Shuham,
Numbers 26:42) are expressly given as a family of
Dan, while the Hushim of ch. 8:8, 11, is manifestly the name, not of a
family, but of an individual, and that a woman.
13 “The
sons of Naphtali; Jahziel, and Guni,
and Jezer, and Shallum,
the sons of Bilhah.”
The sons of Naphtali. In an order
quite different from the
otherwise parallel passages (Genesis 46:24; Numbers 26:48-50), the
tribe of
Naphtali is taken. Naphtali was the second son of Rachel’s handmaid
Bilhah,
and
in order of birth the fifth son of Jacob, and was of course more closely
allied to Dan, Ephraim, and Benjamin. The family was distinguished
for its
spirit throughout its history. At the Sinai census it numbered
fifty-three
thousand four hundred fighting men (Numbers 1:42-43); but at the
close of
the
wanderings through the wilderness its numbers had become only forty-five
thousand four hundred. Its territory in the north, largely
mountainous, bounded
by
Asher, Zebulun, and Manasseh, was some of the finest,
and covered the
district afterwards called
place of most of the apostles, and the home of our Lord. . The slight difference
in the spelling of Jahziel
in Genesis, and of Shallum in Numbers,
may be
noticed. The following are interesting references to Naphtali in
one or
another portion of its history: — Deuteronomy 33:23; Joshua 20:7; 21:32;
Judges 1:33; 5:18; ch.27:19; Ezekiel 48:3-4, 34; Isaiah
9:1-2; Matthew 4:15;
Revelation 7:6. It
played a considerable and prominent part also in the conflicts
with Titus and Vespasian, when the days of
14 “The
sons of Manasseh; Ashriel, whom she bare: (but his
concubine
the Aramitess bare Machir the father of
been partly treated of in ch. 5:23-26, viz.
those of the tribe who inhabited
Gilead and
of.
And it is very difficult to give any coherent account of the differences of
this passage when compared with Numbers 26:28-34 and Joshua 17:1-4.
In these places six families, or heads of families, are
noted to only two, or
at
most three here, viz. Ashriel, Shemida, and
perhaps Abiezer (iq.
Jeezer,
Numbers 26:30; compare with Joshua 17:2). The opening
clause of this verse also is unmanageable as it stands. One way
of reducing
it
to coherence would be to supply the words “his
wife” between whom
and
bare, the similarity of the Hebrew
letters of which to those of the
Hebrew for “whom” might possibly
account for the loss of it. The
parenthesis about the concubine would then read with emphasis. But
there
is
not the slightest reason to suppose there was such a wife. Another way
would be to read the concubine as the mother of Ashriel, and prefix a
conjunction, and, to the second “bare;” i.e. and she bare, or,
she bare also
Machir.”
But it seems pretty plain from Numbers and Joshua that Ashriel
was
not strictly a son, but only descendant of Manasseh; and, further, the
irresistible impression is that Machir was
the only son, strictly speaking
(see especially Genesis 50:23).
The position of Ashriel in our present
passage, first, is also very unsatisfactory in face of Genesis
50:23 and
the
other references already given.
15 “And Machir took to wife the sister of Huppim
and Shuppim,
whose sister’s name was Maachah;)
– Of this
Maachah, one among
ten
of the same name, nothing else is known. The Peshito Syriac makes
her
the mother instead of wife of Machir.
The distinct mention of the
marriage of a Manassite to a Benjamite woman is to be noticed –
“and the name of
the second was Zelophehad:” - The meaning of
the
preceding words, and the name of the second, is
unintelligible.
Zelophehad was son of Hephen, who was
(through
great-grandson of Manasseh (Joshua 17:3). The number and names and
wise appeal and success of the daughters here spoken of, are given in
Joshua 17:3-6; Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:5-12 - “and Zelophehad
had
daughters.”R
Woman’s Rights in Ancient Times (v. 15)
The condition and the disabilities of Eastern women should
be explained,
described, and duly contrasted with the position won by women in all
Christian countries. Especially deal with their secluded lives in their
harems, or private apartments; the utter neglect of their
education and
culture; their disadvantages in never going out into society; and
their
utterly dependent position, involving the
crushing of their personal wills, or
the leaving them undeveloped and unexercised. (Contrast this with the
modern “overly liberated woman” – one might compare their liberty
to
Christ’s warning about the danger of riches – “What shall it profit a
man [or woman] if he [she] gains the whole world [equality and
self-determination] and lose his [her] own soul.” - Matthew 16:26 –
Also, I highly recommend a very deep and curious look into Paul’s
statement in I
Corinthians 11:10 – “For this cause ought the woman
to have power on her head BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS!” – CY –
2012) And yet among them some women made for themselves spheres,
by
force of their character and ability. Biblical illustrations
are Sarah,
Rebekah, Moses’ mother, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Jezebel, Athaliah,
etc.
Always women have found spheres among the children and dependents,
but
sometimes wider and public spheres have opened to them. Women
have little recognized legal or public rights in the East. Woman has no
standing apart from her husband, and this makes the lot of the
Eastern
widow so inexpressibly sad. The name Zelophehad
recalls a remarkable
exception — a case in which women, having no male protector,
succeeded
in
securing and maintaining their own rights; and the story is detailed in
the
Scripture as affording important instructive features. Compare the
modern assertion of woman’s legal and governmental rights, and how
modern legislation has aided in removing women’s disabilities.
This
Zelophehad was a descendant of Manasseh, who died during the
wilderness wanderings, leaving no sons, only five daughters, who, by
the
custom of the time, would be treated as unable to inherit his estates.
These five daughters appealed to Moses (Numbers 27:1-7), on
the ground
that their father had not died under any such judgment as disabled his
children,
and
they asked to be authorized to stand as his heirs. The matter was a new
and
difficult one, and Moses took it directly
to God, and BY DIVINE
DIRECTION established
the new rule that when there were no sons the
daughters might claim the rights of heirs. A remarkable
illustration of the
wise adjustment of law in its practical application to new and unanticipated
cases. Bishop Wordsworth says, “It seems to have been God’s design in the
Levitical dispensation to elevate woman from the degradation into which she
had
fallen, and to prepare her gradually for that state of dignity and grace to
which she is now advanced in the gospel by the
incarnation of the Son of
God, the Seed of the woman.” (Galatians 4:4)
A headship,
bearing rule over both children and dependents. The
Biblical picture is that of the “virtuous woman and wife” given in
Proverbs 31:10-31). If the woman be but a member of the family
and
not the head, still there is the due and honorable place of
childhood,
sisterhood, and friendship. No woman lacks a sphere of kindly useful
service save the woman who wants none, because life is for her a
mere
low self-sphere. Plead for
the nobility of womanly duties and relations
in the home. Martha and Mary could even prove ministers to
the bodily
needs of a Friend who was the
world’s SAVIOUR, many a woman since
has “entertained angels unawares.” (Hebrews 13:2)
ample and satisfying spheres (except to the liberated woman – CY
– 2012).
But for women who are free from
family ties suitable public spheres are
found among other women, among the suffering, the poor,
and the children;
and where there is endowment literature finds work for
woman. These
spheres are daily enlarging. They should be fully detailed, and an
earnest
plea should be made against the wasting of woman’s
powers when such
broad sphere claim her abilities and energies, and on them she may
enter
into the joy of “SERVING
CHRIST!”
16 “And Maachah the wife of Machir
bare a son, and she called his
name Peresh; and the
name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons
were Ulam and Rakem.”
17 “And
the sons of Ulam; Bedan.
These were the sons of
son of Machir, the
son of Manasseh.” Bedan. While all the names of the
preceding verse are strange to us, this name excites much interest,
as possibly
to
be identified with the Bedan (I Samuel 12:11) who is placed after
Jerubbaal (i.q.
Gideon), and before Jephthah and Samuel. Who in the Book
of
Judges is to answer to this Bedan of the Book of
Samuel it is impossible to
say.).
These
were the sons of
the name Machir, and even rivaled
that of Manasseh himself.
18
“And his sister Hammoleketh bare Ishod, and Abiezer, and Mahalah.”
Abiezer. He is the nephew, then, of
sprang from him (Judges 6:11; 8:32). The name of the mother, Hammoleketh,
is
compounded of the article and Moleketh, or Meleketh, a Chaldee form, found
several times in the Book of Jeremiah, of the word for “queen.” Of
Ishod and
Mahalah nothing is known, but the latter name is identical with Mahlah, one
of
the five daughters of Zelophehad.
19 “And
the sons of Shemidah were, Ahian,
and Shechem, and Likhi,
and Aniam.” Shemidah,
Joshua 17:2 tells us that the descendants of
Shemida obtained their inheritance among the male children of
Manasseh;
and
Numbers 26:32 places him in the
Aniam,
nothing else is known. Shechem. If this name is
rightly placed
under Shemidah, it must be concluded
from Joshua 17:2 and Numbers 26:31
that it is a different Shechem from the one there
found. This latter was also
a
Manassite, belonged to the family of
named
Shechemites after him. His descendants are spoken of
as the
“sons of Shechem” in the above passage of Joshua.
20 “And
the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and
Tahath his son, and Eladah
his son, and Tahath his son,”
The chief difficulty of the next eight verses (vs. 20-27) lies
in reconciling the
points of chronology which it forces to the surface. Vs. 20 and 21,
purport
to
contain the line of descent from Ephraim through his son Shuthelah
to
the
seventh generation, viz. to another Shuthelah. The
remaining two
names, Ezer and Elead,
may perhaps be two brothers of the first Shuthelah,
i.e. own sons of Ephraim.
If it be so, these two must not be supposed to
correspond with Becher and Tahan, called “sons of Ephraim” in
Numbers 26:35; for it is evident that they were generations
succeeding
Shuthelah.
Now, Ephraim was born in
on
the above showing, the actual sons of Ephraim must have made some
incursion from
aboriginal inhabitants of
mourned. Such excursions on the part of the Israelites out of
very little collateral evidence. But there would seem to be no impossibility
in
the matter, considering Genesis 50:13-23. Next, vs. 23-27 seem to
say
that in his sorrow Ephraim has another son, whom he names Beriah,
and
of whose line in the ninth descent comes Joshua, the son of Nun. This
also is very doubtful. It may very possibly be that the parenthesis
continues
to
the end of v. 23 or 24, and that vs. 25-27 carry on the generations
from v. 21. Meantime welcome light breaks in at the stage (v. 26) at
which Ammihud and Elishama
are mentioned. For we find these immediate
ancestors of the great Joshua repeatedly mentioned at the period of
the
Exodus (Numbers 1:10; 2:18; 7:48); yet none of these places
assist us to say that he did or did not come through Beriah. It is impossible
to
solve with any certainty the involved question of chronology and
genealogy presented by this section. The passage is evidently
mutilated and
corrupt, though vindicating a high antiquity. A very original
presentation of
the
whole section, as ingenious as it is conjectural, by Lord A.C. Hervey,
may
be found in the art. “Shuthclah,”
Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 3:1305. It
is
well worthy of attention that a great point is made in bringing Joshua to
the
place of the eighth generation from Joseph, in near analogy with the
numbers in so many other known cases, of the generations that
intervened
from the descent into
be
found the most and best that can be said against the literal reading of
what is here written respecting the men of
21 “And Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his
son, and Ezer, and Elead,
whom the men of
they came down to take away their cattle.” This certainly
may be translated,
when they (i.e. the
men of
their cattle (i.e. the
cattle of Ephraim).
22 And
Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came
to comfort him. 23 And when
he went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare
a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house.”
Mourning and Consolation (v. 22)
There is much obscurity about this passage, as recording an
historical incident.
But, though it is not easy to decide who the persons
referred to were and at
what time they lived, the incident is a witness to the community of human
nature,
both in the bitterness of the earthly lot and in the consolations with which
it
abounds. We have here brought before us:
this sorrow, for our days on earth are as a shadow, and death
takes away
from us all in turn the joys of our hearts, the desire of our
eyes, the objects
of our hopes. And it is to be observed that the sudden and violent
death of
our beloved ones is peculiarly distressing. When the young are
cut down
by wicked hands, in tumult or in war, the shock to survivors
is especially
painful.
wept” at Lazarus’s grave (John 11:35). There is such a thing as sanctified
sorrow. In certain cases, even poignant grief and prolonged
mourning are excusable. “The heart knoweth his own
bitterness” (Proverbs
14:10).
The parent weeps for the
children because they are not. (Matthew
2:18)
intimate friends are expected to offer their affectionate
condolence to the
bereaved in the hour of sorrow and desolation. This is the
obligation of
friendship and its privilege also. Helpful and consolatory is true
sympathy;
for who would wish to bear his heaviest burden alone? Yet the most
profitable ministrations in bereavement are those by which the heart
of the
bereaved is directed to take refuge in the fatherly wisdom and
love of
God, and in the
tender sympathy of that High Priest who
“IN
ALL
OUR AFFLICTIONS
IS ….AFFLICTED” (Isaiah 63:9) and who is “TOUCHED WITH THE FELLING OF OUR INFIRMITIES.”
(Hebrews 4:15)
24
(And his daughter was Sherah, who built Bethhoron the nether, and
the upper, and Uzzensherah.) His daughter. If the
literal interpretation of this
whole section be accepted, according to which both Ephraim and Beriah must
have passed their lifetime in
the
one or the other could not have been the founder of the places here
mentioned. The word “daughter” must, therefore, represent simply a
female
descendant. (For other references to Beth-horon,
see Joshua 10:10-11; 16:3, 5;
18:13-14; 21:20-22.)
A Famous Woman (v. 24)
We know nothing else of Sherah
than is recorded in this verse. Whether she did
herself build or enlarge and fortify these towns, or whether this
was the work of
her
descendants, is not easy to decide. The fact, in any case, is of interest for
us,
that her name should be put upon record in this passage, and should be
associated
with great works.
SOME VAST DESIGN.
History records great feats of feminine valor;
for women have defended castles and cities by their heroism,
and
delivered nations, by personal bravery and by the enthusiastic
support
they have commanded. Some nations, as e.g. our own,
number among
their sovereigns queens of singular sagacity and statesmanship.
In art
and in literature, and even in science, women have, in our own
times,
won for themselves a high position and a wide renown.
If not cities, societies
and families have again and again been built up in
strength and stateliness and serviceableness through feminine
wisdom,
sympathy, and devotedness. A gifted and fascinating woman has often
been the architect of fortune, and, as the center and
inspiration of
intellectual and social life, has not only laid the foundations, but
reared the edifice of political and social power.
GOD. How many
such shine from the pages of inspiration! Sarah,
Miriam, Ruth, Hannah, Esther, in
the Old Testament; the Maries,
Priscilla,
examples. No work is so congenial to the female character, so truly
graceful and ornamental to the feminine life, as work for Christ.
EXAMPLE OF PIETY AND USEFULNESS IS WORTHY OF
BEING HELD IN LASTING REMEMBRANCE. If the
inspired
writer thought well to record the name of the builder of
Beth-heron,
surely the
memory of the noblewomen of our Lord’s spiritual
kingdom should never fade.
25
And Rephah was his
son, also Resheph, and Telah
his son, and
Tahan his son.” - Of the
names Rephah and Resheph nothing else is known.
26
Laadan his son, Ammihud
his son, Elishama his son. 27
Non his son,
Jehoshuah (Joshua) his son.” Non. The same as Nun (Numbers
13:8,16).
Joshua and Jesus: Resemblance and Contrast
(v. 27)
The identity of the names — the one being the Greek form of
the other —
has
led the Church to look on the Hebrew Captain as a type of the Saviour
of
the world. (For confirmation, see Hebrews 4:8.) There are certain
resemblances, though the contrasts are as striking if not as numerous.
Ø
They both bore the
same name.
Ø
They both brought to
the people of God deliverance from the
enemies of God.
Ø
They were both
obedient to “Him that sent them,” and wrought
out the work which He gave them to do.
Ø
They both led (or,
lead) the people of God into the promised land.
Ø
They both began their
earthly life in obscurity, and rose (or, have
risen) to the highest point of human honor.
DIVINE DELIVERER.
Ø
Joshua was engaged in
the work of his life for (at least) thirty
years; the Lord for (at most) three.
Ø
Joshua fought with carnal weapons, and won victories with
sword of steel; Christ fought
only with spiritual weapons,
and His conquest is the triumph of truth and grace.
Ø
Joshua had good reason
to fear that by his death his life-work
would be undone; the Saviour had the best reason to know that
by His death
His lifework would be sealed and crowned.
Ø
Joshua led a nation
into a land which would prove a temporary
inheritance; the redeeming Lord leads the human race “into
everlasting habitations,” into the one city which is ETERNAL!
Better
the humblest post amongst the followers of Jesus than
the proudest place in the ranks of Joshua.
(I am blessed with a two year old grandson – he and I love
to listen to
children’s sons on the internet – I highly recommend “Joshua Fought the
also sing many other catchy and Biblically sound children’s songs –
CY - 2012)
28 “And
their possessions and habitations were,
thereof, and eastward Naaran,
and westward
thereof; Shechem also
and the towns thereof, unto
towns thereof:”
Naaran. This place is probably the same with the Naarath or
Naarah of Joshua 16:7; though here it is said to be an eastward
limit,
and
there its description might rather seem that of a southward limit.
This name can scarcely designate the well-known
(Joshua 15:47; Judges 1:18), but so largely the prey of the
Philistines
(Judges 16:21; I Samuel 6:17).
29 “And by
the borders of the children of Manasseh, Bethshean
and her
towns, Taanach and her
towns,
her towns. In these dwelt the children of
Joseph the son of
The places mentioned in this verse were assigned to
Manasseh.
Bethshean was on the west of
Issachar (Joshua 17:11-13; I Kings 4:11-12). Dor was within the
borders of Asher (Joshua 11:1-2; 12:23; 17:11; Judges 1:27-28).
Taanach. This place also lay within the borders of Issachar or
Asher
(Joshua 17:11-12; 21:25; Judges 5:19).
constantly coupled with the preceding. It lay on the south of the
plain of
Esdraelon (Joshua 12:21; 17:11; Judges 1:27; I Kings 4:12).
30 “The
sons of Asher; Imnah, and Isuah,
and Ishuai, and Beriah, and
Serah their sister.” The same
four sons and one daughter of Asher are found
in Genesis 46:17; but the name of the
second son is wanting to the list of
families descended from Asher
of Numbers 26:44-47, and the name of
the
daughter is given by itself, and not as furnishing a family.
31 “And
the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel,
who is the father of
Birzavith.” These two grandsons are also found in the above lists of
both
Genesis and Numbers; but nothing is found there to explain
the name
Birzavith, which the Keri spells with yod,
the Kethiv with van. With the
former spelling its signification would be the “well of olives,”
and would
point to its being the name of a place rather than of a person,
and, as some
think, that person a woman (Gesenius,
‘Thes.,’ 239). (For instances of the
expression “father” of a place, see ch.
2:51-52; 4:4-5.)
32 “And
Heber begat Japhlet, and Shomer,
and Hotham, and Shua their
sister.” Japhlet. This son of Heber, not otherwise known, cannot be
identified with the “Japhleti” of Joshua 16:3 (himself an enigma), on
the
south boundary of Ephraim, between the nether Beth-heron and
Ataroth.
Shomer; i.q.
Shamer of v. 34.
33
“And the sons of Japhlet; Pasach,
and Bimhal, and Ashvath. These
are the children of Japhlet.” Nothing, except
what follows in the next verses,
is
known of the three sons of Japhlet given
in this verse. In them we reach the
fourth generation
from Asher. The generations then travel forward through
Helem, presumably a third brother of Japhlet,
passing the sons of Shamer,
or
Shomer, presumably Japhlet’s
second brother.
34 “And
the sons of Shamer; Ahi,
and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and
Ahi. It seems impossible to decide with certainty whether this
is the name
of
a person or whether, with the vau, which
otherwise begins the next word,
it
should not be translated “his brother,” ie.
the brother of Japhlet.
In v. 32
the
names of three brothers are given, sons of Heber, viz. Japhlet,
Shomer,
and
Hotham. Now, the name Helem,
in ver. 35, is supposed to point to this
Hotham.
If it be so, it would so far be an argument that Ahi
should be
translated “his brother,” in correspondence with the undoubted “his
brother”
of
v. 35. Of no one of the names in these verses is anything further known.
35 And the
sons of his brother Helem; Zophah,
and Imna, and
Shelesh, and Amal.”
36 “The
sons of Zophah; Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual, and Beri,
and Imrah, 37 Bezer, and Hod, and Shamma, and Shilshah, and Ithran,
and Beera. 38
And the sons of Jether; Jephunneh,
and Pispah, and Ara.”
Vs. 36 and 37 purport to give us eleven sons of Zophah, son
of Helem, and
grandson of Heber, and these bring us to the sixth generation
from Asher;
and
again (v. 38), we reach the seventh in descent from Asher, in the
three sons of Jether, or Ithran, the tenth son of Zophah.
39
“And the sons of Ulla; Arah, and Haniel, and Rezia.” Ulla.
Whether
in
this verse we get to the eighth generation depends on who may be meant by
Ulla. It is impossible
to answer the question. The suggestion has been made
that the name may, by some great
error of copyists, stand for either Zophah’s
last son Beera, or, by happier conjecture, Jether’s last son, Ara. But
neither
professes to be anything
better than mere conjecture.
40 “All
these were the children of Asher, heads of their father’s house,
choice and mighty men of valor, chief of the princes.
And the number
throughout the genealogy of them that were apt to the
war and to battle
was twenty and six thousand men.” The number of Asherites, “of
twenty years old and
upwards, able to go forth to war,” given
in
Numbers 1:40-41, was forty-one thousand five hundred. Forty
years
later (Ibid. ch.26:44-47; compare v. 2) the number was
fifty-three
thousand four hundred. But it is supposed that the twenty-six
thousand of
this verse may refer only to a portion of the tribe, i.e. to the
large and
distinguished family of Heber. It is to be noticed that the name of the
tribe
of
Asher is not found in the list of the “chief
rulers” lower down in this
book (ch.27:16-22). The tone also in which reference is made to Asher
and
Manasseh and Zebulun coming to
(II Chronicles 30:11) is very noticeable. This tribe, with
Simeon, gave no
judge to the nation, and of all the tribes west of the
themselves in this respect. There is an ancient legend that the
parents of
Paul lived within the territories of Asher, at the place
called Ahlab in
Judges 1:31, otherwise Giscala, or Gush Chaleb. Against the
uncertainty
of
the legend we may gratefully remember the certainty of the history of
the
“Anna,… daughter of Phanuel,
of the tribe of Aser” (Luke 2:36).
"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.