1 Chronicles 3 commentary

Of all the families of Israel, none were so illustrious as the family of David: here we have a full account of it. From this family, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. The attentive observer will perceive that the children of the righteous enjoy many advantages.

CHAPTER 3

1Ch 3:1-9. Sons of David.

1-3. Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron--It is of consequence for the proper understanding of events in the domestic history of David, to bear in mind the place and time of his sons' birth. The oldest son, born after his father's accession to the sovereign authority, is according to Eastern notions, the proper heir to the throne. And hence the natural aspirations of ambition in Ammon, who was long unaware of the alienation of the crown, and could not be easily reconciled to the claims of a younger brother being placed above his own (see on 2Sa 3:1-5).

5. four, of Bath-shua the daughter of Ammiel--or, "Bath-sheba" (2Sa 11:3), and there her father is called "Eliam." Of course Solomon was not her "only son," but he is called so (Pr 4:3) from the distinguished affection of which he was the object; and though the oldest, he is named the last of Bath-sheba's children.

6. Elishama and Eliphelet--Two sons of the same name are twice mentioned (1Ch 3:8). They were the children of different mothers, and had probably some title or epithet appended by which the one was distinguished from the other. Or, it might be, that the former two were dead, and their names had been given to sons afterwards born to preserve their memories.

8. nine--The number of David's sons born after his removal to Jerusalem, was eleven (2Sa 5:14), but only nine are mentioned here: two of them being omitted, either in consequence of their early deaths or because they left no issue.

1Ch 3:10-16. His Line to Zedekiah.

10. Solomon's son was Rehoboam, &c.--David's line is here drawn down to the captivity, through a succession of good and bad, but still influential and celebrated, monarchs. It has rarely happened that a crown has been transmitted from father to son, in lineal descent, for seventeen reigns. But this was the promised reward of David's piety. There is, indeed, observable some vacillation towards the close of this period--the crown passing from one brother to another, an even from uncle to nephew--a sure sign of disorderly times and a disjointed government.

15. Zedekiah--called the son of Josiah (compare Jr 1:3; 37:1), but in 2Ch 36:19 he is described as the brother of Jehoiachin, who was the son of Jehoiakim, and consequently the grandson of Josiah. Words expressive of affinity or relationship are used with great latitude in the Hebrew.

Shallum--No king of this name is mentioned in the history of Josiah's sons (2Ki 14:1-29; 23:1-37), but there is a notice of Shallum the son of Josiah (Jr 22:11), who reigned in the stead of his father, and who is generally supposed to be Jehoahaz, a younger son, here called the fourth, of Josiah.

1Ch 3:17-24. Successors of Jeconiah.

17. the sons of Jeconiah; Assir--rather, "Jeconiah the prisoner," or "captive." This record of his condition was added to show that Salathiel was born during the captivity in Babylon (compare Mt 1:12). Jeconiah was written childless (Jr 22:30), a prediction which (as the words that follow explain) meant that this unfortunate monarch should have no son succeeding him on the throne.

18. Malchiram also--As far as Jeconiah, everything is plain; but there is reason to suspect that the text in the subsequent verses has been dislocated and disarranged. The object of the sacred historian is to trace the royal line through Zerubbabel; yet, according to the present reading, the genealogical stem cannot be drawn from Jeconiah downwards. The following arrangement of the text is given as removing all difficulties [Davidson, Hermeneutics]:--1Ch 3:17. And the sons of Jeconiah the the captive, Salathiel (Shealtiel, Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2) his son. 1Ch 3:18. And the sons of Salathiel; Zerubbabel and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister. 1Ch 3:19. And Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hezed. 1Ch 3:20. And Malchiram, and Rephaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 1Ch 3:21. The sons of Hananiah; Pelatiah and Jesaiah; the sons of Rephaiah; his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah.

The second, Daniel - In 2Sam 3:3, this person is called Chileab; he probably had two names. The Targum says, "The second, Daniel, who was also called Chileab, because he was in every respect like to his father." The Targumist refers here to the import of the word כלאב ke-le-ab, like to the father. Jarchi says the two names were given to this person because David, having taken Abigail immediately after the death of Nabal, it could not be ascertained whether this child were the son of David or of Nabal, therefore David called him דניאל Daniel, God is my Judge, and כלאב Chileab, he who is like to the father; probably from the striking resemblance he bore to David, his reputed father. "God is my Judge, I have not fathered another man's child; this is entirely like unto myself.

By Eglah his wide - The Targum, Jarchi, and others, maintain that this was Michal, the daughter of Saul; but this does not well agree with 2Sam 6:23 : Michal had no child to the day of her death. Yet she might have had a child before the time that is mentioned above.

Shimea, and Shobab - Solomon is mentioned last, though he was the eldest of these four sons, because the genealogy was to be continued from him. Bath-shua בת שוע is the same as Bath-sheba, בת שבע the ו vau being put by mistake in the former for ב beth in the latter.

Elishama, and Eliphelet - In this and the eighth verse these two names occur twice; some think this is a mistake, but others suppose that two persons of these names died young, and that the next born received the name of the deceased. - See Jarchi.

Nine - There are thirteen if we count the four sons of Bath-sheba, and nine without them; and in the second book of Samuel there are eleven, reckoning the above four, and without them only seven. In the book of Samuel probably only those who were alive were reckoned, while the author of the Chronicles comprises those also who were dead in this enumeration. Jarchi supposes that the duplicate Elishama and Eliphelet are those which increase the regular number seven to nine; and that the dead without posterity, as well as the living, are mentioned to increase the number of David's descendants; for, says he, the whole book is written for the honor of David and his seed.

And Tamar their sister - This is the only daughter of David whose name is on record; and yet he is said to have had both Sons and Daughters, 2Sam 5:13.

Zedekiah his son - If this be the same who was the last king of Judah, before the captivity, the word son must be taken here to signify successor; for it is certain that Zedekiah was the successor of Jeconiah, and that Zedekiah was the son of Josiah, and not of Jehoiakim.

The sons of Jeconiah - Jeremiah has said (Jer 22:30) that Jeconiah, or, as he calls him, Coniah, should be childless; but this must refer to his posterity being deprived of the throne, and indeed thus the prophet interprets it himself: For no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Assir - Salathiel was not the son of Assir, but of Jeconiah, Mat 1:12. Who then was Assir? Possibly nobody; for as the Hebrew אסר assir signifies a prisoner, it may be considered as an epithet of Jeconiah, who we know was a very long time prisoner in Babylon. See 2Kgs 24:15 and Calmet.

Malchiram also - Calmet supposes we should read here, And the sons of Salathiel were Malchiram and Pedaiah, etc.

The sons of Pedaiah - Houbigant thinks these words should be omitted. Pedaiah is wanting in the Arabic and Syriac. If this be omitted, Zerubbabel will appear to be the son of Salathiel, according to Mat 1:12, and not the son of Pedaiah, as here stated.

The sons of Shemaiah - six - Five only are found in the text, and the versions give us no assistance; neither do the MSS. correct the place. If the father be not here included with his sons, some name must be lost out of the text.

And Anani - "This is the King Messiah who is to be revealed." - T. Jarchi says the same, and refers to Dan 7:13 : Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds (ענני ananey) of heaven. For this application of the word he gives a fanciful reason, not worthy to be repeated. The Syriac and Arabic omit several names in this table, and make only twenty-three verses in the chapter: but such differences are frequent in the books of Chronicles.

His wife - Possibly so called because she was his first, and therefore most proper wife, though her son was born after all the rest before mentioned, and therefore she and her son are put in the sixth place, the wive being here named only for the sons sake.

Four - All David's children by her, as the text positively affirms: and therefore Solomon is called her, only son, Prov 4:3, because she loved him as if he had been so. Ammiel - Called also Eliam, 2Sam 11:3.

Eliphelet - And he had two other sons called by the same names, ver.8, probably they were by different wives: and probably they were then distinguished by some additional clause or title, which is here omitted, because the two first were dead before the two second were born, and therefore the names of the deceased were given to these to preserve their memory.

Nine - There are but seven mentioned, 2Sam 5:14. Two of them are omitted there, because they died very early, and here we have all the sons of David, which clause is not added 2Sam 5:13 - 16.

Shallum - Which most conceive to be the same who is called Jehoahaz, 2Kings 23:30.

Zedekiak - This was another Zedekiah. How seldom has a crown gone in a direct line, from father to son, as it did here, for seventeen generations! This was the recompense of David's piety. About the captivity the lineal descent was interrupted, and the crown went from a nephew to an uncle, a presage of the glory's departing from that house.

Assir - Or, of Jechoniah the captive, which is added to shew that he begat his son when he was captive in Babylon.

Pedaiah - The sentence seems to be short and imperfect, as is frequent in the Hebrew language, and something is here understood, as, the sons also of Salathiel were Malchiram and Pedaiah, &c. as they gather from hence that the same Zerubbabel is called the son of Pedaiah, ver.19, and the son (that is, the grandson) of Salathiel, Matt 1:12.

Their sister - Sister to the two last named sons of Zerubbabel, namely, by both parents; and therefore named before the other five, ver.20, who were her brethren by the father, but not by the mother.

Shechaniah - All these both parents and their sons blended together, are mentioned as the sons of Hananiah, and branches of the royal stock.

Six - Including the father. But the Hebrew word, Shisha, which is rendered six, may be the proper name of one of the sons of Shemaiah.

NOw these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron: the first-born Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess : the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess :

Of that Iezreel in Iudah, Ios. 15. 56. not of that in Manasseh, Ios. 17. 16.

So called because she was the Wife of Nab[illegible: 1+ letters]l who dwelt in Carmel, 1 Sam. 25. 2. which was in Iudah, Ios. 15. 55.

Marginal references: 2 Sam. 3. 2.; Josh. 15. 56.; Or, Chileab, 2 Sam. 3. 3.

3 The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife .

Which Title belongs either to all the foregoing Women, or rather, as the singular number sheweth, to Eglah onely, last mentioned: who possibly may be so called because she was his first, and therefore most proper, Wife, though her son was born after all the rest before-mentioned, and therefore both she and her Son are put in the sixth place, the Wives being here named onely for the Sons sakes. See more on 2 Sam. 3. 5.

Marginal references: 2 Sam. 3. 5.

5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem, Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four , of Bathshuah the daughter of Ammiel :

All David's Children by her, as the Text positively affirms: and therefore Solomon is called her onely Son, Prov. 4. 3. because she loved him as if he had been so.

Called also Eliam, 2 Sam. 11. 3. See on 2 Sam. 11. 3.

Marginal references: 2 Sam. 5. [illegible: 1+ letters].; Or, [illegible: 1 word] ▪ 2 Sam. [illegible: 1+ letters]. [illegible: 1 word]; 2 Sam. [illegible: 1 word]; Or, [illegible: 1 word] 2 Sam. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1+ letters]; Or, [illegible: 1 word] 2 Sam. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1+ letters] ▪

6 Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet ,

And he had two other Sons called by the same Names, v. 8. but they were by differing Wives: and probably they were then distinguished by some additional Clause or Title, which is here omitted, because it was now needless for us to know it: Or, the two first were dead before the two second were born, and therefore the Names of the deceased were given to these to preserve their Memory:

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span]

8 And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine .

Obj. There are but seven mentioned, 2 Sam. 5. 14, &c. Ans. Two of them are omitted there, because they died very early, or were Inglorious, or died without issue: And here we have all the Sons of David, as it here follows v. 9. which Clause is not added 2 Sam. 5.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span]

15 And the sons of Josiah were, the first-born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum .

Of whom, at least under that Name, there is no mention in the History of the Reign of Iosiah's Sons, 2 King. 23, & 24. But in Ierem. 22. 11. there is mention of Shallum the Son of Iosiah King of Iudah, which reigned instead of Iosiah his Father. Which most conceive to be the same who is otherwise called Iehoahaz, 2 King. 23. And this seems most probable, 1. From that Phrase, he reigned instead of Iosiah; which implies that he immediately succeeded his Father; otherwise he would have been said to have reigned instead of his Brother, as Zedekiah is said to reign instead of Iehojachim, 2 King. 24. 17. because he was his next Successor. 2. From the Order of that Sermon or Discourse of Ieremiah, which was directed to Zedekiah, and his Servants, and People, as appears by Ier. 21. 1, 2, 11. & 22. 1, 2. whom he admonisheth by the Examples of the Kings his Predecessors, and of the Sentence of God concerning each of them, and that in order as they reigned; 1. Of Shallum, v. 11, &c. 2. Of Iehojakim, v. 18, &c. 3. Of Iechoniah, &c. Therefore Shallum is the same with Iehoahaz, who was the first King after Iosiah, 2 King. 23. 31. 3. From the Nature of that Prophecy, Ier. 22. 11, 12. which best agrees to Iehoahaz, who was carried Captive not so far as Babylon, but onely to Egypt a very near Country, whence the People hoped that he would speedily and easily return, or be re-established in his Throne by the King of Egypt, in opposition to the King of Babylon. 4. Because Iehoahaz was one of Iosiah's younger Sons, as appears by comparing 2 King 23. 31. 36. And this Shallum is here called his fourth Son.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span]; [illegible: 1 span]; [illegible: 1 span]

16 And the sons of Jehojakim, Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son .

Not his Natural Son, for he was his Uncle, 2 Kings 24. 17. but his Legal Son, or his Successor, upon whom the Sons Right was devolved by vertue of that Law, Numb. 27. 8, 9, 10. and therefore it is not strange if he have the Name of Son with it. See the Notes on Luke 3. Or this was another Zedekiah; because it is improbable and without Example, that one and the same Ma[illegible: 1+ letters] should be twice mentioned in the same Genealogy as the Son of two several Parents.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span]

17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir , Salathiel his son .

Or, of Iechoniah the Captive, or Prisoner: which is added to shew that he begat his Son when he was Captive in Babylon, as it is no[illegible: 1+ letters]ed, Mat. 1. 12. whether he was carried Captive, 2 King. 24. 17. Obj. It is said of this Iechonias, Jer. 22. 30. Write this Man childless. Ans. So he is called because he was an Unhappy Prince, and had no Son that succeeded him in the Throne, as the next words explain it. See more on that Place.

Either his Legal, or his Natural Son: of which see the Notes on Ier. 22. 30. & [illegible: 1 word]. 1. 12. & Luke 3. 27.

Marginal references: Heb. [illegible: 1 word].; Mat. 1. 11.

18 Malch[illegible: 1+ letters]ram also, and Pedajah , and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.

The Sentence seems to be short and imperfect, as is frequent in the Hebrew Language, and something is here understood, as, The Sons also of Salathiel were Malchiram and Pedajah, &c. as they gather from hence that the same Zerubbabel is called the son of P[illegible: 1+ letters]jah, v. 19. and the son (i. e. the Grandson) of Salathiel, M[illegible: 1+ letters]. 1. 12. Or, Malchiram and the rest here named were the Sons of Iechoniah; and they are differing Zerubbabels, which are mentioned here v 19. & Mat. 1. 12. & Luk. 3. 27. of which see the Notes on those places.

19 And the sons of Pedajah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister :

i. e. Sister to the two last named Sons of Zerubbabel, to wit, by both Parents; and therefore named before the other five, v. 20. who were her Brethren by the Father, but not by the Mother.

20 And Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hazadiah, Jushab-hesed, five .

Either of Zerubbabel: or of Meshullam, as is gathered from hence that the Sons of Hananiah (Brother to Meshullam, v. 19.) are [illegible: 1+ letters]med, v. 21. and therefore those v. 20. are presumed to be the Sons of Meshullam. But that is no necessary Inference, for Meshullam possibly had no Sons, and therefore he passeth from him to Hananiah, v. 21.

21 And the sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah, and Jesajak: the sons of Rephajah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah .

All these Men, both Parents and their Sons here blended together, are mentioned as the Sons of Hananiah, and Branches of the Royal Stock.

22 And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemajah: and the sons of Shemajah; Hattush, and [illegible: 1+ letters]geal, and Ba[illegible: 1+ letters]iah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six .

To wit, including the Father. But the Hebrew word, Shishah, which is rendred six, may be the proper Name of one of the Sons of Shemajah, who may be so called because he was the sixth Son.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span].

23 And the sons of Neariah ; Elioenai, and Hezekiah, and Azrikam, three.

Who alone is here mentioned, because his Elder Brethren probably died without Issue.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span]

1Ch 3:1-4

The sons of David: (a) Those born in Hebron; (b) those born in Jerusalem. - 1Ch 3:1-4. The six sons born in Hebron are enumerated also in 2Sa 3:2-5, with mention of their mother as here: but there the second is called כּלאב; here, on the contrary, דּניּאל, - a difference which cannot well have arisen through an error of a copyist, but is probably to be explained on the supposition that this son had two different names. In reference to the others, see on 2 Sam 3. The sing. לו נולד אשׁר after a preceding plural subject is to be explained as in 1Ch 2:9. שׁני, without the article, for משׁנהוּ,   2Sa 3:3, or המּשׁנה, 1Ch 5:12, is surprising, as all the other numbers have the article; but the enumeration, the first-born, a second, the third, etc., may be justified without any alteration of the text being necessary. But the difference between our text and that of 2 Sam. in regard to the second son, shows that the chronicler did not take the register from 2 Sam 3. The preposition ל before אבשׁלום seems to have come into the text only through a mistake occasioned by the preceding לאביגיל, for no reason is apparent for any strong emphasis which might be implied in the ל being placed on the name of Absalom. The addition of אשׁתּו to עגלה (1Ch 3:3) seems introduced only to conclude the enumeration in a fitting way, as the descent of Eglah had not been communicated; just as, for a similar reason, the additional clause “the wife of David” is inserted in 2Sa 3:5, without Eglah being thereby distinguished above the other wives as the most honoured. The concluding formula, “six were born to him in Hebron” (1Ch 3:4), is followed by a notice of how long David reigned in Hebron and in Jerusalem (cf. 2Sa 2:11 and 2Sa 5:5), which is intended to form a fitting transition to the following list of the sons who were born to him in Jerusalem.

1Ch 3:5-9

In Jerusalem thirteen other sons were born to him, of whom four were the children of Bathsheba. The thirteen names are again enumerated in the history of David, in 1Ch 14:7-11, which in the parallel passage, 2Sa 5:14-16, only eleven are mentioned, the two last being omitted (see on the passage). Some of the names are somewhat differently given in these passages, owing the differences of pronunciation and form: שׁמעה is in both places שׁמוּע; אלישׁמע, between Ibhar and Eliphalet, is in 1 Chron 14 more correctly written אלישׁוּע. Elishama is clearly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by one of the following sons bearing this name. אליפלט, shortened in 1Ch 14:6 into אלפּלט, and נוגה, are wanting in 2Sa 5:15, probably because they died early. אלידע, 1Ch 3:8, 2Sa 5:16, appears in 1Ch 14:7 as בּעלידע; the mother also of the four first named, בּתשׁוּע, the daughter of Ammiel, is elsewhere always בּת־שׁבע, e.g., 2Sa 11:3, and 1Ki 1:11, 1Ki 1:15, etc.; and her father, Eliam (2Sa 11:3). בּתשׁוּע has been derived from בּתשׁוע, and בּתשׁוע is softened from בּתשׁבע; but אליעם has arisen by transposition of the two parts of the name עמּיאל, or Ammiel has been altered to Eliam. Besides these, David had also sons by concubines, whose names, however, are nowhere met with. Of David’s daughters only Tamar is mentioned as “their sister,” i.e., sister of the before-mentioned sons, because she had become known in history through Amnon’s crime (2 Sam 13).

1Ch 3:10-16

The kings of the house of David from Solomon till the exile. - Until Josiah the individual kings are mentioned in their order, each with the addition בּנו, son of the preceding, 1Ch 3:10-14; the only omission being that of the usurper Athaliah, because she did not belong to the posterity of David. But in 1Ch 3:15 four sons of Josiah are mentioned, not “in order to allow of a halt in the long line of David’s descendants after Josiah the great reformer” (Berth.), but because with Josiah the regular succession to the throne in the house of David ceased. For the younger son Jehoahaz, who was made king after his father’s death by the people, was soon dethroned by Pharaoh-Necho, and led away captive to Egypt; and of the other sons Jehoiakim was set up by Pharaoh, and Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, so that both were only vassals of heathen lords of the land, and the independent kingship of David came properly to an end with the death of Josiah. Johanan, the first-born of the sons of Josiah, is not to be identified with Jehoahaz, whom the people raised to the throne. For, in the first place, it appears from the statement as to the ages of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim in 2Ki 23:31, 2Ki 23:36; 2Ch 36:2, 2Ch 36:5, that Jehoahaz was two years younger than Jehoiakim, and consequently was not the first-born. In Jer 22:11 it is expressly declared that Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, was king of Judah instead of his father, and was led away into captivity, and never saw his native land again, as history narrates of Jehoahaz. From this it would appear that Shallum took, as king, the name Jehoahaz. Johanan, the first-born, is not met with again in history, either because he died early, or because nothing remarkable could be told of him. Jehoiakim was called Eliakim before he was raised to the throne (2Ki 23:24). Zedekiah was at first Mattaniah (2Ki 24:17). Zedekiah, on his ascending the throne, was younger than Shallum, and that event occurred eleven years after the accession of Shallum = Jehoahaz. Zedekiah was only twenty-one years old, while Jehoahaz had become king in his twenty-third year. But in our genealogy Zedekiah is introduced after Jehoiakim, and before Shallum, because, on the one hand, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah had occupied the throne for a longer period, each having been eleven years king; and on the other, Zedekiah and Shallum were sons of Hamutal (2Ki 23:31; 2Ki 24:18), while Jehoiakim was the son of Zebudah (2Ki 23:36). According to age, they should have followed each other in this order - Johanan, Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah; and in respect to their kingship, Shallum should have stood before Jehoiakim. But in both cases those born of the same mother, Hamutal, would have been separated. To avoid this, apparently, Shallum has been enumerated in the fourth place, along with his full brother Zedekiah. In 1Ch 3:6 it is remarkable that a son of Jehoiakim’s son Jeconiah is mentioned, named Zedekiah, while the sons of Jeconiah follow only in 1Ch 3:17 and 1Ch 3:18. Jeconiah (cf. Jer 24:1; shortened Coniah, Jer 22:24, Jer 22:28, and Jer 37:1) is called, as kings, in 2Ki 24:8. and 2Ch 36:9, Jehoiachin, another form of the name, but having the same signification, “Jahve founds or establishes.” Zedekiah can only be a son of Jeconiah, for the בּנו which is added constantly denotes that the person so called is the son of his predecessor. Many commentators, certainly, were of opinion that Zedekiah was the same person as the brother of Jehoiakim mentioned in 1Ch 3:15 under the name Zidkijahu, and who is here introduced as son of Jeconiah, because he was the successor of Jeconiah on the throne. For this view support was sought in a reference to 1Ch 3:10., in which all Solomon’s successors in the kingship are enumerated in order with בּנו. But all the kings who succeeded each other from Solomon to Josiah were also, without exception, sons of their predecessors; so that there בּנו throughout denotes a proper son, while King Zedekiah, on the contrary, was not the son, but an uncle of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). We must therefore hold צדקיּה for a literal son of Jeconiah, and that so much the more, because the name צדקיּה differs also from צדקיּהוּ, as the name of the king is constantly written in 2Ki 24:17. and in 2Ch 36:10. But mention is made of this Zedekiah in 1Ch 3:16 apart from the other sons of Jeconiah (1Ch 3:17 and 1Ch 3:18), perhaps because he was not led away captive into exile with the others, but died in Judah before the breaking up of the kingdom.

1Ch 3:17-24

The descendants of the captive and exiled Jeconiah, and other families. - 1Ch 3:17. In the list of the son of Jeconiah it is doubtful if אסּר be the name of a son, or should be considered, as it is by Luther and others, an appellative, “prisoner,” in apposition to יכניה, “the sons of Jeconiah, the captive, is Shealtiel” (A. V. Salathiel). The reasons which have been advanced in favour of this latter interpretation are: the lack of the conjunction with שׁאלתּיאל; the position of בּנו after שׁאלת, not after אסּר; and the circumstance that Assir is nowhere to be met with, either in Mat 1:12 or in Seder olam zuta, as an intervening member of the family between Jeconiah and Shealtiel (Berth.). But none of these reasons is decisive. The want of the conjunction proves absolutely nothing, for in 1Ch 3:18 also, the last three names are grouped together without a conjunction; and the position of בּנו after שׁאלת is just as strange, whether Shealtiel be the first named son or the second, for in 1Ch 3:18 other sons of Jeconiah follow, and the peculiarity of it can only be accounted for on the supposition that the case of Shealtiel differs from that of the remaining sons. The omission of Assir in the genealogies in Matthew and the Seder olam also proves nothing, for in the genealogies intermediate members are often passed over. Against the appellative interpretation of the word, on the contrary, the want of the article is decisive; as apposition to יכניה, it should have the article. But besides this, according to the genealogy of Jesus in Luk 3:27, Shealtiel is a son of Neri, a descendant of David, of the lineage of Nathan, not of Solomon; and according to Hag 1:1, Hag 1:12; Ezr 3:2; Ezr 5:2, and Mat 1:12, Zerubbabel is son of Shealtiel; while, according to 1Ch 3:18 and 1Ch 3:19 of our chapter, he is a son of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. These divergent statements may be reconciled by the following combination. The discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, and the statement that he was descended from Neri, a descendant of Nathan, Solomon’s brother, is removed by the supposition that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah mentioned in 1Ch 3:16, who died childless, had another son, viz., Assir, who left only a daughter, who then, according to the law as to heiresses (Num 27:8; Num 36:8.), married a man belonging to a family of her paternal tribe, viz., Neri, of the family of David, in the line of Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang Shealtiel, Malchiram, and the other sons (properly grandsons) of Jeconiah mentioned in 1Ch 3:18. If we suppose the eldest of these, Shealtiel, to come into the inheritance of his maternal grandfather, he would be legally regarded as his legitimate son. In our genealogy, therefore, along with the childless Assir, Shealtiel is introduced as a descendant of Jeconiah, while in Luke he is called, according to his actual descent, a son of Neri. The other discrepancy in respect to the descendants of Zerubbabel is to be explained, as has been already shown on Hag 1:1, by the law of Levirate marriage, and by the supposition that Shealtiel died without any male descendants, leaving his wife a widow. In such a case, according to the law (Deu 25:5-10, cf. Mat 22:24-28), it became the duty of one of the brothers of the deceased to marry his brother’s widow, that he might raise up seed, i.e., posterity, to the deceased brother; and the first son born of this marriage would be legally incorporated with the family of the deceased, and registered as his son. After Shealtiel’s death, his second brother Pedaiah fulfilled this Levirate duty, and begat, in his marriage with his sister-in-law, Zerubbabel, who was now regarded, in all that related to laws of heritage, as Shealtiel’s son, and propagated his race as his heir. According to this right of heritage, Zerubbabel is called in the passages quoted from Haggai and Ezra, as also in the genealogy in Matthew, the son of Shealtiel. The בּנו seems to hint at this peculiar position of Shealtiel with reference to the proper descendants of Jeconiah, helping to remind us that he was son of Jeconiah not by natural birth, but only because of his right of heritage only, on his mother’s side. As to the orthography of the name שׁאלתיאל, see on Hag 1:1. The six persons named in 1Ch 3:18 are not sons of Shealtiel, as Kimchi, Hiller, and others, and latterly Hitzig also, on Hag 1:1, believe, but his brothers, as the cop. ו before מלפּירם requires. The supposition just mentioned is only an attempt, irreconcilable with the words of the text, to form a series, thus: Shealtiel, Pedaiah his son, Zerubbabel his son, - so as to get rid of the differences between our verse and Hag 1:1; Ezr 3:2. In 1Ch 3:19 and 1Ch 3:20, sons and grandsons of Pedaiah are registered. Nothing further is known of the Bne Jeconiah mentioned in 1Ch 3:18. Pedaiah’s son Zerubbabel is unquestionably the prince of Judah who returned to Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus in the year 536, at the head of a great host of exiles, and superintended their settlement anew in the land of their fathers (Ezra 1-6). Of Shimei nothing further is known. In 1Ch 3:19 and 1Ch 3:20, the sons of Zerubbabel are mentioned, and in 1Ch 3:21 two grandsons are named. Instead of the singular וּבן some MSS have וּבני, and the old versions also have the plural. This is correct according to the sense, although וּבן cannot be objected to on critical grounds, and may be explained by the writer’s having had mainly in view the one son who continued the line of descendants. By the mention of their sister after the first two names, the sons of Zerubbabel are divided into two groups, probably as the descendants of different mothers. How Shelomith had gained such fame as to be received into the family register, we do not know. Those mentioned in 1Ch 3:20 are brought together in one group by the number “five.” חסד יוּשׁב, “grace is restored,” is one name. The grandsons of Zerubbabel, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, were without doubt contemporaries of Ezra, who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon seventy-eight years after Zerubbabel.

After these grandsons of Zerubbabel, there are ranged in 1Ch 3:21, without any copula whatever, four families, the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc.; and of the last named of these, the sons of Shecaniah, four generations of descendants are enumerated in 1Ch 3:22-24, without any hint as to the genealogical connection of Shecaniah with the grandsons of Zerubbabel. The assertion of more modern critics, Ewald, Bertheau, and others, that Shecaniah was a brother or a son of Pelatiah or Jesaiah, and that Zerubbabel’s family is traced down through six generations, owes its origin to the wish to gain support for the opinion that the Chronicle was composed long after Ezra, and is without any foundation. The argument of Bertheau, that “since the sons of Rephaiah, etc., run parallel with the preceding names Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and since the continuation of the list in 1Ch 3:22 is connected with the last mentioned Shecaniah, we cannot but believe that Pelatiah, Jesaiah, Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are, without exception, sons of Hananiah,” would be well founded if, and only if, the names Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., stood in our verse, instead of the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., for Pelatiah and Jesaiah are not parallel with the sons of Arnan. Pelatiah and Jesaiah may perhaps be sons of Hananiah, but not the sons of Rephaiah, Arnan, etc. These would be grandsons of Hananiah, on the assumption that Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., were brothers of Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and sons of Hananiah. But for this assumption there is no tenable ground; it would be justified only if our present Masoretic text could lay claim to infallibility. Only on the ground of a belief in this infallibility of the traditional text could we explain to ourselves, as Bertheau does, the ranging of the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., along with Pelatiah and Jesaiah, called sons of Hananiah, by supposing that Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are not named as individuals, but are mentioned together with their families, because they were the progenitors of famous races, while Pelatiah and Jesaiah either had no descendants at all, or none at least who were at all renowned. The text, as we have it, in which the sons of Rephaiah, etc., follow the names of the grandsons of Zerubbabel without a conjunction, and in which the words שׁכניה וּבני, and a statement of the names of one of these בּנים and his further descendants, follow the immediately preceding שׁכניה בּני, has no meaning, and is clearly corrupt, as has been recognised by Heidegger, Vitringa, Carpzov, and others. Owing, however, to want of information from other sources regarding these families and their connection with the descendants of Zerubbabel, we have no means whatever of restoring the original text. The sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., were, it may be supposed, branches of the family of David, whose descent or connection with Zerubbabel is for us unascertainable. The list from רפיה בּני, 1Ch 3:21, to the end of the chapter, is a genealogical fragment, which has perhaps come into the text of the Chronicle at a later time.Yet at a very early time, for the lxx had before them our present text, and sought to make sense of it by expressing the four times recurring בּני, 1Ch 3:21, by the singular בּנו in every case, as follows: καὶ Ἰεσίας υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, Ῥαφὰλ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, Ὀρνὰ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, etc.; according to which, between Hananiah and Shecaniah seven consecutive generations would be enumerated, and Zerubbabel’s family traced down through eleven generations. So also Vulg. and Syr.

Many of the names which this fragment contains are met with singly in genealogies of other tribes, but nowhere in a connection from which we might drawn conclusions as to the origin of the families here enumerated, and the age in which they lived. Bertheau, indeed, thinks “we may in any case hold Hattush, 1Ch 3:22, for the descendant of David of the same name mentioned in Ezr 8:2, who lived at the time of Ezra;” but he has apparently forgotten that, according to his interpretation of our verse, Hattush would be a great-grandson of Zerubbabel, who, even if he were then born, could not possibly have been a man and the head of a family at the time of his supposed return from Babylon with Ezra, seventy-eight years after the return of his great-grandfather to Palestine. Other men too, even priests, have borne the name Hattush; cf. Neh 3:10; Neh 10:5; Neh 12:2. There returned, moreover, from Babylon with Ezra sons of Shecaniah (Ezr 8:3), who may as justly be identified with the sons of Shecaniah mentioned in 1Ch 3:22 of our chapter as forefathers or ancestors of Hattush, as the Hattush here is identified with the Hattush of Ezr 8:2. But from the fact that, in the genealogy of Jesus, Matt 1, not a single one of the names of descendants of Zerubbabel there enumerated coincides with the names given in our verses, we may conclude that the descendants of Shecaniah enumerated in 1Ch 3:22-24 did not descend from Zerubbabel in a direct line. Intermediate members are, it is true, often omitted in genealogical lists; but who would maintain that in Matthew seven, or, according to the other interpretation of our verse, nine, consecutive members have been at one bound overleapt? This weighty consideration, which has been brought forward by Clericus, is passed over in silence by the defenders of the opinion that our verses contain a continuation of the genealogy of Zerubbabel. The only other remark to be made about this fragment is, that in 1Ch 3:22 the number of the sons of Shecaniah is given as six, while only five names are mentioned, and that consequently a name must have fallen out by mistake in transcribing. Nothing further can be said of these families, as they are otherwise quite unknown.

The Family of David. (b. c. 1055.)

1 Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in Hebron; the firstborn Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess: 2 The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur: the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith: 3 The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital: the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife. 4 These six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years. 5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bath-shua the daughter of Ammiel: 6 Ibhar also, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7 And Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 8 And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9 These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister.

We had an account of David's sons, 2 Sam. iii. 2, &c., and v. 14, &c. 1. He had many sons; and no doubt wrote as he thought, Ps. cxxvii. 5. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of these arrows. 2. Some of them were a grief to him, as Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah; and we do not read of any of them that imitated his piety or devotion except Solomon, and he came far short of it. 3. One of them, which Bath-sheba bore to him, he called Nathan, probably in honour of Nathan the prophet, who reproved him for his sin in that matter and was instrumental to bring him to repentance. It seems he loved him the better for it as long as he lived. It is wisdom to esteem those our best friends that deal faithfully with us. From this son of David our Lord Jesus descended, as appears Luke iii. 31. 4. Here are two Elishamas, and two Eliphelets, v. 6, 8. Probably the two former were dead, and therefore David called two more by their names, which he would not have done if there had been any ill omen in this practice as some fancy. 5. David had many concubines; but their children are not named, as not worthy of the honour (v. 9), the rather because the concubines had dealt treacherously with David in the affair of Absalom. 6. Of all David's sons Solomon was chosen to succeed him, perhaps not for any personal merits (his wisdom was God's gift), but so, Father, because it seemed good unto thee.

10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, 14 Amon his son, Josiah his son. 15 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: 20 And Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed, five. 21 And the sons of Hananiah; Pelatiah, and Jesaiah: the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shechaniah. 22 And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six. 23 And the sons of Neariah; Elioenai, and Hezekiah, and Azrikam, three. 24 And the sons of Elioenai were, Hodaiah, and Eliashib, and Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Johanan, and Dalaiah, and Anani, seven.

David having nineteen sons, we may suppose them to have raised many noble families in Israel whom we never hear of in the history. But the scripture gives us an account only of the descendants of Solomon here, and of Nathan, Luke iii. The rest had the honour to be the sons of David; but these only had the honour to be related to the Messiah. The sons of Nathan were his fathers as man, the sons of Solomon his predecessors as king. We have here, 1. The great and celebrated names by which the line of David is drawn down to the captivity, the kings of Judah in a lineal succession, the history of whom we have had at large in the two books of Kings and shall meet with again in the second book of Chronicles. Seldom has a crown gone in a direct line from father to son for seventeen descents together, as here. This was the recompence of David's piety. About the time of the captivity the lineal descent was interrupted, and the crown went from one brother to another and from a nephew to an uncle, which was a presage of the eclipsing of the glory of that house. 2. The less famous, and most of them very obscure, names, in which the house of David subsisted after the captivity. The only famous man of that house that we meet with at their return from captivity was Zerubbabel, elsewhere called the son of Salathiel, but appearing here to be his grandson (v. 17-19), which is usual in scripture. Belshazzar is called Nebuchadnezzar's son, but was his grandson. Salathiel is said to be the son of Jeconiah because adopted by him, and because, as some think, he succeeded him in the dignity to which he was restored by Evil-merodach. Otherwise Jeconiah was written childless: he was the signet God plucked from his right hand (Jer. xxii. 24), and in his room Zerubbabel was placed, and therefore God saith to him (Hag. ii. 23), I will make thee as a signet. The posterity of Zerubbabel here bear not the same names that they do in the genealogies (Matt. i., or Luke iii.), but those no doubt were taken from the then herald's office, the public registers which the priests kept of all the families of Judah, especially that of David. The last person named in this chapter is Anani, of whom bishop Patrick says that the Targum adds these words, He is the king Messiah, who is to be revealed, and some of the Jewish writers give this reason, because it is said (Dan. vii. 13), the son of man came gnim gnanani—with the clouds of heaven. The reason indeed is very foreign and far-fetched; but that learned man thinks it may be made use of as an evidence that their minds were always full of the thoughts of the Messiah and that they expected it would not be very long after the days of Zerubbabel before the set time of his approach would come.