I CHRONICLES 7 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Issachar

1 The sons of Issachar:

Tola, Puah, Jashub and Shimron—four in all.

GILL, "Now the sons of Issachar were Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four. The same number is given, Gen_46:13 with a small variation of two of their names, there called Phuvah and Job, from whence so many families sprang, mentioned Num_26:23, where the names are the same as here.

HENRY 1-3, "We have here a short view given us,I. Of the tribe of Issachar, whom Jacob had compared to a strong ass, couching between two burdens (Gen_49:14), an industrious tribe, that minded their country business very closely and rejoiced in their tents, Deu_33:18. And here it appears, 1. That they were a numerous tribe; for they had many wives. So fruitful their country was that they saw no danger of over-stocking the pasture, and so ingenious the people were that they could find work for all hands. Let no people complain of their numbers, provided they suffer none to be idle. 2. That they were a valiant tribe, men of might (1Ch_7:2, 1Ch_7:5), chief men, 1Ch_7:3. Those that were inured to labour and business were of all men the fittest to serve their country when there was occasion, The number of the respective families, as taken in the days of David, is here set down, amounting in the whole to above 145,000 men fit for war. The account, some think, was taken when Joab numbered the people, 2 Sa. 24. But I rather think it refers to some other computation that was made, perhaps among themselves, because it is said (1Ch_27:24) that that account was not inserted in the chronicles of king David, it having offended God.

1

JAMISON, "1Ch_7:1-5. Sons of Issachar.Jashub — or Job (Gen_46:13).

K&D, "Sons and families of Issachar. - 1Ch_7:1. Instead of ולבני, we must certainly read בני, as in 1Ch_7:14, 1Ch_7:30, or ובני, as in 1Ch_7:20; 1Ch_5:11, and elsewhere. The לבני has come into the text only by the recollection of the copyist having dwelt on the so frequently recurring לבני in 1Ch_6:42, 1Ch_6:46-47, cf. 1Ch_6:48, 1Ch_6:56, 1Ch_6:62, for it is not possible to take ל as the ל of introduction, because the names of the sons follow immediately. The names of the four sons are given as in Num_26:23., while in Gen_46:13 the second is written פוה, and the third ב ;י vide on Gen. loc. cit.

COFFMAN, "There are many discrepancies when these lists are compared with the lists cited in the marginal references to other scriptures; but it is no part of our purpose to attempt any explanation of them. The word son is used no less than nine different ways in the Bible.[1] Also, there was a mixing of the tribes, for examples, as when, "Becher's heiress married an Ephraimite which transferred his reckoning from the tribe of Benjamin to that of Ephraim."[2] We also have place-names such as Anathoth also used as the names of persons (1 Chronicles 7:8). Cundall noted that we even have two different genealogies; "Nor is it possible to explain why two should have been given."[3] As Keil noted, "Verse 12 is unintelligible to us."[4]

Such problems as these do not concern us. The great purpose of the sacred author here was to forge a strong link between the pre-exilic and post-exilic Israels; and these remarkable genealogies certainly accomplished that very thing. No doubt they were understood far more perfectly by the descendants of the twelve tribes than any one may understand them thousands of years later.

Also, as we have repeatedly stressed, these genealogies are incontrovertible proof that the O.T. deals, not with myth or legend, but with history. The power of this argument is indeed tremendous. Once, when this writer was minister of Manhattan Church of Christ, a group of several New York University students called upon

2

him; and one of them asked if it was not a fact that Jesus Christ was merely a myth. This writer then quoted in its entirety the genealogy of Jesus Christ through his mother Mary as found in Luke 3:23ff, and concluded by asking, "Now, will some of you recite for me the genealogy of Paul Bunyan, Beowolf, Santa Claus, or any other myth"? One of these later obeyed the gospel.

These names stimulate our curiosity and our imagination. Many of these are described as mighty men of valor, heads of their fathers' houses, chief among the princes of Israel, etc. What wonderful deeds of faith and trust in God must have been done! What marvelous stories of heroism, tragedy, glory, defeat and victory were woven around the names written here. We shall never know the slightest thing about most of them; but as we gaze upon their names we are haunted by thoughts of those whose exploits lie buried under the silence of millenniums.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:1 Now the sons of Issachar [were], Tola, and Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four.

Ver. 1. Jashub.] Alias Job; [Genesis 46:13] but not Job the patient, as some would have it.

ELLICOTT, "(1–5) The tribe of Issachar, its clans and their military strength.

(1) Now the sons of Issachar.—Heb., and to the sons—i.e., “and as for the sons of Issachar, Tola, Puah, &c., four were they.” The Vatic, LXX., has the dative; the Alex, the nominative, which is perhaps a correction. The four names are given Genesis 46:13, where the second is Puwwah, the third lôb; and Numbers 26:23, where also the second name is Puwwah, but the third Iâshûb (he returns). The Heb. text here is Iâshîb (he makes return); the Hebrew margin, adopted by the Authorised Version, is the same as the text of Numbers 26

(2-6) These verses supply names and facts not found elsewhere. We have here some

3

of the results of the census of David (2 Samuel 24, and below, 1 Chronicles 21).

(2) Heads of their father’s house—Rather, chiefs of their father-houses (septs or clans).

Of Tola.—Belonging to Tola, that is, to the great clan or sub-tribe so called.

In their generations.—According to their registers or birth-rolls.

Whose number.—The number of the warriors of all the six groups of the Tolaite branch of Issachar.

In the days of David.—See the census (1chron xxi,).

(3) Izrahiah . . .—All these names contain a divine element. Izrahiah means “Iah riseth (like the sun)” (comp. Malachi 4:2); Michael, “who like God?” (Comp. Isaiah 40:18; Isaiah 40:25.) Before Ishiah and has fallen out.

Five: all of them chief men.—Heb., five chiefs (heads) altogether (all of them). But perhaps the punctuation should be as in the Authorised Version. 1 Chronicles 7:7.)

(4) By their generations.—Heb., after or according to their birth-rolls or registers. The census of the Uzzite warriors was taken “according to their birth-rolls and their father-houses” (septs or clans).

Bands of soldiers.—Heb., troops of the host of war or of the battle-host.

4

For they had many wives and sons.—They are the clans represented by the hereditary chiefs Izrahiah, Michael, and the rest.

(5) And their brethren.—Fellow-tribesmen.

Families.—Clans (mishpehôth). The verse states

the number of warriors for the whole tribe of Issachar in David’s census at 87,000. Render: “And their kinsmen, of all the clans of Issachar, valiant warriors. Eighty-seven thousand was their census for the whole (tribe).”

Reckoned in all by their genealogies.—Heb., hithyahsâm, a difficult word peculiar to the chronicler in the Old Testament, but reappearing in the Rabbinic Hebrew. The present form is a verbal noun with suffix pronoun, and means “their enrolling” or “enrolment,” their census; cp. ἀ πογρά φεσθαι, (Luke 2:1). As the Tolaites were 22,600, and the sons of Izrahiah 36,000, the other son of Issachar must have amounted to 28,400, to make up the total of 87,000 for the tribe. At the first census of Moses (Num. i 29), the warriors of Issachar were 54,400; at the second (Numbers 26:25) they were 64,300. (Comp. Judges 5:15; Judges 10:1 for the ancient prowess of Issachar.)

PARKER 1-3, " Valiant Men—Ingratitude—a Torrent of Names

1 Chronicles 7 , 1 Chronicles 8

In these chapters we have summaries of the great clans of Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, West Prayer of Manasseh , Ephraim, Asher, the families of Gibeon, especially the royal house of Saul, with innumerable and collateral allusions.

5

In 1 Chronicles 7:2 of chapter7 there is a sentence which presents an excellent family record—"They were valiant men of might in their generations;" while the reference is to the sons of Issachar, and is therefore the more notable because in pronouncing upon each member of his family, Jacob had represented Issachar as a "strong ass," a figure not suggestive of fire and courage, and love of battle. Sometimes the man"s sons are better than the man himself. It is important to notice this, lest some who are conscious of an unfavourable ancestry should lose heart and resign themselves to the tyranny of mere fate. History abounds in striking instances of men who, being socially low born, have conquered all opposing circumstances and entered into great estates of character and influence. If the sons of Tola had said, "A curse rests upon the whole house of Issachar, every man of us is reckoned as belonging to the nature of the "ass," and throughout all Israel the ass has been held in contempt; it is useless for us to endeavour to secure any high position, or do any noble work"—they never would have made a name in history. We must beware of what may be termed historical superstition, and rid ourselves for ever of the unhappy and irrational thought that history has a grudge against us. A beautiful record is this truly,—"valiant men of might in their generations;" it did not therefore follow that every generation would be as valiant; each generation creates its own records and cannot live upon the excellence or fame of preceding days.

In the third verse of the same chapter we are introduced to a whole family of chieftains—

"And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah , and Joel , Ishiah, five: all of them chief men." ( 1 Chronicles 7:3)

Here we come again upon a series of names each of which contains a divine element. Izrahiah means "God riseth like the sun," and Michael means "who like God?" We cannot get rid, even if we would, of social diversities. From the beginning to the end of time "chief men" and lowly men, men of power and men of weakness, will divide the human family. In this division or classification there may be an element of sovereignty neither to be foreseen nor overruled. What may be termed an arbitrary distribution of talents is distinctly laid down in one of the parables of our Lord, wherein one servant has five talents, another two, and another one. But while there is a sovereignity in the distribution of the talents, there is a justice in the recognition of industry. The man was not honoured because he had ten talents, but because he

6

had doubled the talents with which he began. We may be separate at the point of genius, but we may be one at the humbler point of industry. Never do we find that it is mere genius that is rewarded, but always the fidelity which is possible even to the humblest grade of mind. We cannot all be "chief men," but we can all be lowly followers of the Lord, each doing his best to hold the light aloft and make known the good news of God"s redeeming love. From the second to the fifth verses of the seventh chapter it would seem as if a procession of giants were passing before us; thus we read of valiant men of might, chief men, bands of soldiers, and again is repeated the expression in verse five, "valiant men of might." That there have been such men in the world is obvious from innumerable proofs of their capacity and skill. Who subdued the beasts of the forest and turned the sites of jungles into the foundations of cities? Who ventured across the sea to discover lands afar off and established with them profitable commerce and exchange? Whose chisel formed the all but living image of man in shapeless blocks of marble? Who painted the pictures of which the world is proud? Who gathered into one orchestra countless instruments and trained voices which make the very wind eloquent with music? Who tunnelled the mountains? In short, who created the complex and glorious civilisation which satisfies every want and gratifies every taste of man? Truly there have been chief men, valiant men of might, and bands of soldiers in olden history. Sometimes it would seem as if all the great work had been done before we came into the world, and nothing is left for us to do but to admire or use or enjoy. A marvellous thought too is it that civilisation is self-exhausting; that it can fill all the space allotted to it and, having done that, can only go back again into decay or barbarism. The great thing which it is possible for us to do is to quicken the mind, to destroy superstition, to preach the doctrine of the endless development of life, and to hold up the cross of Christ amid the tumult of time as the explanation and meaning of all things.

In chapter7 , 1 Chronicles 7:11, we read of "seventeen thousand and two hundred soldiers, fit to go out for war and battle." Blessed are they who are really qualified for any needful work in this weary world! A beautiful character is this—"fit to go out." How many men go out before they are fit,—how many go out to preach, to teach, to lead, who have no qualification for the office which they have assumed! Men should not go out until they are sent; in other words, men should not go out to warfare at their own charges. There are controversialists whom God has specially qualified and inspired "to go out for war and battle." They are men of combative mind, their very sentences like Luther"s are half battles; they never realise the extent of their capacity or the energy of their character until they are called upon to

7

take arms in a great cause. Other men are fit to go out to sing sweet music to the weary and sad; on no occasion could they fight; they have a perfect horror of war; but their voice is music, every tone is a revelation of sympathy, when they breathe, men are conscious of the descent of a benediction. Others again are fit to go out to. preach; they are workmen not needing to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth; they combine both the foregoing classes, the controversial and the musical. How they denounce wrong! How they burn against injustice! How nobly they encourage virtue! How sweetly they administer consolation, with what energetic music they proclaim that the Living God would have all men saved! We must find out what we are fit for, and do that particular work with both hands earnestly. Do not let us foolishly wait under the impression, that by some dazzling sign God will point out the speciality of our gift. We must put ourselves into practice, and let revelation come through experience. "Stir up the gift that is in thee." "Put on thy strength." "Awake, awake." "Arise, shine." There is something for us to do; we must begin where we can; if we cannot speak to a kingdom, we may be able to speak to a family; if we dare not address a whole family, we may venture to speak some word of instruction or hope to a little child. "He that doeth the will, shall know the doctrine;" in other words he who is obedient in all directions and at all times, will soon come to discover what he can best do, and how he best can do it.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:1

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 ( פואח ) appears differently spelt as Phuvah ( פוח), 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 ( 10:1, 10:2) of another person of this name, who judged Israel twenty-three years, at Shamir, in Mount Ephraim, and who is called "the son of Puah, the son of 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.

BI 1-11, "Now the Sons of Issachar were, Tola, and Puah, Jaahub, and Shimrom, four.

8

Statistics1. Statistics play an important part in Chronicles and in the Old Testament generally.

(1) Genealogies and other lists of names.(2) Specifications of subscription lists for the Tabernacle and for Solomon’s temple.(3) Census returns and statements as to the number of armies and of the divisions of which they were composed.

2. Biblical statistics are examples in accuracy and thoroughness of information, and recognitions of the more obscure and prosaic manifestations of the higher life. In these and other ways the Bible gives an anticipatory sanction to the exact sciences.3. Statistics are the only form in which many acts of service can be recognised and recorded. The missionary report can only tell the story of a few striking conversions; it may give the history of the exceptional self-denial in one or two of its subscriptions; for the rest we must be content with tables and subscription-lists.4. Our chronicler’s interest in statistics lays healthy emphasis on the practical character of religion. There is a danger of identifying spiritual force with literary and rhetorical gifts; to recognise the religious value of statistics is the most forcible protest against such identification. The supreme service of the Church in any age is its influence on its own generation, by which it moulds the generation immediately following. That influence can only be estimated by a careful study of all possible information and especially of statistics.5. The lists in Chronicles are few and meagre compared to the records of Greenwich Observatory or the volumes which contain the data of biology and sociology; but the chronicler becomes, in a certain sense, the forerunner of Darwin, Spencer, and Galton. (W. H. Bennett, M. A.)

2 The sons of Tola:Uzzi, Rephaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam and Samuel—heads of their families. During the reign

9

of David, the descendants of Tola listed as fighting men in their genealogy numbered 22,600.

BARNES, "Whose number was in the days of David ... - The writer would seem by this passage to have had access to the statistics of the tribes collected by David, when he sinfully “numbered the people” (marginal reference). The numbers given in 1Ch_7:4-5 probably came from the same source.

CLARKE, "Whose number was in the days of David - Whether this was the number returned by Joab and his assistants, when they made that census of the people with which God was so much displeased, we know not. It is worthy of remark that we read here the sum of three tribes, Benjamin, Issachar, and Asher, under the reign of David, which is mentioned nowhere else; and yet we have no account here of the other tribes, probably because the author found no public registers in which such enumeration was recorded.

GILL, "And the sons of Tola,.... The eldest son of Issachar, whose posterity are only reckoned by name: Uzzi, and Rephaiah, and Jeriel, and Jahmai, and Jibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their father's house, to wit, of Tola; the principal man of his family: they were valiant men of might in their generations, famous for their courage and military exploits, though they sprang from Tola, whose name signifies "a worm"; and which name Bochart (k) conjectures was given him by his parents, because he was so weakly that they had no hopes of raising him; and yet from him sprung such mighty men, and from them such a numerous race, as follows: whose number was, in the days of David, two and twenty thousand and six hundred; besides those of the posterity of Uzzi, after mentioned. This was at the time Joab took the number of Israel, by the order of David, 1Ch_21:5.

10

JAMISON, "whose number was in the days of David two and twenty thousand and six hundred — Although a census was taken in the reign of David by order of that monarch, it is not certain that the sacred historian had it in mind, since we find here the tribe of Benjamin enumerated [1Ch_7:6-12], which was not taken in David’s time; and there are other points of dissimilarity.

K&D, "1Ch_7:2The six sons of Tola are not elsewhere met with in the Old Testament.

They were “heads of their fathers'-houses of Tola.” לע לת after תם אב לבית(with the suffix) is somewhat peculiar; the meaning can only be, “of their fathers'-houses which are descended from Tola.” It is also surprising, or rather not permissible, that תם לד לת should be connected with חיל רי .גבתם לד לת belongs to the following: “(registered) according to their births, they numbered in the days of David 22,600.” The suffixes ם- do not refer to ת but to the ,ראשים the fathers'-houses, the males in which ,בית־אבamounted to 22,600 souls. As David caused the people to be numbered by Joab (2 Sam 24; 1Ch_21:1), this statement probably rests on the results of that census.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:2. Whose number in the days of David, &c. — That is, when David numbered the people, (2 Samuel 24.,) the descendants of Tola, Issachar’s firstborn, were found to be thus many; which was a very great increase.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:2 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.

Ver. 2. They were valiant men of might.] And yet this tribe, for the generality, were asinus osseus [Genesis 49:14] dull, and desirous of peace.

In the days of David.] See 1 Chronicles 12:32; 1 Chronicles 27:18.

11

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:2

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 (2 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 The son of Uzzi:Izrahiah.The sons of Izrahiah:Michael, Obadiah, Joel and Ishiah. All five of them were chiefs.

CLARKE, "The sons of Izrahiah - five - There are, however, only four names in the text. Instead of five, the Syriac and Arabic read four. If five be the true reading, then Izrahiah must be reckoned with his four sons.GILL, "And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah,.... Including his posterity: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five; together with their father, all reckoned the sons of Uzzi: all of them chief men; in their father's house, heads of families.

JAMISON, "five: all of them chief men — Four only are mentioned; so that 12

as they are stated to be five, in this number the father, Izrahiah, must be considered as included; otherwise one of the names must have dropped out of the text. They were each at the head of a numerous and influential division of their tribe.

K&D, "1Ch_7:3-5From Uzzi, the first-born of Tola, are descended through Izrahiah five men, all heads of groups of related households (1Ch_7:4); “and to them (i.e., besides these) according to their generations, according to their fathers'-houses, bands of the war host, 36,000 (men), for they (these chiefs) had many wives and sons.” From the fact that Izrahiah is introduced as grandson of Tola, Bertheau would infer that 1Ch_7:3, 1Ch_7:4 refer to times later than David. But this is an erroneous inference, for Tola's sons did not live in David's time at all, and consequently it is not necessary that his grandson should be assigned to a later time. The only assertion made is, that the descendants of Tola's sons had increased to the number mentioned in 1Ch_7:2 in the time of David. By that time the descendants of his grandson Izrahiah might have increased to the number given in 1Ch_7:4. That the number, 36,000, of the descendants of the grandson Izrahiah was greater than the number of those descended from the sons of Tola (22,600), is explained in the clause, “for they had many wives and sons.” That the two numbers (in 1Ch_7:2, 1Ch_7:4) refer to the same time, i.e., to the days of David, is manifest from 1Ch_7:5, “and their brethren of all the families of Issachar, valiant heroes; 87,000 their register, as regards everything,” i.e., the sum of those registered of all the families of Issachar. Whence we gather that in the 87,000 both the 22,600 (1Ch_7:2) and the 36,000 (1Ch_7:4) are included, and their brethren consequently must have amounted to 28,400 (22,600 + 36,000 + 28,400 = 87,000). In the time of Moses, Issachar numbered, according to Num_1:29, 54,400; and at a later time, according to Num_26:25, already numbered 64,300 men.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 7:3. All of them chief men— Heads of families. They are said to have been five. Four only are reckoned; the name of one is omitted.

REFLECTIONS.—Ephraim, the most distinguished of the tribes next to Judah, suffers more than any of them at first. We have here,

1. The breach made in his family. The men of Gath, who had gone up from Egypt to settle there, now made an irruption upon that part of Goshen where Zabad (who

13

seems to be a second son of Ephraim after Shuthelah) and his sons fed their cattle, in defending which they lost their lives. Note; (1.) We are nowhere safe from danger; therefore, as those who are in jeopardy every hour, let us be always ready for the stroke of death. (2.) A good cause is not always successful. God now often permits the wicked to prosper; but a day is coming, when all God's dispensations will be cleared up to us.

2. Ephraim beheld with anguish the losses of his family, and was ready to lay down his grey hairs with sorrow in the grave; but his brethren pour the friendly balm of consolation into his wounded heart, and encourage him to trust still in God. Note; (1.) They who live long, often live to see their sorrows multiplied, and to bury the choicest of their worldly comforts. (2.) To soothe the grief of the afflicted, is to act the part of a brother: an unfeeling heart cannot be in a true Israelite.

3. God gave him another son in his old age, whom, in remembrance of the evils which had happened to his family, he called בריעה Beriah, in evil; a fit name for every miserable babe born in sin, exposed to an evil world, and liable to eternal suffering.

4. The genealogy closes with Joshua, so famed in the book of God, who was the peculiar glory of this tribe. Note; A great good man reflects honour on all who are related to him.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:3 And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men.

Ver. 3. And the sons of Uzzi,] i.e., The son; for it is likely that Uzzi had more sons, but nothing so famous as was Izrahiah.

ELLICOTT, "All the lists make Bela the first of Benjamin’s sons. In other respects they differ greatly. 1 Chronicles 7:6 assigns him two brothers—Éecher and Jediael.

14

Of these, Becher occurs in Genesis 46, Jediael here only.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:3

Five. The name 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 1 Chronicles 7:2. The Syriac, however, does not omit "and the sons of Izrahiah;" but alters the numeral "five" to "four."

4 According to their family genealogy, they had 36,000 men ready for battle, for they had many wives and children.

GILL, "And with them, by their generations, after the house of their fathers, were bands of soldiers for war,.... Companies of men of military courage and skill, who could and did go out to war upon occasion: six and thirty thousand men; besides the 22,600 Tolaites, 1Ch_7:2, for they had many wives and sons; having many wives, they had many sons; polygamy was the cause of their large numbers; and that they gave into for the sake of the multiplication of Abraham's seed, according to the divine promise.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:4 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.

15

Ver. 4. Were bands of soldiers for war.] Though they affected peace, as 1 Chronicles 7:2, yet they were apti et parati ad bellum, ready pressed for war.

For they had many wives and sons.] Polygamy passed for current in the Church, because Abraham used it; though directly against the institution, and that plain law, [Leviticus 18:18] neither was it cast out of the Church till the captivity of Babylon.

PULPIY, "1 Chronicles 7:4, 1 Chronicles 7:5

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 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 1 Chronicles 7:5, was drawn from all the other branches of the Issachar tribe? This is not the view, however, generally taken, and if the numbers of 1 Chronicles 7:2 and 1 Chronicles 7:4 are distinct, the balance needful for 1 Chronicles 7:5 will, of course, be twenty-eight thousand four hundred. It cannot be denied that this view is favoured 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, Numbers 1:29, 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 (2 Samuel 24:8, 2 Samuel 24:9) as eight hundred thousand. Grove, however, adds all the above numbers, and makes thereby Issachar's total one hundred and forty-five thousand six hundred, which seems disfavoured 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 bands of soldiers for war. This expression culminates in the word ( גדודים ) "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, 1Chronicles 12:23 is incorrect, the Hebrew word being different). The examples are too numerous to quote, but some of the more important instances are 2 Kings 6:23;

16

2 Kings 13:20; 2 Kings 24:2; Hosea 6:9; Hosea 7:1.

5 The relatives who were fighting men belonging to all the clans of Issachar, as listed in their genealogy, were 87,000 in all.Benjamin

GILL, "And their brethren among all the families of Issachar,.... As those of Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, 1Ch_7:1. were men of might; valiant and courageous: reckoned in all, by their genealogies, fourscore and seven thousand; that is, including with these those of Tola and Uzzi before given.

JAMISON, "fourscore and seven thousand — exclusive of the 58,600 men which the Tola branch had produced (1Ch_7:24), so that in the days of David the tribe would have contained a population of 45,600. This large increase was owing to the practice of polygamy, as well as the fruitfulness of the women. A plurality of wives, though tolerated among the Hebrews, was confined chiefly to the great and wealthy; but it seems to have been generally esteemed a privilege by the tribe of Issachar, “for they had many wives and sons” [1Ch_7:4].\

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:5 And their brethren among all the families of Issachar [were] valiant men of might, reckoned in all by their genealogies fourscore and seven thousand.Ver. 5. Reckoned in all.] Omnes Iscariotae, saith Vatablus.

17

6 Three sons of Benjamin:Bela, Beker and Jediael.

BARNES, "Three - In Genesis, ten “sons” of Benjamin are mentioned; in Numbers, five (marginal references). Neither list, however, contains Jediael who was perhaps a later chieftain. If so, “son” as applied to him means only “descendant.”

It is conjectured that Becher has disappeared from the lists in 1 Chr. 8 and in Numbers, because he, or his heir, married an Ephraimite heiress, and that his house thus passed over in a certain sense into the tribe of Ephraim, in which the “Bachrites” are placed in Numbers Num_26:35. He retains, however, his place here, because, by right of blood, he really belonged to Benjamin.

CLARKE, "The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher and Jediael - In Gen_46:21, ten sons of Benjamin are reckoned; viz., Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Eri, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard. In Num_26:38, etc., five sons only of Benjamin are mentioned, Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shupham, and Hupham: and Ard and Naaman are there said to be the sons of Bela; consequently grandsons of Benjamin. In the beginning of the following chapter, five sons of Benjamin are mentioned, viz., Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha; where also Addar, Gera, Abihud, Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, a second Gera, Shephuphan, and Huram, are all represented as grandsons, not sons, of Benjamin: hence we see that in many cases grandsons are called sons, and both are often confounded in the genealogical tables. To attempt to reconcile such discrepancies would be a task as endless as it would be useless. The rabbins say that Ezra, who wrote this book, did not know whether some of these were sons or grandsons; and they intimate also that the tables from which he copied were often defective, and here we must leave all such matters.

GILL, "The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three. Benjamin had ten sons, but three only are mentioned first; the latter of these seems to be the same with Ashbel, Gen_46:21.

18

JAMISON, "1Ch_7:6-12. Of Benjamin.The sons of Benjamin — Ten are named in Gen_46:21, but only five later (1Ch_8:1; Num_26:38). Perhaps five of them were distinguished as chiefs of illustrious families, but two having fallen in the bloody wars waged against Benjamin (Jdg_20:46), there remained only three branches of this tribe, and these only are enumerated.Jediael — Or Asbel (Gen_46:21).

K&D, "Sons and families of Benjamin. - In 1Ch_7:6 only three sons of Benjamin-Bela, Becher, and Jediael - are mentioned; and in 1Ch_7:7-11their families are registered. Besides these, there are five sons of Benjamin spoken of in 1Ch_8:1-2, - Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth; while in 1Ch_7:3-5 five other בנים are enumerated, viz., גרא ,אדר (twice), שפופן ,נעמן, and חורם. If we compare here the statements of the Pentateuch as to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in Gen_46:21 the following sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi (אחי) and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard ( ארד); and in Num_26:38-40 seven families, of which five are descended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham (חופם); and two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, Ard and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that of the בנים mentioned in Gen_46:21 at least two were grandsons, but also that the names אחי and מפים (Gen.) are only other forms of אחירם and שפופם (Num.). It is, however, somewhat strange that among the families (in Num.) the names גרא ,בכר, and ראש are wanting. The explanation which at once suggests itself, that their descendants were not numerous enough to form separate families, and that they on that account were received into the families of the other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and Rosh, of whom it is nowhere recorded that they had numerous descendants, cannot meet the case of Becher, for in 1Ch_7:8, 1Ch_7:9 of our chapter mention is made of nine sons of his, with a posterity of 20,200 men. The supposition that the name of Becher and his family has been dropped from the genealogical register of the families in Num 26, will not appear in the slightest degree probable, when we consider the accuracy of this register in other respects. The only remaining explanation therefore is, that the descendants of Becher were in reality not numerous enough to form a משפחה by themselves, but had afterwards so increased that they numbered nine fathers'-houses, with a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. The numbers in our register point unquestionably to post-Mosaic times; for at the second numbering by Moses, all the families of Benjamin together numbered only 45,600 men (Num_26:41), while the three families mentioned in our verses number together 59,434 (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of Benjamin, which moreover was entirely destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, in the war which it waged against the other tribes in the earlier part of the

19

period of the judges (Jdg_20:47), could not have increased to such an extent before the times of David and Solomon. The name of the third son of Benjamin, Jediael, occurs only here, and is considered by the older commentators to be another name of Ashbel (Gen_46:21 and Num_26:38), which cannot indeed be accepted as a certainty, but is very probable.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:6. The sons of Benjamin, three — They were ten, (Genesis 46:21,) and five of them are named 1 Chronicles 8:1, but here only three are mentioned, either because they were most eminent, or because the other families were now extinct.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:6 [The sons] of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three.

Ver. 6. The sons of Benjamin.] The genealogies of Dan and Zebulon are left out, for causes unknown; haply, because at their return out of Babylon their genealogies were not found. Dan is also - for their apostasy, likely, and idolatry - not reckoned among the rest that were sealed. [Revelation 7:5-8] That Antichrist should be one of this tribe, is a fiction rightly exploded. We read of Hushim, [1 Chronicles 7:12] the sons of Aher, which signifieth Another - and so some render it - by Another, understanding Dan, {compare Genesis 46:23} whom the penman of this book held not worth the naming. The Hebrews, when they would show their detestation of any person or thing, they call it acher; a sow they call dabshar acher, that is, another thing; so leaven at the passover, &c. (a)

ELLICOTT, "Verse 6

(6) Becher with different vowels would mean firstborn; and the original reading in Genesis 46 may have been Bela bechoro—“Bela his firstborn,” as in 1 Chronicles 8:1.

Jediael, friend of God, may be a substitute for Ashbel, i.e., Eshbaal, man of Bel or Baal. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 3:8, Eliada for Beeliada.) Ashbel is the second son of

20

Benjamin in Numbers 26 and 1 Chronicles 8, and the third (perhaps second) in Genesis 46

Verses 6-11

(6-11) The tribe of Benjamin.

(6) Benjamin.—Before this word bnê (sons of . . .) has been lost, because Benjamin in Hebrew begins with the same three letters. The present list of the sons of Benjamin may be compared with three others, that of Gen. xlvi 21, that of Num. xxvi 38-41, and that of the next 1chron 1 Chronicles 7:1-5.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:6

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 Numbers 8:1-26. 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; 1 Chronicles 8:3, 1 Chronicles 8:4) that three, Naaman, Ard, and Gem, were grandsons, being sons of Bela, under which circumstances the 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 1 Chronicles 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. This subject is skilfully discussed by Lord A. C. Hervey (Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' 1:175). Lastly, Jediael of this passage and verse 10 is not found in Genesis, in Numbers, or in our Numbers 8:1-26. 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

21

designate the same person, but rather a descendant in the same branch, whose family had come to importance "in the days of David."

7 The sons of Bela:Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth and Iri, heads of families—five in all. Their genealogical record listed 22,034 fighting men.

BARNES 7-10, "The lists here are remarkably different from those in marginal references Probably the persons here mentioned were not literally “sons,” but were among the later descendants of the founders, being the chief men of the family at the time of David’s census.

GILL, "And the sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth, and Iri, five,.... These are thought by some to be the grandsons of Bela, because of the different names in 1Ch_8:3, heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men of valour; principal men in their tribe and families, and of great courage: and were reckoned by their genealogies twenty and two thousand and thirty and four; who sprung from these men.

JAMISON, "the sons of Bela — Each of them was chief or leader of the family to which he belonged. In an earlier period seven great families of Benjamin are mentioned (Num_26:38), five of them being headed by these five sons of Benjamin, and two descended from Bela. Here five families of Bela are specified, whence we are led to conclude that time or the ravages of war had greatly changed the condition of Benjamin, or that the five families of Bela were subordinate to the other great divisions that sprang directly from the five sons of the patriarch.

K&D, "1Ch_7:722

The five heads of fathers'-houses called sons of Bela are not sons in the proper sense of the word, but more distant descendants, who, at the time when this register was made up, were heads of the five groups of related households of the race of Bela. חילים רי גב is synonymous with חיל רי ,גב1Ch_7:9, and is a plural, formed as if from a nomen compositum, which arose after the frequent use of the words as they are bound together in the status constructus had obscured the consciousness of the relation between them.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:7. Heads of the house of their fathers — Each of them head of that family to which he belonged. For it may seem, by comparing this with chap. 1 Chronicles 8:3, &c., that these were not the immediate sons of Bela, but his grand-children, descended each from a several father.

ELLICOTT, " (7) And the sons of Bela.—The names are wholly different in 1 Chronicles 8:3-4. The reason would seem to be that the names before us represent the chieftains and clans of Bela as they existed at a given epoch, viz., the time of David’s census. The list of 1 Chronicles 8 belongs to another period. Here, as elsewhere, it is evident enough that the chronicler has faithfully followed or rather transcribed his sources, without a thought of harmonising their apparent inconsistencies.

Heads of . . . fathers.—Rather, heads of their father-houses, i.e., chieftains.

And were reckoned by their genealogies.—And their census was 22,034. This number represents the fighting strength of the Belaites,. who are here identified with their heads.

PARKER, ""... fit to go out for war and battle."— 1 Chronicles 7:11.

This was the estimate of usefulness in the olden time.—Are we entitled to change that estimate even now, living as we do in the Christian dispensation?—We are only entitled to give new definitions to the words "war" and "battle "; we are not entitled to lower the standard of qualification or fitness for the discharge of life"s

23

duties.—"Fit to go" is an expression which points to the matter of qualification.—Mere age does not make a man fit to sit in the council, or to go forth to the battle, or to assume the position of dignity.—We must undergo discipline, instruction, mortification; we must be humbled and chastened; then we shall know how to rule with well-controlled energy and well-directed capacity.—How many are called to go out who have not undergone preparation!—Sometimes a man"s qualification is merely a paper one; something has been handed to him by his dead ancestors, and he is bound to go out according to the terms of certain written covenants, to which he never consented, and which he can hardly fully understand.—If we are to be fit for our work we must submit to the process needful for our education.—At first that process is hard, but by repetition it becomes easier, and at last it becomes playful.—Strive to enter in at the strait gate.—We do it to obtain an incorruptible crown: how much higher therefore should be our discipline and completer our training than the process which is undergone by the athlete who runs that he may be crowned with ivy or with bay?—Do not go out until you are qualified.—When you are truly qualified you will know the fact by the rising of holy impulses, by the pressure as of an invisible hand urging you on in the right way, the way of divine decree and destiny.—There is a zeal that is not according to knowledge, there is a ruthlessness which cannot win a battle.—We must be so strong as to be quiet; the moment we become the victims of tumult we lose presence of mind, self-control; we strike without aiming, and we spend our strength for nought.—To-day should always be a preparation for tomorrow; everything we learn should have in it something more than itself.—When the gymnast undergoes his discipline it is that he may use his acquired strength in other and better directions than mere amusement.—Let all eating and drinking, all reading and study, all companionship and travel, have before it a high purpose, a purpose of preparation for battle and race, for conflict and suffering.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:7And 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.

24

8 The sons of Beker:Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth, Abijah, Anathoth and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Beker.

GILL, "the sons of Bela — Each of them was chief or leader of the family to which he belonged. In an earlier period seven great families of Benjamin are mentioned (Num_26:38), five of them being headed by these five sons of Benjamin, and two descended from Bela. Here five families of Bela are specified, whence we are led to conclude that time or the ravages of war had greatly changed the condition of Benjamin, or that the five families of Bela were subordinate to the other great divisions that sprang directly from the five sons of the patriarch.

K&D, "1Ch_7:8-9Becher's descendants. Of these nine names there are two, ת ענת and עלמת,

which occur elsewhere as names of cities (cf. for עלמת in the form עלמת, 1Ch_6:45; and for ת Jos_21:18; Isa_10:30; Jer_1:1). We may, without ,ענתdoubt, accept the supposition that in these cases the cities received their names from the heads of the families which inhabited them. In 1Ch_7:9, תם אב בית ראשי stands in apposition to, and is explanatory of, תם לד :לת“And their register, according to their generations,” viz., according to the generations, that is, the birth-lists, “of the heads of their fathers'-houses, is (amounts to) in valiant heroes 20,200 men.” ELLICOTT, " (8) Nine sons of Becher.The sons of Becher.—See Note on 1 Chronicles 7:6. The nine Benjamite houses here enumerated might have been known as “sons of the firstborn.” They are nowhere else recorded. The remarkable name Elioenai is frequent in the Chronicles. (See 1 Chronicles 3:23; 1 Chronicles 4:36; 1 Chronicles 7:8; Ezra 10:22; Ezra 10:27;

25

uncontracted, Eliohenai, 1 Chronicles 26:3, Ezra 8:4.)

PILPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:8Joash. 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 1 Chronicles 7:7, with khirik. All the names of this verse must be regarded as those of heads of families, and not the literal sons of Becher.

Anathoth and Alameth (Alemeth) were Levitical towns in Benjamin (1 Chronicles 6:60).

Jerimoth, or Jeremoth (a son of Bela, 1 Chronicles 7:7), looks like another local name. (Comp. Jarmuth and Ramoth.) It also occurs often in the Chronicles (eight or nine times). The clans may have borne the names of their seats.

9 Their genealogical record listed the heads of families and 20,200 fighting men.

GILL, "And the number of them,.... Of the posterity of the sons of Becher: after their genealogy by their generations, heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men of valour; as they increased in succeeding ages, and at the time of David: was twenty thousand and two hundred.

ELLICOTT, "(9) And the number . . .—Render, “And their census (hithyahsâm) 26

according to their birth-rolls, heads of their clans, valiant warriors, was 20,200.” This means that the total number of the warriors of Becher, chiefs with clans, was 20,200. “Their census:” that is, the census of the chiefs who are regarded as one with their clans. Others assume that the names in these registers are merely those of supposed founders of the clans; eponyms like Hellen, Ion, Dorus, &c, or Italus, Latinus, Romulus, and Remus.

10 The son of Jediael:Bilhan.The sons of Bilhan:Jeush, Benjamin, Ehud, Kenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish and Ahishahar.

GILL, "The sons also of Jediael,.... The third son of Benjamin before mentioned, 1Ch_7:6. Bilhan, including his posterity, as follows: and the sons of Bilhan; Jeush, and Benjamin; called so after his great grandfather: and Ehud; who was the second judge in Israel, Jdg_3:15. and Chenaanah, and Zethan, and Tharshish, and Ahishahar; of whom we nowhere else read.

K&D, "1Ch_7:10-11Among the descendants of Jediael we find Benjamin and Ehud, the first of whom is named after the patriarch; but the second is not the judge Ehud (Jdg_3:15), who was indeed a Benjamite, but of the family of Gera. Chenaanah does not necessarily indicate a Canaanite family. Tharshish, which is elsewhere a precious stone, is here the name of a person;

27

Ahishahar, that is, Brother of the Dawn, perhaps so named because sub auroram natur. - In 1Ch_7:11 the expression is contracted, as often happens in formulae which frequently recur; and the meaning is, “All these are sons of Jediael (for as sons of Bilhan the son of Jediael, they are at the same time sons of the latter), (registered) according to the heads of their fathers'-houses, valiant heroes 17,200, going forth in the host to war.” ת האב ראשי is contracted from ת בית־אב ,ראשי vide on Exo_6:25; and the ל before ראשי, which Bertheau from a misinterpretation wishes to remove, depends upon the התיחשם (1Ch_7:9) to be supplied in thought.

ELLICOTT, " (10) Eight sons of Jediael.PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:10

Bilhan; Jeush. Both of these, us well as the name Bela, are of Edomitish origin (Genesis 36:5, Genesis 36:18, Genesis 36:27, Genesis 36:32).

Bilhan.—1 Chronicles 1:42, a son of Seir. Perhaps an Edomite element in Benjamin. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 2:34; 1 Chronicles 4:18; 1 Chronicles 2:46, and especially the case of Caleb the Kenizzite.)

Jeush.—So Heb., margin. Text, Jeish; a son of Esau (1 Chronicles 1:35).

Benjamin.—It is curious that a Benjamite clan should have borne the tribal name. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 4:16, Asareel and Note.)

Ehud.—A namesake of Ehud the judge, who slew Eglon the Moabite oppressor of Israel (Judges 3:15). Ehud the judge was a son of Gera, and Gera was a division of Bela (1 Chronicles 8:3; 1 Chronicles 8:5).

Chenaanah (Canaanitess) is perhaps a Canaanite house which had amalgamated

28

with the bnê Jediael.

Tharshish.—Elsewhere the name of a famous Phœnician colony in Spain. The name occurs once again as a personal name (Esther 1:14, one of the seven Persian princes). In Exodus 28:20, and six other places, it is the name of a gem.

Ahishahar.—Brother of dawn. (Comp. Shaha-raim—double dawn, 1 Chronicles 8:8, and Isaiah 14:12, ben-shahar—son of dawn.) Perhaps the common Arab designation bnê qedem—“sons of the east”—is similar.

11 All these sons of Jediael were heads of families. There were 17,200 fighting men ready to go out to war.

GILL, "All these the sons of Jediael, by the heads of their fathers, mighty men of valour, were seventeen thousand and two hundred soldiers, fit to go out for war and battle. Which, with the above sums put together, make of the tribe of Benjamin, besides what follow, 59,430; who, if numbered by Joab, the account was not given in by him, 1Ch_21:6.

ELLICOTT, " (11) All these the sons of Jediael.—Render, “All these were sons of Jediael; (according) to the heads of the clans, valiant warriors; 17,200 going out in host to the battle.” Perhaps the particle (according to) should be omitted. In any case, the chiefs or the clans are regarded as one with their warriors.

The sum of the warriors of Benjamin is thus 54,434. The Mosaic census (Numbers 29

26:41) gave 45,600. An increase of barely 14,000 in the course of atleast three centuries may seem too small. But the tribe was well-nigh exterminated in the vengeance which Israel took for the crime of Gibeah (Judges 20:47).

12 The Shuppites and Huppites were the descendants of Ir, and the Hushites[a] the descendants of Aher.

GILL, "Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir,.... The same with Iri, 1Ch_7:7 so that these were not sons of Benjamin, as they seem to be, if they are the same with Muppim and Huppim in Gen_46:21 but his great-grandchildren, and are the same with Shupham and Hupham, from whom families of the tribe of Benjamin sprung, Num_26:39 the Targum calls them the inhabitants of a city, but of what is not said, unless Geba should be meant, 1Ch_8:6 and Hushim, the sons of Aher: either the same with Aharah, the third son of Benjamin, 1Ch_8:1 or Ahiram, Num_26:38, though some read the words, "the sons of another"; whom they suppose to be Dan, who otherwise is omitted; and Hushim is the only son of Dan, Gen_46:23, where the same plural word is used as here; who, they think, is called another, by way of detestation, that tribe being guilty of gross idolatry; but he rather seems to belong to Benjamin.

JAMISON, "Shuppim also, and Huppim — They are called Muppim and Huppim (Gen_46:21) and Hupham and Shupham (Num_26:39). They were the children of Ir, or Iri (1Ch_7:7).

and Hushim, the sons — “son.”of Aher — “Aher” signifies “another,” and some eminent critics, taking “Aher” as a common noun, render the passage thus, “and Hushim, another son.” Shuppim, Muppim, and Hushim are plural words, and therefore denote not individuals, but the heads of their respective families; and as they were not comprised in the above enumeration (1Ch_7:7, 1Ch_7:9) they

30

are inserted here in the form of an appendix. Some render the passage, “Hushim, the son of another,” that is, tribe or family. The name occurs among the sons of Dan (Gen_46:23), and it is a presumption in favor of this being the true rendering, that after having recorded the genealogy of Naphtali (1Ch_7:13) the sacred historian adds, “the sons of Bilhah, the handmaid, who was the mother of Dan and Naphtali.” We naturally expect, therefore, that these two will be noticed together, but Dan is not mentioned at all, if not in this passage.

K&D, "1Ch_7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, “And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir,” would seem, if we may judge from the ו cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names וחפים מפים occur in Gen_46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Num_26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called שופמי from שפופם, and another חופמי from חופם, are introduced; we must consequently hold מפים to be an error for שפם or שופם. And (2) the name עיר is most probably identical with עירי in 1Ch_7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., וחפםולשפים seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with ,שפםלחפים in 1Ch_7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1Ch_7:15 belong to the Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled with the purpose (1Ch_7:6) to mention none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further statement, “Hushim, sons of Aher,” is utterly enigmatical. The name חשים is found in Gen_46:23 as that of Dan's only son, who, however, is called in Num_26:42 and who founded the family of ,שוחםthe Shuhami. But as the names חושים and חשים are again met with in 1Ch_8:8, 1Ch_8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our חשם and that family.

The word אהר, alius, is not indeed found elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so here; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction w, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted from our chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is omitted.

(Note: Bertheau's judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts that חשים (Gen_46:27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Gen 46 and Num 26, Dan follows after Benjamin; that in Gen 46 Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1Ch_7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, “sons of Bilhah,” can, according to Gen_46:25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and

31

consequently presuppose that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, - he thinks there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and that חשם was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word אהר, “the other,” he draws the further inference that it may have been, according to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designation of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself from the congregation of Israel; cf. Judg. 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1Ch_6:61 and 1Ch_6:69, and is named only in 1Ch_2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1Ch_12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that אהר בן ,חשם“Hushim the son of the other,” viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for חשם דן The name .ובניAher, then, had so completely concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new commencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, שפם and חפם, to the similarly-sounding חשם, though probably at first only in the margin. This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in 1Ch_2:2 and 1Ch_12:35, but also in 1Ch_27:22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in 1Ch_6:61, 1Ch_6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1Ch_6:61 the words, “Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan,” and after 1Ch_6:69 a whole verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can there by any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, for in 1Ch_6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1Ch_6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any “dislike.” When Berth. quotes Jdg_18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri מנשה the name משהis supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage משה has been altered into מנשה from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it “to solve the enigma of our verse.” If the words in question do really contain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been dropped out. Yet the בלהה בני at the end of 1Ch_7:13 is not sufficient to warrant such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that בלהה בני would have to be referred to both, the conj. ו could not have been omitted before נפתלי .בניThe want of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a conjunction; cf. 1Ch_7:6, 1Ch_7:14, 1Ch_7:30. ו is found only

32

before אפרים 1Ch_7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely ,בניconnected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold נף ו 1Ch_7:13, without ,בני cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that בלהה בני includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.)

ELLICOTT, " (12) Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir.—Literally, and Shuppim and Huppim sons of Ir; Hushim sons of Aher. The copulative and suggests that “Shuppim and Huppim” are other Benjamite clans thrown in at the end of the account. We have seen (see Note on 1 Chronicles 7:6-11) that Genesis 46:21 names “Muppim and. Huppim” as sons of Benjamin, and that Numbers 26 has “Snephupham and Hupham” corresponding to the same pair of names. Lastly, 1 Chronicles 8:5 mentions “Shephupham and Huram” among the sons of Bela, son of Benjamin. It is clear that “Muppim” is a mere slip of the pen for “Shuppim,” to which the name Shephupham is really equivalent. From Shephupham, according to Numbers 26, sprang the clan of the “Shuphami” (Shuphamite), as from “Hupham” the clan of the Huphami. Shupham and Hupham are quite natural variants of Shuppim and Huppim. The “Huram” of 1 Chronicles 8:5 is a scribe’s error for “Hupham.” Shuppim and Huppim, called sons of Benjamin in Genesis and Numbers, and sons of Bela in 1 Chronicles 8, are here called “sons of Ir;” 1 Chronicles 7:7 above informs us that Ir or Iri (? the Irite) was a son of Bela. There is no more contradiction here than there would be in calling the same person a son of David, son of Judah, and son of Abraham.

Hushim, the sons of Aher.—The name Hushim (a plural form) recurs at 1 Chronicles 8:8; 1 Chronicles 8:11, as a Benjamite clan. Aher looks like a variant of the Ahiram of Numbers, and the Ahrah of 1 Chronicles 8, and perhaps of the Ehi-Rosh of Genesis. From this it would appear that the whole verse is an appendix to the genealogy of Benjamin. The word Aher, however, happens to mean another, and if the reading were certain (comp. the variants Ahiram, Ahrah, &c), would be very singular as a proper name. The clause has been rendered “Hushim. sons of another;” and this odd expression has been taken to be a veiled reference to the tribe of Dan, whose name is omitted in the present section. Genesis 46:23, “And the sons of Dan, Hushim,” a statement occurring like the present clause between that of the sons of Benjamin and the sons of Naphtali, is cited in support of this view. This last coincidence is certainly remarkable; but the following considerations are decidedly adverse to the view in question: 1. Numbers 26:42 calls the offspring of

33

Dan, Shuham, not Hushim, though there also Dan follows Benjamin. 2. Dan is, indeed, omitted here, but so also is Zebulun, just as Gad and Asher are omitted in 1 Chronicles 27:16-22; and Naphtali here has only one verse 3. The chronicler’s dislike of the tribe of Dan is probably an unfounded supposition, suggested by some accidental omissions; he has mentioned that tribe by name in 1 Chronicles 2:2; 1 Chronicles 12:35; 1 Chronicles 27:22. If the omission in the present list be neither accidental nor due to imperfect MSS., it may be ascribed to later editors of the book. (Comp. Judges 18 and Revelation 7:5-8.)

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:12 Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir, [and] Hushim, the sons of Aher.Ver. 12. Shuppim also, and Huppim.] Alias Shupham and Hupham [Numbers 26:39]The sons of Aher.] See on 1 Chronicles 7:6.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:12Shuppim… and Huppim. These two, called (Numbers 36:1-13 :39) "Shupham and Hupham," and 1 Chronicles 8:5 "Shephuphan and Huram," are mentioned (Genesis 46:21) as among those who went down with Jacob into Egypt, are called "Muppim and Huppim," 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 1 Chronicles 8:8, 1 Chronicles 8:11, is manifestly the name, not of a family, but of an individual, and that a woman. Bertheau takes the opportunity of urging, in connection with this name, that Dan is not entirely omitted in our work of Chronicles! But his foundation is surely far too slender to build upon. Bertheau and Zockler (in Lange, 'Alt. Test.') would translate אחר "another," or "the other," instancing not very pertinently, Ezra 2:31, and referring the allusion to Dan. He also thinks that this is corroborated by the expression, "the sons of Bilhah," in the next verse.

34

Naphtali13 The sons of Naphtali:Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and Shillem[b]—the descendants of Bilhah.Manasseh

GILL, "The sons of Naphtali: Jahziel, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shallum,.... Called Shillem, Gen_46:24, the sons of Bilhah; Jacob's concubine; her grandsons; for Naphtali, the father of them, was her son; from these sprung so many families, after their names, Num_26:48.

JAMISON, "1Ch_7:13. Of Naphtali.Shallum — or Shillem (Gen_46:24).sons of Bilhah — As Dan and Naphtali were her sons, Hushim, as well as these enumerated in 1Ch_7:13, were her grandsons.

K&D, "The sons of Naphtali. - Only the sons of Naphtali are named, the families descended from them being passed over. The names correspond to those in Gen_46:24 and Num_26:48., except that there the first is יחצאל, and the last שלם instead of שלום.

BENSON, "Verses 13-151 Chronicles 7:13-15. The sons of Bilhah — The grand-children; for Bilhah was Jacob’s concubine, and mother both to Naphtali, the father of the persons last named, and to Dan. The sons of Manasseh — Grand-children, as in the former verse. Ashriel, whom she bare — Whom his wife bare, his concubine being here

35

opposed to her. Machir took the sister of Huppim — The word sister, though not in the Hebrew, is fitly supplied out of the following clause, where it is expressed, and she is called Maacha, and, 1 Chronicles 7:16, is said to be the wife of Machir. The name of the second, &c. — Of the second son or grand-son of Machir, for such Zelophehad was. Had daughters — That is, only daughters, and no sons.

ELLICOTT, " (13) The sons of Naphtali.—See Numbers 26:48 seq., and Genesis 46:24, which read Jahzeel and Shillem.

Sons of Bilhah.—Dan and Naphtali were her sons (Genesis 46:25). That does not, however, prove that a reference to Dan is intended here. Both in Genesis, 50100, and in the present text, grandsons are reckoned

THE TRIBE OF WEST MANASSEH (1 Chronicles 7:14-19). 1 Chronicles 7:14-15 are very obscure.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:13 The sons of Naphtali; Jahziel, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shallum, the sons of Bilhah.Ver. 13. The sons of Bilhah,] i.e., Her grandsons.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:13

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 sen 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, Numbers 1:43); 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,

36

and covered the district afterwards called Galilee, "the cradle of the Christian faith, the native place of most of the apostles, and the home of our Lord" (Grove). 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; Joshua 21:32; 1:33; 5:18; 1 Chronicles 27:19; Ezekiel 48:3, Ezekiel 48:4, Ezekiel 48:34; 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 Jerusalem were numbered.

14 The descendants of Manasseh:Asriel was his descendant through his Aramean concubine. She gave birth to Makir the father of Gilead.

GILL, "The sons of Manasseh; Ashriel, whom she bare,.... The wife of Manasseh, as distinguished from his concubine in the next clause; though the Targum reads, in connection with that,"whom his Aramitess (or Syrian) concubine bare;'' and then adds: who also bare Machir the father of Gilead; so that Ashriel and Machir were brethren; from which Ashriel sprung the family of the Ashrielites, Num_26:29 as from Machir the Machirites, Num_26:29.

JAMISON 14-15, "1Ch_7:14-40. Of Manasseh.The sons of Manasseh — or descendants; for Ashriel was a grandson, and Zelophehad was a generation farther removed in descent (Num_26:33). The text, as it stands, is so confused and complicated that it is exceedingly difficult to trace the genealogical thread, and a great variety of conjectures have been made with a view to clear away the obscurity. The passage [1Ch_

37

7:14, 1Ch_7:15] should probably be rendered thus: “The sons of Manasseh were Ashriel, whom his Syrian concubine bare to him, and Machir, the father of Gilead (whom his wife bare to him). Machir took for a wife Maachah, sister to Huppim and Shuppim.”

K&D, "Families of the half-tribe of Manasseh. - The families of Manasseh which dwelt in Gilead and Bashan have already been mentioned in 1Ch_5:23, 1Ch_5:14. Our verses deal with the families of this tribe which received their inheritance in Canaan, on this side Jordan. These were, according to Num_26:30, Num_26:34, and Jos_17:2, six families, of which, however, only two are here spoken of - Ashriel, 1Ch_7:14, and Shemidah, 1Ch_7:19; or perhaps three, if Abiezer, 1Ch_7:18, be the same person as Jeezer (Num_26:30), who is called Abiezer in Jos_17:2. The statements of 1Ch_7:14, 1Ch_7:15 are very obscure. At the head of the register of the Manassites stands Ashriel, who, according to Num_26:31, belonged to the sons of Gilead the son of Manasseh and the grandson of Joseph (cf. Gen_50:23), and founded one of the six families of the cis-Jordanic Manassites. But the words which follow are obscure; the words are וגו ילרה whom his Aramaic“ ,אשרconcubine bore; she bore Machir the father of Gilead.” But since Ashriel, according to this, was the great-grandson of Manasseh, while Machir was his son, the relative clause can refer only to Manasseh, to whom his concubine bore Machir. Movers and Berth. would therefore erase אשריאל, as a gloss arising out of a doubling of the following יל By this expedient .אשרthe difficultly as to the connection of the relative clause is certainly got rid of, but the obscurities of the following verse (1Ch_7:15) are not thereby removed. The analogy of the other registers in our chapter requires, rather, that immediately after מנשה בני there should stand the name of a descendant, - a fact which speaks strongly in favour of the authenticity of אשריאל. It is therefore a much more probable suggestion, that after the name אשריאל, some additional clause, such as בן־מנשה, has been dropped, or regarded as superfluous by a copyist, and so omitted. To such an omitted מנשה the relative sentence, which gives more details as to the descent of ,בןAshriel, would be attacked in a simple and natural manner, since it was known from Num_26:30. that Ashriel was descended from Manasseh through Gilead.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:14 The sons of Manasseh; Ashriel, whom she bare: ([but] his concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead:

Ver. 14. Whom she bare,] i.e., The wife of Gilead bare.

38

ELLICOTT, " (14) The sons of Manasseh.—Translate, the sons of Manasseh, Asriel, whom his Aramean concubine bare. (She bare Machir, father of Gilead.) Numbers 27:1, Joshua 17:3, give the lineZelophehad has five daughters, but no sons. Numbers 26:29-33 gives the same line with additions thus:—This last passage is important, because it expressly declares that the names all represent clans, with the exception of Zelophehad, who “had no sons, but daughters.” It also shows that Asriel was great-grandson of Manasseh. The parenthesis of 1 Chronicles 7:14, therefore, appears to be intended to warn the reader that Asriel was the “son” of the Aramean concubine of Manasseh, mediately through descent from Machir.

PULLPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:14The sons of Manasseh. The tribe of Manasseh has been partly treated of in 1 Chronicles 5:23-26, viz. those of the tribe who inhabited Gilead and Bashan. Here those who inhabited this side Jordan are treated 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. Askriel, Shemida, and perhaps Abiezer (iq. Jeezer, Numbers 26:30; comp. 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 bars, 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.

39

15 Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister’s name was Maakah.Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.

GILL, "And Machir took to wife the sister of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister's name was Maachah,.... He married into the tribe of Benjamin, a sister of the persons mentioned, 1Ch_7:12 whose name was Maachah: and the name of the second was Zelophehad; the second son of Manasseh, or of his posterity mentioned; for he was not his immediate son; for he was the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, Num_27:1. and Zelophehad had daughters; but no sons, the names of his daughters are given, Num_26:33.

K&D, "1Ch_7:15 is literally, “And Machir took a wife to Huppim and Shuppim, and the name of his sister was Maachah, and the name of the second Zelophehad.” According to 1Ch_7:16, on the contrary, Maachah is the wife of Machir, and we should consequently expect to find in 1Ch_7:15only the simple statement, “And Machir took a wife whose name was Maachah.” From the words מעכה אחתו מעכה sdrow eh ולשפים לחפים no meaning which harmonizes with the context can be obtained. Since ל אשהלקח signifies “to take a wife for one” (cf. Jdg_14:2), we can only suppose that by the names Huppim and Shuppim Machir's sons are meant, to whom he, as their father, gave wives. But we cannot suppose that the sons of Machir are referred to, for the birth of the sons is first mentioned in 1Ch_7:16. But we have found the names חפם and שפם spoken of as descendants of Benjamin; and Bertheau consequently conjectures that these names have been brought thence into our verse by some gloss, and that the beginning of our verse originally stood thus: המלכת אחת ושם מעכם ושמה אשה לקח ומכיר And Machir took a wife whose name is Maachah, and the“ ,לקח אשה ושם

40

name of his sister if Hammoleketh” (the last according to 1Ch_7:18). By this means we certainly bring some meaning into the words; but we cannot venture to maintain that this conjecture corresponds to the original text, but rather incline to doubt it. For, in the first place, the following words, “And the name of the second (is) Zelophehad,” do not suit the proposed reading. Berth. must here alter השני into אהיו (the name of his brother). But even after this alteration, the mention of the brother of Machir is not suitable to the context; and moreover Zelophehad was not a true brother, but only a nephew of Machir, the son of his brother Hepher; cf. Num_26:33; Num_27:1. And besides this, according to the concluding formula, “These are the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh” (1Ch_7:17), we should expect to find in 1Ch_7:15, 1Ch_7:16, not merely sons or descendants of Machir, but rather descendants of Gilead. We therefore hold the statement of 1Ch_7:15, “And the name of the second if Zelophehad, and Zelophehad had (only) daughters,” to be correct and beyond criticism, and the first part of 1Ch_7:15 to be corrupt and defective; and conjecture that a son of Gilead's was mentioned in it, to whose name the words, “And the name of the second,” etc., belonged. This son who was mentioned in the text, which has been handed down to us only in a defective state, was probably the Ashriel mentioned in 1Ch_7:14, a son of Gilead, whose descent from Machir was given more in detail in the corrupt and consequently meaningless first half of 1Ch_7:15. In 1Ch_7:15, 1Ch_7:17, other descendants of Machir by his wife Maachah are enumerated, which favours the probable conjecture that the wife whom Machir took, according to 1Ch_7:15, was different from Maachah, that Machir had two wives, and that in 1Ch_7:15originally the sons of the first were enumerated, and in 1Ch_7:16, 1Ch_7:17, the sons of the second. Peresh and Shelesh are mentioned only here. בנין, “his sons” (that is, the sons of the last-named, Shelesh), were Ulam and Rakem, names which are also met with only here. The name בדן is found in our Masoretic text, 1Sa_12:11, as the name of a judge, but probably ברקshould be read instead.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:15 And Machir took to wife [the sister] of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister’s name [was] Maachah;) and the name of the second [was] Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters.

Ver. 15. And Zelophehad had daughters,] i.e., Daughters only, whose case, brought before the Lord, occasioned those two judicial laws in Numbers 27:1-11; Numbers 36:2-12.

ELLICOTT, " (15) And Machir took to wife.—The Hebrew cannot mean this. 41

Translate, now Machir took a wife of Huppim and of Shuppim (the two Benjamite clans of 1 Chronicles 7:12); and the name of the first (read ‘ahath) was Maachah, and the name of the second (read shçnîth) was. . . .” (the name is omitted). It is tempting to make Zeiophehad the other wife, who had only daughters, whereas Maachah bore a son (1 Chronicles 7:16); but Numbers, l.c., and Josh., l.c., make Zelophehad a man. We must, therefore, suppose a lacuna of some few words, which gave the name of Machir’s second wife, and the descent of Zelophehad from her. The expression “of Huppim and of Shuppim” is literally “to Huppim and to Shuppim,” that is, belonging to. So “of Tola,” (1 Chronicles 7:2).

We have no means of further elucidating the import of this curious tribal record. That it relates to West Manasseh is inferred from its position here, as well from the fact that 1 Chronicles 5:23-24 treated of East Manasseh. (See also Joshua 17:1-5.) The name of Gilead, however, points to the transjordanic half of the tribe. The whole passage seems to assert an Aramean and a Benjamite element in the population of Western Manasseh.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:15Maachah. Of this Maachah, one among tea 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. Zelophehad. The meaning of the preceding words, and the name of the second, is unintelligible. Zelophehad was son of Hephen, who was (through Gilead and Maehir) great-grandson of Manasseh (Joshua 17:3). The number and names and wise appeal and success of the daughters hero spoken of, are given in Joshua 17:3-6; Numbers 26:33; Numbers 27:1-11; Numbers 36:5-12.

16 Makir’s wife Maakah gave birth to a son and named him Peresh. His brother was named Sheresh, and his sons were Ulam and Rakem.

42

Gill, "And Maachah the wife of Machir bare a son, and she called his name Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh,.... He had both these sons by her: and his sons were Ulam and Rakem, that is, either the sons of Peresh or Sheresh, the nearest, as Kimchi observes.

ELLICOTT, " (16) Peresh . . . Sheresh occur nowhere else.Ulam and Rakem (Rekem) were probably sons of the elder, Peresh, whose line would naturally be continued, as usual.

17 The son of Ulam:Bedan.These were the sons of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh.

BARNES, "These were the sons of Gilead - i. e. these descendants of Machir were reckoned to the family of Gilead. The name “Gilead” prevailed above all others in the line of Manasseh, the term “Gileadite” almost taking the place of “Manassite.”

GILL, "And Maachah the wife of Machir bare a son, and she called his name Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh,.... He had both these sons by her:

43

and his sons were Ulam and Rakem, that is, either the sons of Peresh or Sheresh, the nearest, as Kimchi observes.

BENSON, "Verse 17-181 Chronicles 7:17-18. These were the sons of Gilead — Namely, Ashriel and Zelophehad, named 1 Chronicles 7:14-15, the relative being here referred to the remoter antecedent, as is frequent in the Hebrew. His — Gilead’s sister. Mahalah — Understand, and Shemidah, out of the next verse.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:17 And the sons of Ulam; Bedan. These [were] the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.

Ver. 17. Bedan.] Whom some suppose to be the same with Judge Jair, the Gileadite. [ 10:3 1 Samuel 12:11]

ELLICOTT, " (17) Bedan (i.e., ben Dan “the Danite” in 1 Samuel 12:11 is a judge between Jerubbaal and Jephthah. Here a clan is meant, not a person.

These were the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.—These words appear to refer to a series of names which has dropped out of the text, but which may be inferred from Numbers 26:30-32 to have included Abiezer (of which Jeezer is a contraction) and Shemidah. (See the genealogy, 1 Chronicles 7:14, Note.) 1 Chronicles 7:17 b and 1 Chronicles 7:18 may thus have read, “These were the sons of Gilead, &c. Abiezer . . . Shemidah. (Now his sister Hammoleketh had borne Ish-hôd and Abiezer and Mahalah.) And the sons of Shemidah were,” &c. (1 Chronicles 7:19).

Hammoleketh—or, the queen, as the Vulg. renders it, may be conceived of here as a half-sister and consort of Gilead.Ishod = Man of majesty.

44

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:17

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 (1 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. See Bishop Cotton's excellent short article. These were the sons of Gilead (see verse 14). The name Gilead surpassed the name Machir, and even rivalled that of Manasseh itself.

18 His sister Hammoleketh gave birth to Ishhod, Abiezer and Mahlah.

BARNES, "Abiezer - His descendants formed one of the most important branches of the Manassites. They furnished to Israel the greatest of the Judges, Gideon Jdg_6:11, Jdg_6:24, Jdg_6:34, and were regarded as the leading family among the so-called “sons of Gilead.

GILL, "And his sister Hammoleketh,.... The sister of Gilead so named; though the Targum renders it "that reigned"; and so Kimchi, that reigned in some part of Gilead; and the Vulgate Latin version translates it, "a queen bare Ishod, and Abiezer, and Mahalah"; Abiezer is the same with Jeezer, from whom a family sprung of that name, Num_26:30, of which Gideon was, Jdg_6:11.

K&D, "1Ch_7:18A third branch of the descendants of Gilead were descended from Machir's sister Hammoleketh, a name which the Vulgate has taken in an appellative sense. Of her sons, Ishod, i.e., “man of splendour,” is not

45

elsewhere mentioned. The name Abiezer occurs, Jos_17:2, as that of the head of one of the families of Manasseh. In Num_26:30, however, he is called Jeezer, which is probably the original reading, and consequently our Abiezer is different from that in Jos_17:2. Another circumstance which speaks strongly against the identification of the two men is, that the family descended from Jeezer holds the first place among the families of Manasseh, which is not at all consonant with the position of the son of Machir's sister here mentioned. Of the family of Abiezer came the judge Gideon, Jdg_11:15. A daughter of Zelophehad is called Mahlah in Num_26:33; Num_27:1, but she is not the person here mentioned.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:18 And his sister Hammoleketh bare Ishod, and Abiezer, and Mahalah.

Ver. 18. And his sister,] i.e., Gilead’s sister.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:18

Abiezer. He is the nephew, then, of Gilead, and grandson of Machir. Gideon sprang from him ( 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 The sons of Shemida were:Ahian, Shechem, Likhi and Aniam.Ephraim

46

GILL, "And the sons of Shemida,.... Another son of Gilead's sister, unless the same with Ishod; from him sprung the family of the Shemidaites, Num_26:30. were, Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam; from Shechem came the family of the Shethemites, as from Likhi, if he is the same with Helek, as probably he may be, was the family of the Helekites, Num_26:30.

K&D, "1Ch_7:19The sons of Shemida, the founder of the fourth family of the Manassites,

Num_26:32. His four sons are nowhere else referred to, for שכם, the founder of a family of the Manassites (Num_26:31 and Jos_17:2), is to be distinguished from the Shechem of our verse; nor is there any greater reason to identify Likhi with Helek, Num_26:30 (Berth.), than there is for connecting אניעם with נעם, the daughter of Zelophehad, Num_26:33; Jos_17:3.

TRAPP, "Verse 191 Chronicles 7:19 And the sons of Shemida were, Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam.Ver. 19. Likhi.] Alias Helek, [Numbers 26:30] by transposition of letters.

ELLICOTT, " (19) Shechem.—See Joshua 17:2. The name points to West Manasseh.

Ahian, Likhi, and Aniam, are not mentioned elsewhere.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:19

47

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 Gilead family. Of Ahian, Likhi, Aniam, nothing else is known. Shechem. If this name is rightly placed under Shemi-dab, 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 Gilead, and was head of a family named Shechemites after him. His descendants are spoken of as the "sons of Shechem" in the above passage of Joshua.

20 The descendants of Ephraim:Shuthelah, Bered his son,Tahath his son, Eleadah his son,Tahath his son,

BARNES, "The sons of Ephraim - The genealogy is difficult. It is perhaps best to consider Ezer and Elead 1Ch_7:21 as not sons of Zabad and brothers of the second Shuthelah, but natural sons of Ephraim. The passage would then run thusly:

“And the sons of Ephraim, Shuthelah (and Bered was his son, and Tahath his son and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son) and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath slew” (i. e. the settled inhabitants, as contrasted with the nomadic Hebrews, Amalekites, etc.).

GILL, "And the sons of Ephraim,.... A son of Joseph, and father of a tribe of this name, whose genealogy through five generations follows: Shuthelah, Bered, Tahath, Eladah, Tahath; the second.

HENRY 20-40, "We have here an account,I. Of the tribe of Ephraim. Great things we read of that tribe when it came to maturity. Here we have an account of the disasters of its infancy, while it was in Egypt as it should seem; for Ephraim himself was alive when those things were done, which yet is hard to imagine if it were, as is here

48

computed, seven generations off. Therefore I am apt to think that either it was another Ephraim or that those who were slain were the immediate sons of that Ephraim that was the son of Joseph. In this passage, which is related here only, we have, 1. The great breach that was made upon the family of Ephraim. The men of Gath, Philistines, giants, slew many of the sons of that family, because they came down to take away their cattle, 1Ch_7:21. It is uncertain who were the aggressors here. Some make the men of Gath the aggressors, men born in the land of Egypt, but now resident in Gath, supposing that they came down into the land of Goshen, to drive away the Ephraimites' cattle, and slew the owners, because they stood up in the defence of them. Many a man's life has been exposed and betrayed by his wealth; so far is it from being a strong city. Others think that the Ephraimites made a descent upon the men of Gath to plunder them, presuming that the time had come when they should be put in possession of Canaan; but they paid dearly for their rashness and precipitation. Those that will not wait God's time cannot expect God's blessing. I rather think that the men of Gath came down upon the Ephraimites, because the Israelites in Egypt were shepherds, not soldiers, abounded in cattle of their own, and therefore were not likely to venture their lives for their neighbours' cattle: and the words may be read, The men of Gath slew them, for they came down to take away their cattle. Zabad the son of Ephraim, and Shuthelah, and Ezer, and Elead (his grandchildren), were, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, the men that were slain. Jacob had foretold that the seed of Ephraim should become a multitude of nations (Gen_48:19), and yet that plant is thus nipped in the bud. God's providences often seem to contradict his promises; but, when they do so, they really magnify the promise, and make the performance of it, notwithstanding, so much more illustrious. The Ephraimites were the posterity of Joseph, and yet his power could not protect them, though some think he was yet living. The sword devours one as well as another. 2. The great grief which oppressed the father of the family hereupon: Ephraim mourned many days. Nothing brings the aged to the grave with more sorrow than their following the young that descend from them to the grave first, especially if in blood. It is often the burden of those that live to be old that they see those go before them of whom they said, These same shall comfort us. It was a brotherly friendly office which his brethren did, when they came to comfort him under this great affliction, to express their sympathy with him and concern for him, and to suggest that to him which would support and quiet him under this sad providence. Probably they reminded him of the promise of increase which Jacob had blessed him when he laid his right hand upon his head. Although his house was not so with God as he hoped, but a house of mourning, a shattered family, yet that promise was sure, 2Sa_23:5. 3. The repair of this breach, in some measure, by addition of another son to his family in his old age (1Ch_7:23), like Seth, another seed instead of that of Abel whom Cain slew, Gen_4:25. When God thus restores comfort to his mourners, makes glad according to the days wherein he afflicted, setting the mercies over against the crosses, we ought therein to take notice of the kindness and tenderness of divine Providence; it is as if it repented God concerning his servants,Psa_90:13, Psa_90:15. Yet joy that a man was born into his family could not 49

make him forget his grief; for he gives a melancholy name to his son, Beriah - in trouble, for he was born when the family was in mourning, when it went evil with his house. It is good to have in remembrance the affliction and the misery, the wormwood and the gall, that our souls may be humbled within us, Lam_3:19, Lam_3:20. What name more proper for man that is born of a woman than Beriah, because born into a troublesome world? It is added, as a further honour to the house of Ephraim, (1.) That a daughter of that tribe, Sherah by name, at the time of Israel's setting in Canaan, built some cities, either at her own charge or by her own care; one of them bore her name, Uzzen-sherah, 1Ch_7:24. A virtuous woman may be as great an honour and blessing to a family as a mighty man. (2.) That a son of that tribe was employed in the conquest of Canaan, Joshua the son of Nun, 1Ch_7:27. In this also the breach made on Ephraim's family was further repaired; and perhaps the resentment of this injury formerly done by the Canaanites to the Ephraimites might make him more vigorous in the war.II. Of the tribe of Asher. Some men of note of that tribe are here named. Their militia was not numerous in comparison with some other tribes, only 26,000 men in all; but their princes were choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes (1Ch_7:40), and perhaps it was their wisdom that they coveted not to make their trained bands numerous, but rather to have a few, and those apt to the war and serviceable men.

K&D 20-23, "The families of Ephraim. - 1Ch_7:20. Among the Ephraimites, the descendants of Shuthelah, the founder of one of the chief families of this tribe, Num_26:35, are traced down through six generations to a later Shuthelah. The names ואלעד ועזר which follow בנ And his“ ,שותלחson Shuthelah,” after which בנ is wanting, are not to be considered descendants of the second Shuthelah, but are heads of a family co-ordinate with that of Shuthelah, or of two fathers'-houses intimately connected with each other. These names are to be taken as a continuation of the list of the sons of Ephraim, which commenced with שותלח. The suffix in והרגום refers to both these names: “The men of Gath, that were born in the land, smote Ezer and Elead.” These “men born in the land” Ewald and Bertheau take to be the Avvites, the aboriginal inhabitants of that district of country, who had been extirpated by the Philistines emigrating from Caphtor (Deu_2:23). But there is no sufficient ground for this supposition; for no proof can be brought forward that the Avvaeans (Avvites) had ever spread so far as Gath; and the Philistines had taken possession of the south-west part of Canaan as early as the time of Abraham, and consequently long before Ephraim's birth. “The men of Gath who were born in the land” are rather the Canaanite or Philistine inhabitants of Gath, as distinguished from the Israelites, who had settled in Canaan only under Joshua. “For they (Ezer and Elead) had come down to take away their cattle” (to plunder). The older commentators assign this event to the time that Israel dwelt in Egypt (Ewald, Gesch. i. S. 490), or even to the pre-Egyptian time. But Bertheau has, in opposition to this, justly remarked that the narratives of Genesis know nothing of a stay of the progenitors of the tribe of Ephraim in the land

50

of Palestine before the migration of Israel into Egypt, for Ephraim was born in Egypt (Gen_46:20). It would be more feasible to refer it to the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, as it is not impossible that the Israelites may have undertaken predatory expeditions against Canaan from Goshen; but even this supposition is not at all probable. Certainly, if in 1Ch_7:23-27it were said, as Ewald thinks, that Ephraim, after the mourning over the sons thus slain, became by his wife the father of three other sons, from the last named of whom Joshua was descended in the seventh generation, we should be compelled to refer the expedition to the pre-Egyptian period. But the opinion that Rephah and Resheph, 1Ch_7:25, were begotten only after that misfortune has no foundation. Moreover, the statement that Ephraim, after he was comforted for the loss of his slain sons, went in unto his wife and begat a son, to whom he gave the name Beriah, because he was born in misfortune in his house, does not at all presuppose that the patriarch Ephraim was still alive when Ezer and Elead were slain. Were that the case, the necessary result would of course be, that this event could only be referred to the time when the Israelites dwelt in Egypt. In opposition to this, Bertheau's remark that the event in that case would be per se enigmatical, as we would rightly have great hesitation in accepting the supposition of a war, or rather a plundering expedition to seize upon cattle carried out by the Ephraimites whilst they dwelt in Egypt, against the inhabitants of the Philistine city of Gath, is certainly not all decisive, for we know far too little about those times to be able to judge of the possibility or probability of such an expedition.The decision to which we must come as to this obscure matter depends, in

the first place, on how the words וגו י רדו כי are to be understood; whether we are to translate “for they had gone,” or “when they had gone down to fetch their cattle,” i.e., to plunder. If we take the כי par partic. ration., for, because, we can only take the sons of Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, for the subject of י רדו, and we must understand the words to mean that they had gone down to carry off the cattle of the Gathites. In that case, the event would fall in the time when the Ephraimites dwelt in Canaan, and went down from Mount Ephraim into the low-lying Gath, for a march out of Egypt into Canaan is irreconcilable with the verb ירד. If, on the contrary, we translate י רדו when they had gone down,” we might then gather from the“ כיwords that men of Gath went down to Goshen, there to drive away the cattle of the Ephraimites, in which case the Gathites may have slain the sons of Ephraim when they were feeding their cattle and defending them against the robbers. Many of the old commentators have so understood the words; but we cannot hold this to be the correct interpretation, for it deprives the words “those born in the land,” which stand in apposition to גת of all ,אנשיmeaning, since there can be absolutely no thought of men of Gath born in Egypt. We therefore take the words to mean, that the sons of Ephraim who are named in our verse attempted to drive away the cattle of the Gathites, and were by them slain in the attempt. But how can the statement that Ephraim after this unfortunate event begat another son, Beriah, be reconciled with such a supposition, since the patriarch Ephraim was dead

51

long before the Israelites came forth out of Egypt. Bertheau understands the begetting figuratively, of the whole of the tribe of Ephraim, or of a small Ephraimite family, which at first was not numbered with the others, into the number of the famous families of this tribe. But this straining of the words by an allegorical interpretation is not worthy of serious refutation, since it is manifestly only a makeshift to get rid of the difficulty. The words, “And Ephraim went in unto his wife, and she conceived and bare a son,” are not to be interpreted allegorically, but must be taken in their proper sense; and the solution of the enigma will be found in the name Ephraim. If this be taken to denote the actual son of Joseph, then the event is incomprehensible; but just as a descendant of Shuthelah in the sixth generation was also called Shuthelah, so also might a descendant of the patriarch Ephraim, living at a much later time, have received the name of the progenitor of the tribe; and if we accept this supposition, the event, with all its issues, is easily explained. If Ezer and Elead went down from Mount Ephraim to Gath, they were not actual sons of Ephraim, but merely later descendants; and their father, who mourned for their death, was not Ephraim the son of Joseph, who was born in Egypt, but an Ephraimite who lived after the Israelites had taken possession of the land of Canaan, and who bore Ephraim's name. He may have mourned for the death of his sons, and after he had been comforted for their loss, may have gone in unto his wife, and have begotten a son with her, to whom he gave the name Beriah, “because it was in misfortune in his house,” i.e., because this son was born when misfortune was in his house.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:20 And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son,

Ver. 20. And the sons of Ephraim,] The Ephraimites were famous for their wealth, power, and prowess; but withal they are noted for insolent, proud, and quarrelsome. See 8:1; 12:1.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:20-27

The chief difficulty of this passage lies in reconciling the points of chronology which it forces to the surface. 1 Chronicles 7:20, 1 Chronicles 7:21, purport to contain the line of descent from Ephraim through his son Shu-thelah 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

52

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 Egypt (Genesis 46:20), so that, on the above showing, the actual sons of Ephraim must have made some incursion from Egypt into the territories of the settled or possibly aboriginal inhabitants of Gath, and met the fate over which Ephraim so mourned. Such excursions on the part of the Israelites out of Egypt have very little collateral evidence. But there would seem to be no impossibility in the matter, considering Genesis 50:13-23. Next, Genesis 50:23 -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 verse 23 or 24, and that verses 25-27 carry on the generations from verse 21. Meantime welcome light breaks in at the stage (verse 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; Numbers 2:18; Numbers 7:48, etc.); 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. Avery 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 Egypt to the entrance into Canaan. There also may be found the most and best that can be said against the literal reading of what is here written respecting the men of Gath and the cattle.

21 Zabad his sonand Shuthelah his son.Ezer and Elead were killed by the native-born

53

men of Gath, when they went down to seize their livestock.

CLARKE, "Whom the men of Gath - slew - We know nothing of this circumstance but what is related here. The Targum paraphrases the whole thus: “These were the leaders of the house of Ephraim; and they computed their period [or boundary, כיצא kitsa] from the time in which the Word of the Lord of the universe spake with Abraham between the divisions, [i.e., the separated parts of the covenant sacrifice; see Gen_15:9-21], but they erred, for they should have counted from the time in which Isaac was born; they went out of Egypt therefore thirty years before the period: for, thirty years before the birth of Isaac the Word of the Lord of the universe spake with Abraham between the divisions. And when they went out of Egypt, there were with them two hundred thousand warriors of the tribe of Ephraim, whom the men of Gath, the natives of the land of the Philistines, slew, because they came down that they might carry away their cattle. 22. -And Ephraim their father mourned for them many days, and all his brethren came to comfort him. 23. - And he went in to his wife, and she conceived and bare a son, and called his name Beriah, (בריעה in evil), because he was born in the time in which this evil happened to his house.

GILL, "And Zabad his son,.... Not the son of Tahath the second last mentioned, but the son of Ephraim, a second son of his: and Shuthelah; his son, the son of Zabad, called after his uncle's name, 1Ch_7:20. and Ezer, and Elead; two other sons of Zabad: whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew: that is, Zabad and his three sons; these the men of Gath slew, who were Philistines that dwelt there, and were originally of Egypt, and were born in that land, but had removed into Palestine, which had its name from them, of which Gath was one of its cities; and this bordering upon the land of Goshen, or being near it, where the Israelites dwelt, they made inroads upon them, and plundered them: because they came down to take away their cattle; and the sons, the

54

grandsons of Ephraim, resisted them, and so were slain: and that the aggressors were not the Ephraimites, who went out of Egypt before their time, and fell upon the men of Gath, born in the land of the Philistines, in order to dispossess them of their land and substance, and were slain by them, which is the sense of the Targum and other writers, both Jewish and Christian; but the men of Gath, as is clear from this circumstance, that they came down, as men did when they went from Palestine to Egypt, not when they went from Egypt to Palestine, then they "went up"; which would have been the phrase used, if this had been an expedition of the Ephraimites into Palestine; besides, it is not reasonable to think, that the Ephraimites, addicted to husbandry and cattle, and not used to war, should engage in such an enterprise; but rather the men of Gath, or the Philistines, who were a warlike people, and given to spoil and plunder; this, according to a learned chronologer (l), was seventy four years after Jacob went down to Egypt, and one hundred and forty years before the children of Israel came from thence.

JAMISON, "whom the men of Gath ... slew, etc. — This interesting little episode gives us a glimpse of the state of Hebrew society in Egypt; for the occurrence narrated seems to have taken place before the Israelites left that country. The patriarch Ephraim was then alive, though he must have arrived at a very advanced age; and the Hebrew people, at all events those of them who were his descendants, still retained their pastoral character. It was in perfect consistency with the ideas and habits of Oriental shepherds that they should have made a raid on the neighboring tribe of the Philistines for the purpose of plundering their flocks. For nothing is more common among them than hostile incursions on the inhabitants of towns, or on other nomad tribes with whom they have no league of amity. But a different view of the incident is brought out, if, instead of “because,” we render the Hebrew particle “when” they came down to take their cattle, for the tenor of the context leads rather to the conclusion that “the men of Gath” were the aggressors, who, making a sudden foray on the Ephraimite flocks, killed the shepherds including several of the sons of Ephraim. The calamity spread a deep gloom around the tent of their aged father, and was the occasion of his receiving visits of condolence from his distant relatives, according to the custom of the East, which is remarkably exemplified in the history of Job (Job_2:11; compare Joh_11:19).BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:21. Whom the men of Gath slew — This history is not recorded elsewhere in Scripture, but it is in the ancient Hebrew writers. The Philistines (one of whose cities Gath was) and the Egyptians were next neighbours; and in those ancient times it was usual for such to make inroads one into another’s country, and to carry thence what prey they could take. And as the Philistines had probably made such inroads formerly into Egypt, and particularly into the land of Goshen, which was the utmost part of Egypt bordering upon the Philistines’ land; so

55

the Israelites might requite them in the like kind: and particularly the children of Ephraim, to their own loss. And this seems to have happened a little before the Egyptian persecution, and before the reign of that new king mentioned Exodus 1:8. And this clause, that were born in the land, may be added emphatically, as the motive which made them more resolute in their fight with the Ephraimites, because they fought in and for their own land, wherein all their wealth and concerns lay.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:21 And Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath [that were] born in [that] land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle.

Ver. 21. Whom the men of Gath … slew.] And no marvel; because, belike, being weary of the Egyptian servitude, and remembering that Palestina was promised to their forefathers for an inheritance, they would needs take possession thereof before the time, which rash adventure of these sons of Ephraim cost them their lives, and perhaps occasioned that cruel decree of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, against the Israelites. [Exodus 1:9-11] See to this purpose, Psalms 78:9. This happened about the birth of Aaron. It is not safe to break God’s prison.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 21

THE TRIBE OF EPHRAIM (1 Chronicles 7:20-29).

Shuthelah (Numbers 26, 35) was head of the first of the four Ephraimitic clans (mishpehôth). The names of six successive chieftains of his line appear to be given in 1 Chronicles 7:20-21, ending with his namesake Shuthelah. It is likely, however, that these names really represent clans, as in other similar cases. (Comp. Numbers 26:29-33.) “Bered” (Genesis 16:14) is a local name, a place in the desert of Shûr. But Bered may be a mistake for Becher. So “Tahath” (Numbers 33:26) was a desert station of Israel. But Tahath may well be a corruption of Tahan, son of Ephraim (1 Chronicles 7:25, and Numbers 26:35).

56

(21) Ezer and Elead.—Apparently these names are coordinated with the Shuthelah of 1 Chronicles 7:20, as sons of Ephraim. Elead is a masculine form of Eleadah.

Whom the men of Gath. . . .—Literally, and the men of Gath who were born in the land slew them; for they had come down to take their cattle.

Born in the land—That is, aborigines of Canaan as contrasted with the Ephraimites, who were foreign invaders. Others think the real aborigines of Philistia, the Avim of Deuteronomy 2:23, are meant. In 1 Chronicles 7:21-22 we have a brief memorial of an ancient raid of two Ephraimite clans upon the territory of Gath, for the purpose of lifting cattle, much as the Highland freebooters used to drive off the herds of their Lowland neighbours.

They came down.—The reference of the pronoun is not quite clear. Conceivably the Gittites were the aggressors. The expression “carne down” is often used of going from Canaan to Egypt, but not vice versa. It can hardly, therefore, apply to an invasion of Gath by Ephraimites from Egypt. And the phrase “born in the land” excludes an expedition of Gittites to Goshen. It seems, then, that the descent was made upon Philistia from the hill country of Ephraim, in the early days of the settlement of the tribe in Canaan.

PARKER, ""And Zabad his Song of Solomon , and Shuthelah his Song of Solomon , and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle. And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him" ( 1 Chronicles 7:21-22).

We here see how sons brought their father to grief. The sons were slain because they went down to Gath to steal cattle. There is nothing unreasonable in the supposition of some commentators that the young men may have gone out on this felonious business against their father"s judgment and will. Where is the unreasonableness of such a statement? Look around and see how today fathers are treated by their sons! How experience goes for nothing! How venerableness is regarded as senility! How

57

good advice is treated as worthless sentiment! The aged Ephraim still mourned over his sons notwithstanding their obstinacy. The influence of evil actions cannot be confined to the actors. The drunkard does not injure himself alone, he degrades his children and fastens a stigma on their name. Ingratitude does not punish itself, but it breaks the hearts of benefactors. We may have killed many men whom we have never violently assaulted. There is a murder of the heart, there is a Prayer of Manasseh -slaughter that is not recognised as such by the law of the land. Strange it will be if many who have claimed to be respectable should at last be proved to have been slayers of men.

In 1 Chronicles 7:24, chapter7 , we actually find a woman doing something! "And his daughter was Sherah, who built Beth-horon, the nether, and the upper, and Uzzen-Sherah." Into the local details of this statement we cannot enter, but many may take encouragement from the fact that Ephraim"s daughter Sherah built the nether and upper Beth-horon. What builders women may be! What character they can build in their sons and daughters! What influence they can build around themselves, and be as a beacon light amid surrounding darkness. Women can do a work which men cannot even attempt. It is not only unjust but absurd to assign to all women the same occupation. It is true that women have been painters, musicians, authors, and even devotees of the highest science, but whilst few can follow in that great train all women should be resolved according to the peculiarity of their circumstances to build up a sweet home, and train dependent lives to intelligence, justice, patriotism, and religious fidelity.

From this point and onward to the end of the eighth chapter we may be said to have little but a torrent of names. How the cataract rushes whilst we read! Whilst the torrent is fullest it is most difficult to select instances of special worth and excellence. The historian himself does not attempt to specialise. Where names are fewer, character stands out in bolder relief. This is so in every department of life; were there but one book in the world, how it would be sought after and perused with eager interest; but because there are innumerable multitudes of books many are affrighted by the very extent of the library and hardly dare begin to read. Where but one or two distinguished persons claim attention, profound respect is paid to their presence and claims, but when the units become tens, and the tens swell into hundreds, even conspicuous men may become of no account, as miracles by their multiplication may be reduced to mere common-places.

58

PULPIT, "Because they—i.e, the men of Ephraim—came down to take away their cattle. This certainly may be translated, when they (i.e. the men of Gath) came down (i.e. into Goshen) to plunder their cattle (i.e. the cattle of Ephraim).

BI 21-22, "Whom the men of Gath that wore born in that land slew.The massacre of Ephraim’s childrenIn the mines of Peru, there are veins of peculiar richness; but the very rubbish is valuable. In the Bible there are passages of peculiar importance, but there is nothing trifling, nothing useless. To be able to extract from the more barren portions of Scripture the instructions they were intended to communicate is a talent which every Christian should cultivate. This passage teaches us—I. That there is no individual or society secure from sudden and severe misfortune. Oh! it is natural for us, when we are happy, to cherish the thought that we shall continue to be happy. And we may be placed in circumstances in which such an anticipation seems not only natural but reasonable. Our worldly substance may be abundant; our bodily constitution may be sound and strong, promising us a long and healthy life; our children may be growing up around us, with every appearance of being the support and comfort of our declining years. We may enjoy the affection of our friends. Very few persons have ever been so prosperous, or had equal ground to presume on the permanence of their prosperity as Ephraim. We have reason to hope that Ephraim was a good man. He was certainly the son of a very good man. We cannot doubt that his father Joseph gave him a religious education. We know that Ephraim was a wealthy man. It was, indeed, his great wealth that excited the cupidity of these Philistine robbers. It is obvious that he had reached a good old age, and he had gathered around him children and children’s children, and the children of children’s children. You can easily suppose the good old man retiring to rest happy in his possessions, and happier still in his anticipations, for he had reason to anticipate coming prosperity. God had spoken good of all the descendants of Israel, but of none had He spoken so much good as of Ephraim. In his numerous descendants he probably pleased himself with the thought, that he saw the begun accomplishment of the promise that his seed should become a multitude of nations. But what a fearful and sudden reverse was he destined to experience! This affecting incident reads a lesson to us all. It tells those who are afflicted, “in patience to possess their souls”; and it bids those who are happy, “join trembling with their mirth.” It tells those who are in affliction to give God thanks that they have not been afflicted as Ephraim was. We may have been bereaved of much, it may be, but where is any of us that can for a moment compare his bereavements with those of Ephraim?II. That the dispensations of Divine providence are often apparently in

59

direct opposition to the declarations of the Divine promise. It is difficult to conceive a more striking illustration of this general principle than that furnished by the remarkable incident recorded in the passage before us. Ephraim, as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had an interest in all the promises made to his illustrious ancestors. “I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,” said Jehovah to Abraham; “as the number of the stars, so shall thy seed be.” Ephraim was one of the sons of Joseph, and of course Ephraim had his share in the remarkable blessing that was pronounced on his father. “Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches run over the wall.” Nor was this all; Ephraim had a share in that blessing which Jacob pronounced on himself, and on his brother Manasseh. When Joseph heard that his father was sick, apparently to death, he went to visit him, and he took along with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Jacob having been told that his son Joseph was coming to see him, strengthened himself, and sat upon his bed. “And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and said unto me, Behold I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people,” etc. There was more even than this. There was a great peculiarity in the manner in which Jacob pronounced this blessing. He crossed his hands, and laid his right hand on Ephraim, the youngest, and his left hand on Manasseh, the eldest; and when Joseph attempted to alter the position of the old man’s hands, he replied, “I know it, my son, I know it,” etc. Such was the promise; and in the narrative before us, you see the providence. Can two things be more apparently in direct opposition? Here is a promise that Ephraim shall be more prosperous than all his brethren; and here is a providence that deprives Ephraim at once of all his property, and, as it would seem, of all his children also. Nor is this at all an unparalleled or even an uncommon case, so far as apparent contrariety between the providence and promise of God is concerned. Was it like a fulfilment of a promise made to Israel that Jehovah would give them a good and large land, flowing with milk and honey, to lead them directly into the depths of the Arabian wilderness and keep them wandering there for forty years? Was it like a fulfilment of the promise which God had made to David, that he would make him the ruler of his people, when he drove him from the court of Saul, and exposed him to imminent hazard of his life on the mountains of Israel from the persecutions of his infuriated enemy? I can appeal to the experience of every Christian. Is it not distinctly stated in God’s Word that no evil shall happen to the righteous? Is it not distinctly said, what is good God will give His people? Now, I put it to every Christian, if he has not in the course of his life met with much which at the time he could not help thinking evil for him? The reason of this apparent inconsistency of the providence with the promises of God, is by no means that there is a real opposition between them. It is the same God who speaks in His Word that works in His providence—and He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. His Word and His work are really perfectly harmonious; and in many eases those dispensations, which are apparently frustrating the promise are, in reality, fulfilling it. The reason why the promise and the providence of God often seem to us to be at variance, is our ignorance of the extent and of the 60

particular design of the Divine dispensations. If we could see the commencement, and progress, and issue of all God’s dispensations, we would gladly say, He is doing all things well, as we shall by and by be constrained to say, He has done all things well. But in the present state this must be a matter of faith, not of sense. It is the Divine appointment, that here we must walk by faith.III. That the dissolution of those connections that bind us together in a variety of relations in human life, occasions to all rightly constituted minds severe suffering and permanent sorrow. It would be a miserable world—at least I am sure it would not be a happy one—if there were no husbands and wives, parents and children, and brothers and sisters, relative and friends. That man must be deplorably selfish, who, on reflecting on the various sources of his happiness, does not find social relation and affection one of the most copious. In proportion to the happiness springing from these relations, is the pain that is occasioned when they are dissolved, especially when they are unexpectedly and violently dissolved. Not merely are our friends the proper objects of a much stronger kind of affection than any other species of property; but their loss is of all other earthly losses the most irreparable. Our property, our reputation, our health, may be lost and regained. But a friend whom we have lost by death, we never can bring back again from the grove. (J. Brown, D. D.)

Family sorrowI. The Cause Of Sorrow.II. The Sympathy In The Sorrow.III. The Remembrance Of The Sorrow.

1. Perpetuated in joy.2. Perpetuated in sorrow. (J. Wolfendale.)

22 Their father Ephraim mourned for them many days, and his relatives came to comfort him.

61

GILL, "And Ephraim their father mourned many days,.... For the loss of his son and grandchildren for the above fact was done while the Israelites were in Egypt, and Ephraim the patriarch yet alive; nor is there any need to suppose another Ephraim, different from him: and his brethren came to comfort him; some of the heads of the other tribes of Israel, particularly Manasseh, with some of his family.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him.

Ver. 22. And Ephraim their father.] Who must needs be now a very old man.

Mourned many days.] His grief was the greater, if they went against the Gittites without his consent, as many young men are headlong and headstrong, &c.

And his brethren came to comfort him.] The Benjamites also set upon the men of Gath, and took their city from them. [1 Chronicles 8:13] Atque sic ulti sunt fratres suos Ephraemitas.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 22-23(22-23) This is either what we should call a metaphorical description of the enfeebling of the tribe of Ephraim by the disaster which had befallen two of its chief houses, and of its subsequent recovery owing to the natural increase of its numbers, and the formation of a new and populous clan, that of Beriah; or if this be deemed too bold an interpretation of the archaic record, we have nothing for it but to suppose that the whole account relates to an expedition from Goshen, under two sons of Ephraim, during the lifetime of that patriarch; who, after the death of Ezer and Elead, begat another son, Beriah.

62

23 Then he made love to his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah,[c] because there had been misfortune in his family.

GILL, "And when he went in to his wife,.... After his grief and sorrow in part at least had subsided: she conceived and bare a son; which in some measure made up for the loss he had sustained: and he called his name Beriah; which signifies being "in evil" or calamity, he being born in an evil time: because it went evil with his house; or evil was in his house, as Noldius (m), in his family; a great calamity had befallen it. BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:23. She conceived and bare a son — Thus the breach was in some measure repaired, by the addition of another son in his old age. When God thus restores comfort to his mourners, he makes glad according to the days wherein he afflicted: setting the mercies over against the crosses, we ought to observe the kindness of his providence. Yet the joy that a man was born into his family could not make him forget his grief. For he gives a melancholy name to his son, Beriah, that is, in trouble: for he was born when the family was in mourning. It is good to have in remembrance the affliction and the misery which are past, that our souls may be humbled within us.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:23 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.

Ver. 23. And when he went in to his wife.] A modest expression of the marriage duty. The apostle forbiddeth filthy speaking; [Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 4:29;

63

Ephesians 5:4] so doth Cicero, in his "Offices," inveighing against the Cynics for their obscene language.

She conceived, and bare a son.] Of whom came a large offspring. This was a great mercy to the good old man.

And he called his name Beriah.] (a) That is, In affliction. Hereby he would immind himself and his posterity of the evil which had befallen his house, that they might hear, and fear, and do no more so. (b)

ELLICOTT, " (23) Because it went evil.—Beriah is derived from a root, bara’, and apparently means gift. Heb., because in evil it (i.e., the birth of Beriah) happened in his house. There is an allusive play on the words Beriah (“gift”) and bera’ah (“in evil”) such as we often meet with in Genesis (see Genesis 5:29; Genesis 11:9). To call such plays on words derivations would be a tasteless anachronism. Their purpose is to point a moral, not to teach etymology.

24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.

BARNES, "Sherah could scarcely herself have built the Palestinian cities here mentioned, which must belong to a time not earlier than Joshua. By “she built” we must understand “her descendants built.”

CLARKE, "His daughter was Sherah - That is, remnant; “called so,” says the Targum, “because she was the remnant that escaped from the slaughter

64

mentioned above.”

GILL, "And his daughter was Sherah,.... That is, the daughter of Beriah; not an immediate daughter, but a descendant of his, otherwise she could not have reached the times of Joshua, as she did by what follows: who built Bethhoron the nether, and the upper; which were cities on the border of the tribe of Ephraim; which the Israelites having taken from the Canaanites, and destroyed, she rebuilt, see Jos_16:3. and Uzzensherah; which was called after her own name, and to distinguish it from another place called Uzzen; though of neither of them do we read elsewhere.

K&D 23-25, "“And his daughter Sherah,” the daughter of the above-mentioned Ephraim, “built Beth-horon the nether and the upper,” the present Beit-Ur-Fok and Tachta (see on Jos_10:10), “and Uzzen-sherah,” a place not elsewhere referred to, which she probably founded, and which was called after her. The building of the two Beth-horons is merely an enlarging and fortifying of these towns. Sherah was probably an heiress, who had received these places as her inheritance, and caused them to be enlarged by her family. In 1Ch_7:25-27 the ancestors of Joshua the son of Nun, who brought Israel into the land of Canaan, are enumerated. As the word בנ is wanting after רשף, we must hold Rephah and Resheph to be brothers, but we are not informed from which of the four Ephraimite stocks enumerated in Num_26:35. they were descended. “Telah his son,” Bertheau holds to be a son of Rephah. The name Tahan occurs in Num_26:35 as that of the founder of one of the families of Ephraim; but he can hardly be identical with our Tahan, who was probably a son of that Tahan from whom an Ephraimite family descended. If this conjecture be correct, Joshua would be of the family of Tahan.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:24. His daughter — His descendant, his grand-child, or great-grand- child; built Beth-horon, &c. — Rebuilt or repaired them, which possibly she did in Joshua’s time. And this work may be ascribed to her, because it was done either by her design and contrivance, or by her instigation and influence upon her husband and brethren who did it.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:24 (And his daughter [was] Sherah, who built Bethhoron

65

the nether, and the upper, and Uzzensherah.)

Ver. 24. And his daughter was Sherah.] A gallant woman, famous in her generation for beautifying and fortifying of sundry cities. Thus also God made up Ephraim’s loss.

ELLICOTT, " (24) His daughter—i.e., Ephraim’s.

Built may mean rebuilt, or restored, or fortified (Joshua 6:26; Psalms 102:16; 2 Chronicles 11:6).

Beth-horon the nether, and the upper.—The two Beth-horons (Joshua 10:10) were apparently a Canaanite foundation. They are now Beit ur et-Tahta and Beit-ur el-Fariqa—i.e., Lower and Upper Beitur.

Uzzen-sherah.—Sherah’s ear, or peak, only mentioned here. The relation of Sherah to Beth-horon may be compared with that of Achsah to the Negeb of Judah (Joshua 15:19. Cf. also Joshua 17:4).

PULPIT, "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 Egypt, the "daughter," strictly so called, of either 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-heron, see Joshua 10:10, Joshua 10:11; Joshua 16:3, Joshua 16:5; Joshua 18:13, Joshua 18:14; Joshua 21:20-22.)

66

25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,[d]Telah his son, Tahan his son,

BARNES, "CLARKE, "GILL 25-27 Rephah was his son,.... The son of Beriah, whose genealogy from him is traced down to Joshua in this and the two following verses, and stands thus: after Rephah, Resheph, Telah, Tahan, Laadan, Ammihud, Elishama, who was prince of the tribe of Ephraim in the wilderness, Num_1:10, then Non or Nun, whose son was Jehoshua or Joshua.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 25(25) And Rephah his son; and Resheph and Telah his son.—(Heb. text). This seems to mean that Rephah was son of Beriah. But perhaps a son of Ephraim is intended. Rephah does not occur among the sons of Ephraim (Numbers 26:35-36). The word “his son” (benô) may have fallen out after Resheph. Otherwise Resheph is brother and Telah son of Rephah (the elder). Resheph, which means “arrow,” “lightning,” “fever,” was a title of the Phoenician Baal. “Tahan,” a son of Ephraim (Numbers 26:35 : “the clan of the Tahanites”).

26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,Elishama his son,

K&D, "Elishama the son of Ammihud was a contemporary of Moses,

67

Num_1:10, and prince of the tribe of Ephraim, Num_7:48; Num_10:22. ן נ(Non) is so pronounced only in this place; in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua it is נון (Nun).

ELLICOTT, "(26) Blishama son of Ammihud was tribal prince or Emir of Ephraim in the time of Moses (Numbers 7:47).

27 Nun his sonand Joshua his son.

ELLICOTT, " (27) Non.—Everywhere else Nun, the father of Joshua the servant and successor of Moses. 1 Chronicles 7:25-27 trace his ancestry, as it would seem, through seven or eight generations to Rephah, son of Beriah or Ephraim. At 1 Chronicles 6:1-3 only two names are given between Levi, uncle of Ephraim, and Moses, Joshua’s elder contemporary. But abundant reason has already been shown for not interpreting these genealogies in a slavishly literal spirit, and without regard to their own contrary indications. It is obvious to common sense that when it is said that Moses was “son of Amram, son of Kohath, son of Levi,” the meaning cannot be that only two generations intervened between the tribal patriarch and the age of Moses. Moreover, it is, to say the least, doubtful that the names in 1 Chronicles 7:25 represent a lineal descent of individuals, and not a group of variously connected clans. “Telah” looks like a fragment of Shuthelah (1 Chronicles 7:20); and perhaps the true reading of 1 Chronicles 7:25 is, “And Rephah his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Tahan his son,” we-Reshef, we-The-lah being a possible distortion of we-Shuthelah.

68

28 Their lands and settlements included Bethel and its surrounding villages, Naaran to the east, Gezer and its villages to the west, and Shechem and its villages all the way to Ayyah and its villages.

BARNES, "And their possessions and habitations,.... That is, of the sons of Ephraim, when come into the land of Canaan: were Bethel, and the towns thereof; the villages belonging to it, which was formerly called Luz, and was the border of Ephraim, Jos_16:7. and eastward Naaran: the same with Naarath, Jos_16:7. and westward Gezer, with the towns thereof; of which see Jos_16:3, and Shechem also, and the towns thereof; which was a city of refuge in Mount Ephraim, Jos_20:7unto Gaza, and the towns thereof; not Gaza, a city of the Philistines, for the tribe of Ephraim did not reach so far; the Targum calls it Aiah; it may be read Adaza, as in the margin of our Bibles.

K&D, "In 1Ch_7:28 and 1Ch_7:29 the possessions and dwelling-places of the tribe of Ephraim (and as we learn from the superscription, 1Ch_7:29), also those of West Jordan Manasseh, are given, but in a very general way; only the chief places on the four sides being mentioned. Bethel, now Beitin, on the frontier of the tribal domains of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos_16:2; Jos_18:13), and assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos_18:22), is here mentioned as an Ephraimite city on the southern frontier of the Ephraimite territory, as it belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; whence we gather that this register was prepared after that kingdom had come into existence. As to its position, see on Jos_7:2. Her daughters are the smaller villages which belonged to Bethel. Naaran, without doubt the same place which is called in Jos_16:7 נערתה (with ה loc.), is the eastern frontier city lying to the north-east of Jericho; see on Jos_16:7. “And westward Gezer,” according to Jos_16:3, lying between Beth-horon and the sea (see on Jos_10:33), is the

69

frontier city on the south-west; and Shechem and Avvah (עוה), with their daughters, are places which mark the boundary on the north-west. As to שכם, Shechem, the present Nabulus, see on Jos_17:7. Instead of עוה, most of the editions of the Bible agree with lxx and Vulg. and Chald. in having עזה, but not the Philistine Gaza: it is only an error of the transcribers and printers, as all the more accurate MSS and the better printed copies have עוה; see De Rossi, Variae Lectt. ad h. l. The locality עוה or עיה is certainly met with nowhere else, but, if we may judge by Jos_16:6 and Jos_17:17, is to be sought not far from Shechem in a north-western direction, perhaps on the site of the there mentioned Michmethah, the position of which has, however, not yet been ascertained.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 7:28. Their possessions — That is, the portion allotted to the tribe of Ephraim: were Beth-el — Which stood in the border of Benjamin, but belonged to Ephraim. Unto Gaza — Not the Gaza of the Philistines, which belonged to another tribe, and was remote from Ephraim, but another place of the same name. Or rather Adazza, as in the margin; the particle ad, here rendered unto, being part of the name.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 28-29

THE BOUNDS OF EPHRAIM AND WEST MANASSEH(1 Chronicles 7:28-29).

Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:54, sqq., where a list of the cities of the Levites is similarly added to their tribal registers.

(28) And their possessions.—Heb., and their domain and their seats were Bethel and her daughters; “their domain,” that is, the domain of both divisions of the tribe of Joseph.

Bethel—originally assigned to Benjamin (Joshua 18:22), belonged later to the 70

northern kingdom. The present list appears therefore to be younger than the disruption of Solomon’s empire.

Naaran, or Naarah (Naapá) (Joshua 16:7) was a town north-east of Jericho. Gezer lay on the southwest border of Ephraim (Joshua 16:3), Shechem (Nablûs, νεάπολις) on the north. Gaza: so the LXX„ Vulg. (Aza which represents the Hebrew ‘Azzâh, i.e., Gaza), and Targum; but a great number of MSS. and seventeen editions read Ayyah, a place not mentioned elsewhere, but doubtless lying on the north-west border of Ephraim.

(29) And by the borders of the children of Manasseh.—Literally, and upon the hands of the sons of Manasseh, a favourite phrase with the chronicler, occurring nine times in Chronicles and once in Ezra. (See Note on 1 Chronicles 6:31.) The four cities lay within the territory of Issachar and Asher, but were assigned to Manassen (Joshua 17:11). They mark the northward marches of the two houses of Joseph, as the cities of 1 Chronicles 7:28 mark the southward. They long withstood the Israelite occupation (Joshua 17:12-16; see also Judges 5:19. “Then fought the kings of Canaan, in Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo.”)

PULPIT, "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. Gaza. This name can scarcely designate the well-known Gaza, assigned to Judah (Joshua 15:47; 1:18), but so largely the prey of the Philistines ( 3:3; 16:21; 1 Samuel 6:17).

29 Along the borders of Manasseh were Beth Shan, Taanach, Megiddo and Dor, together with their villages. The descendants of Joseph son of Israel lived in these towns.

71

GILL, "And by the borders of the children of Manasseh,.... Of the half tribe of Manasseh on this side Jordan: near to them the Ephraimites dwelt, even near to Bethshean and her towns, Taanach and her towns, Megiddo and her towns, Dor and her towns; of all which places see Jos_17:11, in these dwelt the children of Joseph the son of Israel; the Ephraimites, in those mentioned in 1Ch_7:28, and the Manassites, in those that are here mentioned; who were both the children or posterity of Joseph, the beloved son of Israel.

K&D, "1Ch_7:29According to Jos_17:11, the Manassites had received the four cities here named, lying within the territory of Issachar and Asher. This is attested also

by על־ידי בני to the hands, i.e., in possession of the sons of Manasseh. As ,מto its position, see Jos_17:11. These cities formed the boundaries on the extreme north, of the dwellings “of the sons of Joseph,” i.e., of the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

PULPIT, "The places mentioned in this verse were assigned to Manasseh. Bethshean was on the west of Jordan, and was within the borders of Issachar (Joshua 17:11-13; 1 Kings 4:11, 1 Kings 4:12). Dor was within the borders of Asher (Joshua 11:1, Joshua 11:2; Joshua 12:23; Joshua 17:11; 1:27, 1:28). Taanach. This place also lay within the borders of Issachar or Asher (Joshua 17:11, Joshua 17:12; Joshua 21:25; 5:19). Megiddo. This place is constantly coupled with the preceding. It lay on the south of the plain of Esdraelon (Joshua 12:21; Joshua 17:12; 1:27; 1 Kings 4:12).

Asher

30 The sons of Asher:72

Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. Their sister was Serah.

GILL 30-31, "The son of Asher,.... Which, and his two grandsons born before Jacob went down to Egypt, are here reckoned as in Gen_46:17 only it is here added Malchiel his second grandson: who is the father of Birzavith; which Jarchi interprets, prince of a city of this name, which signifies pure oil; which it might have from the abundance of olives about it, Asher being a tribe which abounded with them, see Deu_33:24 though some of the Rabbins take it to be the name of a man, whose daughters, they say, as Jarchi observes, were very beautiful, having much oil to anoint with, and were married to kings and priests anointed with oil.

K&D, "The sons and several families of Asher. - 1Ch_7:30. The names of the four sons of Asher and that of their sister coincide with the statement of Gen_46:17; but in Num_26:44-47, on the contrary, the name Ishuai does not occur among the families of Asher.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:30 The sons of Asher; Imnah, and Isuah, and Ishuai, and Beriah, and Serah their sister.

Ver. 30. And Serah their sister.] The Vulgate calleth her Sarah; as likewise that other eminent woman. [1 Chronicles 7:23]

ELLICOTT, "Verse 30-31

THE TRIBE OF ASHER (1 Chronicles 7:30-40).

(30, 31) The sons of Asher; Imnah. . . . Malchiel.—This is a literal transcript of Genesis 46:17. Comp. also Numbers 26:44-46, where the clan (mishpahath) of each eponym is assigned; but the name of Isaah (Heb., Yishwâh) does not appear.

73

Beriah.—Also the name of an Ephraimitic stock (1 Chronicles 7:23). Malchiel is called the “father (chief or founder) of Birzavith” only here. The Heb. margin has Birzayith, perhaps “well of olive” (be-er zayith); the text, Berazôth or Barzûth. It is probably the name of a place.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:30The 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 The sons of Beriah:Heber and Malkiel, who was the father of Birzaith.

GILL, "The son of Asher,.... Which, and his two grandsons born before Jacob went down to Egypt, are here reckoned as in Gen_46:17 only it is here added Malchiel his second grandson: who is the father of Birzavith; which Jarchi interprets, prince of a city of this name, which signifies pure oil; which it might have from the abundance of olives about it, Asher being a tribe which abounded with them, see Deu_33:24 though some of the Rabbins take it to be the name of a man, whose daughters, they say, as Jarchi observes, were very beautiful, having much oil to anoint with, and were married to kings and priests anointed with oil.

K&D 31-34, "1Ch_7:31-34The sons of Beriah, Heber and Malchiel, are also to be found in Gen_46:17

74

and Num_26:45 as the heads of two families; but the further statement, “he (i.e., Malchiel) the father of Birzavith,” is found only here. How ברזות, the Kethibh, is to be pronounced, cannot be with certainty determined. Gesen. in Thes. p. 239 makes it ת and considers the word to be the name of a ,ברזwoman; Bertheau, on the contrary conjectures that it is a compound of בר = באר and זית, “well of the olive-tree,” and so the name of a place. In 1Ch_7:32-34 the descendants of Heber are enumerated in three generations, which are mentioned nowhere else. In 1Ch_7:32 we have four sons and one daughter. The name יפלט is not to be connected with יפלטי, Jos_16:3, “because a family of Asher is not to be sought for in the neighbourhood there referred to” (Berth.). In 1Ch_7:33 we have four sons of Japhlet, and in 1Ch_7:34 the sons of his brother Shemer. It is somewhat remarkable that מר אחי .שמר 1Ch_7:32, is called here ,ש is not an appellative, but a proper name, as the ו before the following name shows; cf. another Ahi in 1Ch_5:15. For יחבה we should read וחבה.

PULPIT, "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 vau. 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. (For instances of the expression "father" of a place, see 1 Chronicles 2:51, 1 Chronicles 2:52; 1 Chronicles 4:4, 1 Chronicles 4:5.)

32 Heber was the father of Japhlet, Shomer and Hotham and of their sister Shua.

CLARKE, "And Shua their sister - It is very rarely that women are found in the Jewish genealogies, and they are never inserted but for especial reasons.

75

GILL, "And Heber,.... The other grandson of Asher; and son of Beriah: begat Japhlet, and Shomer, and Hotham, and Shuah their sister; a place on the borders of Ephraim is called the coast of Japhleti; but whether from this Japhlet is uncertain.

ELLICOTT, "(32-34) The race of Heber (spelt differently from Heber, Abraham’s ancestor). Nothing is known of any of these families. The name Japhleti (the Japhletite) occurs as a clan (Joshua 16:3), but far away from the bounds of Asher.

PULPIT, "Japhlet. This son of Heber, not otherwise known, cannot be identified with the "Japhletite' 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 verse 34.

33 The sons of Japhlet:Pasak, Bimhal and Ashvath.These were Japhlet’s sons.

GILL, "And the sons of Japhlet; Pasach, and Bimhal, and Ashvath; these are the children of Japhlet. Of whom we read not elsewhere,

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:33Nothing, 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.

76

34 The sons of Shomer:Ahi, Rohgah,[e] Hubbah and Aram.

BARNES, "Shamer; Ahi, and Rohgah - Translate as: “The sons of Shamer 1Ch_7:32, his brother, Rohgah, etc.”GILL, "And the sons of Shamer,.... Or Shomer, the brother of Japhlet, 1Ch_7:32. Ahi, and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and Aram; of whom nothing is known but their names.

ELLICOTT, " (34) Shamer (pausai form of Shemer) probably identical with Shomer, the second son of Heber (1 Chronicles 7:32).

Jehubbah.—Heb. margin has we-Hubbah, “and Hubbah,” which is correct according to the prevailing form of this list (and before each name).

Aram is the ordinary name of the Syrians east and west of the Euphrates. It may here designate a clan of half -Aramean extraction.

(35–39) And the sons of his brother Helem.—Apparently the offshoots of Helem, “brother” of Sheraer-Shomer. If we construe brother in the strict sense, we must assume that Helem is the same as Hotham (1 Chronicles 7:32), and that one or the other name is corrupt. But Helem may be the name of another chief house of Asher not directly connected with that of Heber. The brotherhood then would be that of the tribe, not of the clan or family.

77

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:34, 1 Chronicles 7:35

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," i.e. the brother of Japhlet. In 1 Chronicles 7:32 the names of three brothers are given, sons of Heber, viz. Japhlet, Shomer, and Hotham. Now, the name Helem, in 1 Chronicles 7:35, is supposed to point to this Hotham. If it be so, it would so far be an argument that Ahi, in 1 Chronicles 7:34, should be translated "his brother," in correspondence with the undoubted "his brother" of 1 Chronicles 7:35. Of no one of the names in these verses is anything further known.

35 The sons of his brother Helem:Zophah, Imna, Shelesh and Amal.

GILL, "And the sons of his brother Helem,.... Or Helem his brother, that is, the brother of Shomer, who, according to Hillerus (n), is Hotham, 1Ch_7:32. Zophah, and Imna, and Shelesh, and Aram; nowhere else mentioned.

K&D, "1Ch_7:35-39Descendants of Helem-in 1Ch_7:35 sons, in 1Ch_7:36-38 grandsons.As Helem is called אהיו, “his brother” (i.e., the brother of the Shemer

mentioned in 1Ch_7:34), הלם would seem to be the third son of Heber, who is called in 1Ch_7:32 תם If so, one of the two names must have resulted .חfrom an error in transcription; but it is now impossible to determine which is the original and correct form of the name. Eleven names are introduced as those of the sons of Zophah (1Ch_7:36, 1Ch_7:37); and in 1Ch_7:38 we have, besides, three sons of Jether (יתר), who is called in 1Ch_7:38 In .יתרן1Ch_7:39 there follow three names, those of the sons of Ulla; on which

78

Bertheau rightly remarks, the whole character of our enumeration would lead us to conjecture that עלא had already occurred among the preceding names, although we find neither this name nor any similar one, with which it might be identified, in the preceding list.1Ch_7:40

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:35 And the sons of his brother Helem; Zophah, and Imna, and Shelesh, and Amal.

Ver. 35. Helem.] Thought to be the same with Hotham. [1 Chronicles 7:32]

36 The sons of Zophah:Suah, Harnepher, Shual, Beri, Imrah,

GILL, "And the sons of Zophah,.... The eldest of the sons of Helem: Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual, and Beri, and Imrah, Bezer; and Hod, and Shamma, and Shilshah, and Ithran, and Beera; in all eleven.

ELLICOTT, " (36) The branches of Helem through Zophah the elder house. Eleven names of the sons of Zophah. The second, “Harnepher,” has a name which looks like pure Egyptian: Har nefer, “the beauteous Horus,” or morning sun. Comp. the case of the Egyptian slave Jarha 34), and the marriage of Mered with “Pharaoh’s daughter” (1 Chronicles 4:18). (See also the Notes on 1 Chronicles 7:10.)

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 7:36-381 Chronicles 7:36 and 1 Chronicles 7:37 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 (1 Chronicles 7:38), we reach the seventh in descent from

79

Asher, in the three sons of Jether, or Ithran, the tenth son of Zophah.

37 Bezer, Hod, Shamma, Shilshah, Ithran[f] and Beera.

GILL, "And the sons of Jether,.... The same with Ithran, the last of Zophah's sons but one, 1Ch_7:37, Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara; not Jephunneh the father of Caleb; he was not of the tribe of Asher, but of Judah.

38 The sons of Jether:Jephunneh, Pispah and Ara.

GILL, "And the sons of Jether,.... The same with Ithran, the last of Zophah's sons but one, 1Ch_7:37, Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara; not Jephunneh the father of Caleb; he was not of the tribe of Asher, but of Judah.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:38 And the sons of Jether; Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara.Ver. 38. Jether.] Called Ithran. [1 Chronicles 7:37]

ELLICOTT, " (38) The sons of Jether.—Jether and Ithran (1 Chronicles 7:37) are 80

virtually the same name, and perhaps to be identified here. This will connect 1 Chronicles 7:38 with the preceding line of the sons of Zophah.Jephunneh.—The name of the father of Caleb the Kenizzite.

39 The sons of Ulla:

Arah, Hanniel and Rizia.

GILL, "And the sons of Ulla,.... Who either was the son of Ara, last mentioned, or another son of Jether: Arah, and Haniel, and Rezia; here ends the genealogy of Asher; the last of the tribes; Dan and Zebulun not being reckoned at all.

ELLICOTT, " (39) The sons of Ulla.—Apparently Ulla is not connected with the foregoing genealogy. But he seems to be the same as Ara (1 Chronicles 7:38). ‘Arâ’ is a very curious form, and may be due to a copyist’s eye having wandered to Be-era at the end of last verse; ‘Ullâ’ is intelligible, and probably correct. If the identification be allowed, we get a complete concatenation from 1 Chronicles 7:30-39.Arah is in Hebrew quite different from Ara.PULPIT, "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.

81

40 All these were descendants of Asher—heads of families, choice men, brave warriors and outstanding leaders. The number of men ready for battle, as listed in their genealogy, was l26,000.

CLARKE, "The children of Asher - The rabbins say that the daughters of Asher were very beautiful, and were all matched with kings or priests. Several things relative to the subjects in this chapter may be found explained in the parallel places marked in the margin.

GILL, "All these were the children of Asher, heads of their father's house,.... Principal men in their tribe, and respective families: choice and mighty men of valour; these were some selected from others, being eminent for their courage and valour: chief of the princes; or chief princes; the Vulgate Latin version is, dukes of dukes, they were heads of their fathers' families: and the number throughout the genealogy that were apt to war, and to battle, was twenty and six thousand men; that is, in the days of David, 1Ch_7:4, this was the number, not of their chief men, nor of all the people in the tribe, but of their militia.

HENRY, "Of the tribe of Asher. Some men of note of that tribe are here named. Their militia was not numerous in comparison with some other tribes, only 26,000 men in all; but their princes were choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes (1Ch_7:40), and perhaps it was their wisdom that they coveted not to make their trained bands numerous, but rather to have a few, and those apt to the war and serviceable men.

82

K&D, "1Ch_7:401Ch_7:40 contains a comprehensive concluding statement as to the descendants of Asher: “All these (those just mentioned by name) were

heads of fathers'-houses, chosen valiant heroes (חילים, as in 1Ch_7:5), chief of the princes,” Vulg. duces ducum, i.e., probably leaders of the larger divisions of the army, under whom were other נשיאים. “And their genealogical register is for service of the host in war,” i.e., was prepared with reference to the men capable of bearing arms, and had not, like other registers, reference to the number of inhabitants of the various localities; cf. 1Ch_9:22. It amounted to 26,000 men. According to Num_1:41, Asher numbered 41,500, and according to Num_26:47, 53,000 men. But we must observe that the number given in our verse is only that of the men capable of bearing arms belonging to one of the greater families of Asher, the family of Heber, of which alone a register had been preserved till the time of the chronicler.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 7:40 All these [were] the children of Asher, heads of [their] father’s house, choice [and] mighty men of valour, 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.Ver. 40. Chief of the princes.] Duces ducum, to whom the princes were to give an account. See Daniel 6:1-2.Was twenty and six thousand.] So happy was Asher, according to Moses’s blessing left with him. [Deuteronomy 33:24-25]

ELLICOTT, " (40) The summing up of the list. “All these were sons of Asher, picked chiefs of the father-houses, valiant warriors, chiefs of the princes.” This declares that the names in the foregoing series are those of the chiefs of the different Asherite clans. They are called “choice,” picked men, eximii, and chiefs of the princes or emirs. The clans appear to be identified with their chieftains.

And the number throughout the genealogy.—Better, and their census, in the host, in the battle—their number in men was 26,000.” Perhaps we should render in the case of service in war. The census here given has reference only to the number of males qualified for military service. In the Mosaic census (Numbers 1:41) the total of

83

males of the tribe of Asher was 41,500; and a generation later, the fighting men were 53,000 (Numbers 26:47). The date of the present census is not assigned. If it be that of David, which appears likely, the tribe may have declined in numbers and importance by his day. (Comp. Judges 5:17. “Asher continued at the sea-shore, and abode on his creeks;” i.e., did not bestir himself for the war).

PULPIT, "Twenty and six thousand. The number of Asherites, "of twenty years old and upwards, able to go forth to war," given in Numbers 1:40, Numbers 1:41, was forty-one thousand five hundred. Forty years later (Numbers 26:44-47; comp. Numbers 26:2) 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 (1 Chronicles 27:16-22). The tone also in which reference is made to Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun coming to Jerusalem to Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chronicles 30:11) is very noticeable. This tribe, with Simeon, gave no judge to the nation, and of all the tribes west of the Jordan they stand by themselves in this respect. There is an ancient legend that the parents of St. Paul lived within the territories of Asher, at the place called Ahlab in 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).

Footnotes:

84

1 Chronicles 7:12 Or Ir. The sons of Dan: Hushim, (see Gen. 46:23); Hebrew does not have The sons of Dan. 1 Chronicles 7:13 Some Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts (see also Gen. 46:24 and Num. 26:49); most Hebrew manuscripts Shallum 1 Chronicles 7:23 Beriah sounds like the Hebrew for misfortune. 1 Chronicles 7:25 Some Septuagint manuscripts; Hebrew does not have his son. 1 Chronicles 7:34 Or of his brother Shomer: Rohgah 1 Chronicles 7:37 Possibly a variant of Jether

85