1 Chronicles 4 commentary

In this chapter we have a further account of Judah, the most numerous and most famous of all the tribes; also an account of Simeon. The most remarkable person in this chapter is Jabez. We are not told upon what account Jabez was more honourable than his brethren; but we find that he was a praying man. The way to be truly great, is to seek to do God's will, and to pray earnestly. Here is the prayer he made. Jabez prayed to the living and true God, who alone can hear and answer prayer; and, in prayer he regarded him as a God in covenant with his people. He does not express his promise, but leaves it to be understood; he was afraid to promise in his own strength, and resolved to devote himself entirely to God. Lord, if thou wilt bless me and keep me, do what thou wilt with me; I will be at thy command and disposal for ever. As the text reads it, this was the language of a most ardent and affectionate desire, Oh that thou wouldest bless me! Four things Jabez prayed for. 1. That God would bless him indeed. Spiritual blessings are the best blessings: God's blessings are real things, and produce real effects. 2. That He would enlarge his coast. That God would enlarge our hearts, and so enlarge our portion in himself, and in the heavenly Canaan, ought to be our desire and prayer. 3. That God's hand might be with him. God's hand with us, to lead us, protect us, strengthen us, and to work all our works in us and for us, is a hand all-sufficient for us. 4. That he would keep him from evil, the evil of sin, the evil of trouble, all the evil designs of his enemies, that they might not hurt, nor make him a Jabez indeed, a man of sorrow. God granted that which he requested. God is ever ready to hear prayer: his ear is not now heavy.

CHAPTER 4

1Ch 4:1-8. Posterity of Judah by Caleb the Son of Hur.

1. the sons of Judah--that is, "the descendants," for with the exception of Pharez, none of those here mentioned were his immediate sons. Indeed, the others are mentioned solely to introduce the name of Shobal, whose genealogy the historian intended to trace (1Ch 2:52).

1Ch 4:9-20. Of Jabez, and His Prayer.

9-10. Jabez--was, as many think, the son of Coz, or Kenaz, and is here eulogized for his sincere and fervent piety, as well, perhaps, as for some public and patriotic works which he performed. The Jewish writers affirm that he was an eminent doctor in the law, whose reputation drew so many scribes around him that a town was called by his name (1Ch 2:55); and to the piety of his character this passage bears ample testimony. The memory of the critical circumstances which marked his birth was perpetuated in his name (compare Ge 35:15); and yet, in the development of his high talents or distinguished worth in later life, his mother must have found a satisfaction and delight that amply compensated for all her early trials. His prayer which is here recorded, and which, like Jacob's, is in the form of a vow (Ge 28:20), seems to have been uttered when he was entering on an important or critical service, for the successful execution of which he placed confidence neither on his own nor his people's prowess, but looked anxiously for the aid and blessing of God. The enterprise was in all probability the expulsion of the Canaanites from the territory he occupied; and as this was a war of extermination, which God Himself had commanded, His blessing could be the more reasonably asked and expected in preserving them from all the evils to which the undertaking might expose him. In these words, "that it may not grieve me," and which might be more literally rendered, "that I may have no more sorrow," there is an allusion to the meaning of his name, Jabez, signifying "grief"; and the import of this petition is, Let me not experience the grief which my name implies, and which my sins may well produce.

13. the sons of Kenaz--the grandfather of Caleb, who from that relationship is called a Kenezite (Nu 32:12).

14. Joab, the father of the valley of Carashim--literally, "the father of the inhabitants of the valley"--"the valley of craftsmen," as the word denotes. They dwelt together, according to a custom which, independently of any law, extensively prevails in Eastern countries for persons of the same trade to inhabit the same street or the same quarter, and to follow the same occupation from father to son, through many generations. Their occupation was probably that of carpenters, and the valley where they lived seems to have been in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Ne 11:35).

17-18. she bare Miriam--It is difficult, as the verses stand at present, to see who is meant. The following readjustment of the text clears away the obscurity: "These are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took, and she bare Miriam, and his wife Jehudijah bare Jezreel," &c.

21. Laadah ... the father ... of the house of them that wrought fine linen--Here, again, is another incidental evidence that in very early times certain trades were followed by particular families among the Hebrews, apparently in hereditary succession. Their knowledge of the art of linen manufacture had been, most probably, acquired in Egypt, where the duty of bringing up families to the occupations of their forefathers was a compulsory obligation, whereas in Israel, as in many parts of Asia to this day, it was optional, though common.

22-23. had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubi-lehem--"And these are ancient things" seems a strange rendering of a proper name; and, besides, it conveys a meaning that has no bearing on the record. The following improved translation has been suggested: "Sojourned in Moab, but returned to Beth-lehem and Adaberim-athekim. These and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera were potters employed by the king in his own work." Gedera or Gederoth, and Netaim, belonged to the tribe of Judah, and lay on the southeast border of the Philistines' territory (Jos 15:36; 2Ch 28:18).

1Ch 4:24-43. Of Simeon.

24. The sons of Simeon--They are classed along with those of Judah, as their possession was partly taken out of the extensive territory of the latter (Jos 19:1). The difference in several particulars of the genealogy given here from that given in other passages is occasioned by some of the persons mentioned having more than one name [compare Ge 46:10; Ex 6:15; Nu 26:12].

27. his brethren had not many children--(see Nu 1:22; 26:14).

31-43. These were their cities unto the reign of David--In consequence of the sloth or cowardice of the Simeonites, some of the cities within their allotted territory were only nominally theirs. They were never taken from the Philistines until David's time, when, the Simeonites having forfeited all claim to them, he assigned them to his own tribe of Judah (1Sa 27:6).

The sons of Judah - A genealogy of this tribe has already been given in the second chapter. It is here introduced again, with some variations. Probably there were different copies in the public registers; and the writer of this book, finding that this second one contained some remarkable particulars, thought proper to insert it in this place: and no reader will regret the insertion, when he carefully considers the matter.

These were of the father of Etam - "And these are the rabbins (doctors) living at Etam, Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash." - T.

And Ethnan - After this word we should, with the Targum, read Coz, whose posterity is mentioned in the next verse. Coz was probably the same as Kenaz.

The son of Harum - Jabez should be mentioned at the end of this verse, else he is as a consequent without an antecedent.

And Jabez was more honorable - This whole account is variously understood by some of the principal versions. I shall subjoin a translation of each.

Septuagint. - "And Igabes was more glorious than his brethren; and his mother called his name Igabes, saying, I have brought thee forth as Gabes. And Igabes invoked the God of Israel, saying, If in blessing thou wilt bless me, and enlarge my borders, and thy hand be with me, and wilt give me understanding not to depress me: and God brought about all that he requested."

Syriac. - "And one of these was dear to his father and to his mother; and he called his name ainai, My Eye. And he said to him, In blessing may the Lord bless thee, and enlarge thy boundary; and may his hand be with thee; and may he preserve thee from evil, that it may not rule over thee; and may he give to thee whatsoever thou shalt request of him!"

Arabic. - "And this one (Hastahar or Harum) was beloved of his father and his mother: and they called his name aina, My Eye; and they said unto him, May the Lord bless thee, and multiply thy people, and may his hand be present with thee, because thou wast born in Beth-lehem!"

These two latter versions seem to have copied each other, and the Vulgate is nearly, like ours, a literal rendering of the Hebrew; but the Chaldee is widely different from all the rest: -

Chaldee. - "And Jabets also, he is Othniel, honorable and skilled in the law beyond his brethren, whose mother called his name Jabets, because she had borne him with sorrow. And Jabets prayed to the God of Israel, saying, O that in blessing thou wouldest bless me with children, and enlarge my borders with disciples; and that thy hand may be with me in business, that thou mayest make me like to my companions, that evil concupiscence may the less grieve me! And the Lord granted that which he prayed for."

Of this honorable person we know nothing but what is here mentioned, nor does the name occur in any other part of Scripture except in 1Chr 2:55, where it appears to be the name of a place, but is understood by the Chaldee to be the name of a person, as here. Though I have noticed this particularly in the note on that place, yet I think it right to add the Chaldee here, that all that concerns this worthy person may be seen at one view: - 1Chr 2:55 : "The families of the Rechabites, the son of Eliezer, the son of Moses, the disciples of Jabets; he was Othniel, the son of Kenaz. And he was called Jabets, יעבץ Yabets, because in his counsel [בעיצתיה beqtsatih, from יעץ yaats, he counselled, advised, etc.] he instituted a school for disciples. They were called Tirathim, תרעתים, because in their hymns their voices were like trumpets, [from רע ra, to sound like a trumpet; see Num 10:9; 2Chr 13:12], and Shimathim, שמעתים, because in hearing, they lifted up their faces, i.e. in prayer, [from שמע shama, he heard, hearkened], and Suchathim, שוכתים, because they were overshadowed with the spirit of prophecy, [from שך sach, a tabernacle, or extended covering]." For farther particulars, see at the end of this chapter, 1Chr 4:43 (note).

These are the men of Rechah - "These are the men of the great Sanhedrin." - T.

Caleb the son of Jephunneh - We have already met with this eminent person in Num 13:6, Num 13:30; Num 14:24, and elsewhere; and seen his courageous piety and inflexible integrity. The Targum says here, "They called him Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, because he had purged his soul from the counsel of the spies.

And his wife Jehudijah - The Targum considers the names in this verse as epithets of Moses: "And his wife Jehuditha educated Moses after she had drawn him out of the water: and she called his name Jered, because he caused the manna to descend upon Israel; and Prince Gedor, because he restored the desolations of Israel; Heber also, because he joined Israel to their heavenly Father; and Prince Socho, because he overshadowed Israel with his righteousness, and Jekuthiel, because the Israelites waited on the God of heaven in his time, forty years in the desert; and prince Zanoah, because God, on his account, had passed by the sins of Israel. These names Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, called him by the spirit of prophecy, for she became a proselyte; and Mered took her to himself to wife: he is Caleb, and was so called because he opposed the counsel of the spies." - T. A similar explanation is given by Jarchi.

That wrought fine linen - "Of the family of those who worked in fine flax to make garments for kings and priests." - T.

And Joash, and Saraph - "And the prophets and scribes which sprang from the seed of Joshua, and the Gibeonites, whose office it was to serve in the house of the sanctuary, because they had lied to the princes of Israel; also Joash, who is the same as Mahlon; and Saraph, who is the same as Chilion, who took wives of the daughters of Moab and Boaz, the chief of the wise men of the college of Bethlehem, and of those who existed in former days." - T.

These were the potters - "These are the disciples of the law, for whose sake the world was created; who preside in judgment, and establish the world; and they build and perfect the fallen down house of Israel: they dwelt there with the Shechinah of the King of the world, in the study of the law and the intercalation or months, and determining the commencement of years and festivals: and they computed the times from heaven in the days of Ruth, the mother of kingdoms, to the days of Solomon the king." - T. I am afraid this paraphrase gives us as little light as the text itself, which speaks of potters, and those who dwelt among plants and hedges. They were probably brickmakers; perhaps potters also, who had their dwelling in low grounds, and fabricated the clay into pots and bricks that was digged up in forming fences in the king's domains.

The sons of Simeon - This genealogy is very different from that given in Gen 46:10, and Num 26:12. This may be occasioned by the same person having several names, one list taking one name, another list some other, and so on: to reconcile is impossible; to attempt it, useless.

Neither did all their family multiply - In Num 1:23 the number of all the families of Simeon was fifty-nine thousand three hundred; and that of Judah was, Num 1:27, not less than seventy-four thousand six hundred. When the next census was made, Num. 26, the tribe of Judah amounted to seventy-six thousand five hundred, an increase of one thousand nine hundred; while the tribe of Simeon amounted only to twenty-two thousand two hundred, a decrease of thirty-seven thousand one hundred. It was at that time the smallest tribe in Israel.

These were their cities unto the reign of David - It appears that David took some of the cities of the Simeonites, and added them to Judah; Ziklag for instance, 1Sam 27:6.

As the tribe of Simeon had withdrawn their allegiance from the house of David, the kings of Judah extended their domination as far as possible into the territories of that tribe, so that they were obliged to seek pasture for their flocks at Gedor, and in the mountains of Seir, as we find 1Chr 4:39-42.

They of Ham had dwelt there of old - These were probably either Philistines or Egyptians, who dwelt at Gedor, which was situated in the environs of Joppa and Samnia.

Those whom the five hundred Simeonites expelled from Seir were Amalekites, 1Chr 4:43.

They smote the rest of the Amalekites - Those who had escaped in the war which Saul made against them, (see 1Sam 14:48), and from David, who had attacked them afterwards, 2Sam 8:12.

The expedition of the Simeonites mentioned here, against Gedor and Seir, was in the days of Hezekiah; and, as Calmet conjectures, near about the time of the captivity of the ten tribes, when the remnant of Simeon would feel themselves obliged to retire more southward, into Arabia Petraea, for fear of the Jews. These may be probable conjectures. - See Calmet.

There are several things in the account of Jabez that are very instructive: -

1. He appears to have been a child brought into the world with great difficulty, at the risk of his own life and that of his mother. So much seems to be implied in, she bare him with sorrow, i.e., with peculiar sorrow and danger.

2. To perpetuate the merciful interposition of God in her own and her son's behalf, she gave him a name that must have recalled to her and his remembrance the danger to which both their lives were exposed, and from which they could not have been extricated but by the especial help of God. She called his name Jabez, etc.

3. He was brought up in the fear of God; he was no idolater; he worshipped the God of Israel, and he showed the sincerity of his faith by frequent and earnest prayer.

4. His prayer was at once both enlightened and pious. He had piety towards God, and therefore he trusted in him: he knew that he was the fountain of all good, and therefore he sought all necessaries both for body and soul from him. He prayed to the God of Israel.

5. Both the matter and manner of his prayer were excellent. His heart was deeply impressed with its wants, and therefore he was earnest and fervent; O that thou wouldest bless me indeed; אם ברך תברכני im barech tebarecheni; "O that in blessing thou wouldest bless me!" Let me live under thy benediction! Do thou diligently and frequently bless me!

6. He prays for the things necessary for the body as well as for the soul: And enlarge my coasts - grant me as much territory as may support my family. Let the means of living be adequate to the demands of life; let me have the necessaries, conveniences, and, as far as they may be safely intrusted with me, the comforts of life! O that thou wouldest enlarge my coasts!

7. He is conscious that without the continual support of God he must fail; and therefore he prays to be upheld by his power: That thy hand might be with me! May I ever walk with thee, and ever feel the hand of thy power to support and cover me in all the trials, dangers, and difficulties of life; and the hand of thy providence to supply all my wants in reference to both worlds!

8. He dreads both sin and suffering, and therefore prays against both: O that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! Sin and misery are in every step of the journey of life; keep me from sin, that I grieve thee not; and keep me from sin, that I render not myself miserable! We can never offend God without injuring ourselves; he that sins must suffer. Thorns and scorpions are everywhere in the way to perdition; and he that walks in it must be torn and stung. He alone is happy who walks in the ways of God. Keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me.

9. Prayers that have a right aim will have a right answer; Jabez did not pray in vain, for God granted him that which he requested. He was continually blessed; his family was increased; the hand of God was upon him for good. He was saved from sin, and saved from the pangs and sufferings of a guilty conscience.

10. If we take up the character and conduct of Jabez in the view given by the Chaldee, we shall not only see him as a pious and careful man, deeply interested in behalf of himself and his family, but we shall see him as a benevolent man, laboring for the welfare of others, and especially for the religious instruction of youth. He founded schools, in which the young and rising generation were taught useful knowledge, and especially the knowledge of God. He had disciples, which were divided into three classes, who distinguished themselves by their fervor in the worship of God, by their docility in obediently hearing and treasuring up the advices and instructions of their teachers, and by their deep piety to God in bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit. The spirit of prophecy, that is, of prayer and supplication, rested upon them.

11. He did not do these things merely as a duty he owed to God and his fellows, but from the abundance of a generous and loving heart: In his counsel he erected a school of disciples. God had blessed him with temporal things, and he secures their continuance by devoting them to his service; he honors God with his substance, and God honors him with his especial blessing and approbation.

12. On these accounts he was more honorable than his brethren. He was of the same stock and the same lineage; he had neither nobility of birth, nor was distinguished by earthly titles; in all these respects he was on a level with his brethren: but God tells us that he was more honorable than them all; and why? because he prayed, because he served his Maker, and because he lived to do good among men; therefore he received the honor that cometh from God. Reader, imitate the conduct of this worthy Israelite, that thou mayest be a partaker of his blessings.

The things added by the Targumist might have been derived from authentic tradition.

The sons - The posterity: for only Pharez was his immediate son. But they are all mentioned here only to shew Shobal's descent from Judah.

Honourably - For courage, and for fervent piety. She records this, that it might be a memorandum to herself, to be thankful to God as long as she lived, for bringing her through that sorrow: and a memorandum to him, that she bore him into a vale of tears, in which he might expect few days and full of trouble. And the sorrow in his name might serve to put a seriousness upon his spirit.

Called - When he was undertaking some great and dangerous service. Enlarge - Drive out these Canaanites, whom thou hast commanded us to root out. Grieve - That it may not oppress and overcome me: more is understood than is expressed. He useth this expression in allusion to his name, which signifies grief. And God granted, &c. - Prospered him remarkably in his undertakings, in his studies, in his worldly business, and in his conflicts with the Canaanites.

Rechab - From these are sprung the present inhabitants of Rechab, a town not elsewhere mentioned.

Father - Of the inhabitants of the valley.

Shelah - Having treated of the posterity of Judah by Pharez, and by Zara, he now comes to his progeny by Shelah.

Had dominion - Which they ruled in the name and for the use of the kings of Judah, to whom Moab was subject from David's time. Ancient things - The sense is those blessed times are long since past. Our ancestors had the dominion over the Heathen, but their degenerate posterity are slaves in Chaldea, were they are employed as potters or gardeners, or in other servile works.

There are - He seems to oppose their present servitude to their former glory, and to shew their mean spirits that had rather tarry among the Heathen to do their drudgery, than return to Jerusalem to serve God and enjoy their freedom. The king - Of Babylon: esteeming it a greater honour to serve that earthly monarch in the meanest employments, than to serve the king of kings in his temple.

Of Judah - The tribe of Simeon did not increase proportionably to the tribe of Judah in which they dwelt; as appears by those two catalogues, Numb 1:22 26:14, which is to be ascribed to God's curse upon them, delivered by the mouth of holy Jacob, Gen 49:5 - 7, and signified by Moses's neglect of them when he blessed all the other tribes.

Their cities - Several of these cities though given to Simeon by Joshua, yet through the sloth or cowardice of that tribe, were not taken from the Philistines, until David's time, who took some of them; and, the Simeonites having justly forfeited their right to them by their neglect, gave them to his own tribe. For it is evident concerning Ziklag, one of them, that it was in the Philistines hands in David's time, and by them given to him, and by him annexed to the tribe of Judah, 1Sam 27:6.

Fat pasture, &c. - Those who thus dwelt (as we do) in a fruitful country, and whose land is wide and quiet and peaceable, have reason to own themselves indebted to that God, who appoints the bounds of our habitation. Of Ham - The Canaanites, who descended from Ham. And accordingly these words contain a reason, why they went and possessed this place, because it was not in the hands of their brethren of Judah, but in the possession of that people which they had authority to expel.

THe sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal.

i. e. The Posterity: For onely Pharez was his immediate Son. But they are all mentioned here onely to shew Shobals Descent from Iudah, of whom he intended to speak more particularly.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 38. 29. [illegible: 1+ letters]. 12.; [illegible: 1 span].

2 And ‖ Reajah the son of Shobal, begat Jahath, and Jahath begat Ahumai, and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathite .

Call[illegible: 1+ letters] Haroch, ch. 2. 52. of whom see there.

Of whom see [illegible: 1 word] ch. 2. 5[illegible: 1+ letters].

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1+ letters]. 52.

3 And these were of the father of Etam ; Jezreel, and Ishma, and Idbash: and the name of their sister was Hazelelponi.

Etam is the Name either of a Man, or of a Place: of which see below, v. 32. & 2 Chron. 11. 6. Whose Inhabitants descended from him. The Name of this Father is not here expressed.

4 And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah , the father of Beth-lehem .

Either they are other Sons besides those mentioned ch. 2. or there is some variation in their Names, which is most frequent among the Hebrews, as hath been oft proved.

This Title is here given to the Father, and ch. 2. 51. to Salma, his Son, who had it either with, or after his Father. See the Notes on ch. 2. 51, 52.

7 And the sons of Helah were, Zereth, and Jezoar, and Ethnan .

Understand here, and Coz, out of the beginning of the following Verse. The like Ellipses we have in the end of v. 13. and of ch. 7. v. 18.

9 And Jabez was more honourable than his brethren : and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, Because I bare him with sorrow.

One of the Fathers of the Families of Aharhel last mentioned.

For Courage, and especially for true and servent Piety expressed in the following Petition.

Marginal references: That is sorrowful.

10 And Jabez called on the God of Israel , saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed , and enlarge my coast , and that thine hand might be with me , and that thou wouldest keep me from evil , that it may not grieve me . And God granted him that which he requested.

When he was undertaking some great and dangerous Service.

I trust not to my own or Peoples Valour, but onely to thy Blessing and Help.

Drive out these Wicked and Cursed Canaanites, whom thou hast commanded us to root out, and therefore I justly beg and expect thy Blessing in the Execution of thy Command.

To protect and strengthen me against my Adversaries.

Or, work with (for so the Hebrew Prefix Mem is sometimes used, as Cant. 1. 2. & 3. 9. Isa, 5. 7, 8.) evil, i. e. so restrain and govern it.

That it may not oppress and overcome me, which will be very grievous to me. The consequent put for the antecedent; and more is understood than is expressed. He useth this Expression in allusion to his Name, which signifies grief, q. d. Lord▪ let me not have that Grief which my Name implies, and which my Sin deserves.

Marginal references: Heb. If tho[illegible: 1+ letters] wilt, &c.; Heb. Do [illegible: 1 word]

12 And Eshton begat Beth-rapha, and Paseah, and Tehinnah the Father of Irnahash. These are the men of Rechah .

From these are sprung the present Inhabitants of Rechah, a Town not elsewhere mentioned.

Marginal references: Or, the City of Nahash▪

13 And the sons of Kenaz ; Othniel, and Serajah: and the sons of Othniel; Hathath .

The Son either of Chelub, v. 11. or of his Son Eshton, v. 12. and the Father of Iepha[illegible: 1+ letters]neh, and consequently Calebs Grandfather, v. 15. Whence Caleb is called a Kenezite, Numb. 32. 12.

Understand, and Meonothai, out of v. 14. See above on v. 7.

Marginal references: Or, Hathath and Men[illegible: 1+ letters]thai, who begat, &c.

14 And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Serajah begat Joab, the father of the valley of Charashim, for they were Crastsmen.

i. e. Of the Inhabitants of the Valley.

Marginal references: Nehem. 11. 35.; Or, Inhabitants of the Valley, &c.; That is, Craftsmen.

15 And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah; even Kenaz .

Another Kenaz, differing from that Kenaz, v. 13. Or, his Name might be Uknaz.

Marginal references: Or, U[illegible: 1+ letters]naz.

16 And the sons of Jehaleleel ; Ziph, and Ziphah, Tiria, and Azareel.

The Son of Kenaz, or Uknaz last mentioned.

17 And the sons of Ezra were, Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon: and she bare Miriam, and Shamma, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa.

The Son of Azareel last named.

She, i. e. Bithiah, bare unto Mered, as may seem by comparing this with v. 18.

18 And his wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Zocho and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh , which Mered took.

Either Ezra's Wife, or rather, another Wife of Mered.

Or, the Iewess, so called to distinguish her from his Egyptian Wife here following.

To wit, Miriam, and the rest following, v. 17.

Either 1. of Pharaoh King of Egypt: For Mered might be a Person of great Estate and quality: Or this might be onely Pharaohs Illegitimate Daughter. Or, of some other Egyptian or Israelite called by that Name; which might easily happen upon divers occasions.

Marginal references: Or, the Iewes[illegible: 1+ letters].

19 And the sons of his wife Hodiah, , the sister of Naham, the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maachathite.

His third Wife.

Marginal references: Or, Iehudijah, mentioned before.

20 And the sons of Shimon were, Amnon, and Rinnah, Ben-hanan, and Tilon. And the sons of Ishi were Zoheth, and Ben-zoheth.

Another Son of the Father of Keilah, mentioned v. 19.

son of Tilon last mentioned.

21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were, Er, the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea.

Having treated of the Posterity of Iudah by Pharez, and by Zare, he now comes to his Progeny by Shelah, of whom see Gen. 38.

Marginal references: Gen. 38. 1, 5.

22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab , and Jashubi-lehem. And, these are ancient things .

Which they ruled in the name and for the use and service of the Kings of Iudah, to whom Moab was Subject from Davids Time. Or, who had Possessions in Moab: or, who married Wives in Moab.

The Sence is either, 1. These Persons and things were in Ancient Times; and therefore it is not strange if now they be so little known. But that might have been with equal truth said of divers other parts of this Account. Or, rather 2. But those Blessed times and Things are long since past and gone. Our Ancestors then had the Dominion over the Heathen, but their degenerate Posterity are now Slaves to them in Chaldea, Persia, &c. where they are employed as Potters or Gardiners, or in other Servile Works.

Marginal references: Or, But.

23 These were the Potters, and those that dwelt amongst plants and Hedges: there they dwelt with the King for his work.

Or rather, these are: for he seems to oppose their present Servitude to their former Glory▪ and to shew their low and mean Spirits that had rather tarry among the Heathen to do their Drudgery, than return to Ierusalem to serve God and enjoy their Freedom.

Or, tarr[illegible: 1+ letters]ed, or, now dwell; when their Brethren are returned.

Of Babylon or▪ Persia▪ Esteeming it a greater Honour and Happiness to serve that Earthly Monarch in the meanest Employments, than to serve the King of Kings in his Temple, and in his most Noble and Heavenly Work.

24 The sons of Simeon were Nemuel, and Jammi, Jarib, Zerah, and Shaul:

These are here joyned with Iudah, because their Possession was taken out of Iudahs Portion, Ies. 19. 1. This Account seems to differ from that, Gen. 46. both in the Number and Names of the Persons, which is not strange, considering how Customary it was amongst the Hebrews for one Person to have 2, or 3 Names given to him upon several occasions. And for Ohad, Gen. 46. 10. he may be omitted here, because he left no Posterity or Family after him, as the rest did.

Marginal references: Or, Ie[illegible: 1+ letters]uel, Gen. 46. 10. Exod. 6. 15.

25 Shallum his son , Mibsam his son, Mishma his son.

i. e. Son of Saul last mentioned.

27 And Shimei had sixteen sons, and six daughters: but his brethren had not many children, neither did all their family multiply, like to the children of Judah .

The Tribe of Simeon did not increase proportionably to the Tribe of Iudah in which they dwelt; as appears by those two Catalogues, Numb. 1. 22. & 26. 14. Which is to be ascribed to Gods Curse upon them delivered by the Mouth of Holy Iacob, Gen. 49. and signified by Moses his neglect of them when he Blessed all the other Tribes.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span].

28 And they dwelt at Beer-sheba , and Moladah, and Hazar-shual,

This, and the following Cities are mentioned, Ios. 19. 2, &c. with no great Alterations.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span].

31 And at Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susim, and at Beth-birei, and at Shaaraim. These were their cities unto the reign of David .

Either 1. of Davids Posterity; i. e. as long as the Kingdom of Iudah lasted, or until the Captivity of Babylon. But this seems not to be true; for Simeon was gone into Captivity with the rest of the Ten Tribes long before that time. Or rather 2. of David himself. And this may seem to be added, because some of these Cities though given to Simeon by Ioshua, yet through the Sloth or Cowardize of that Tribe, were not taken from the Philistins, until Davids Time, who took some of them; and, the Simeonites having justly forfeited their Right to them by their neglect, gave them to his own Tribe. For it is evident concerning Ziklag, one of them, that it was in the Philistins Hands in Davids Time, and by them given to him, and by him annexed to the Tribe of Iudah, 1 Sam. 27. 6.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span].

34 And Meshobah, and Jamlech , and Joshah, the son of Amaziah.

These and the rest here following are particularly mentioned for their Valiant and Successful Atchievements related v. 39▪ &c.

38 These mentioned by their names, were princes in their families: and the house of their fathers increased greatly .

Named v. 34, 35, 36, 37.

Which forced them to seek for new and larger Habitations.

Marginal references: Heb. [illegible: 1 word].; [illegible: 1 span]

39 And they went to the entrance of Gedor , even unto the eastside of the valley , to seek Pasture for their flocks.

To that Country that belongs to Gedor, or borders upon it: either that Gedor, Ios. 15. 58. or that called Gederah, Ios. 15. 36.

Of which see on 1 Sam. 17. 1, 52.

40 And they [illegible: 1+ letters]ound [illegible: 1+ letters]at pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable: for they of Ham had dwelt there of old .

i. e. The Posterity of that cursed Ham, either the Arabians: or the Canaanites, or Philistins, who descended from Ham, Gen. 10. 6. And accordingly these words contain a Reason, either 1. to prove that the land was good; because the Arabians, who being wholly given to Pasturage, used to find out the Choicest Grounds, had formerly pitched their Tents there. Or, 2. Why they went and possessed this Place, because it was not in the Hands of their Brethren of Iudah, but in the Possession of that People which they had Authority and Command to expel.

i. e. Had possessed it of old and hitherto. Or, dwelt there before, i. e. before they came and cast them out of their Possessions.

41 And these written by name, came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah , and smote their tents , and the habitations that were [illegible: 1+ letters]ound there, and destroyed them utterly unto this day , and dwelt in their rooms: because there was pasture there for their flocks.

But a little before their Captivity, which was in the sixth year of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 17. So their Joy in their new, and pleasant, and fruitful Possessions lasted but for a very little while.

i. e. The People dwelling in Tents: for so it seems these still did for the conveniency of Pasturage.

i. e. so as they could never after recover themselves.

42 And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to mount Seir , having for their captains Pelatiah, and Neariah, and Rephajah, and Uzziel the sons of Ishi.

Probably about the same time.

Marginal references: Heb. in the [illegible: 1 word] of [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word]. 10. 9.

43 And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day .

No[illegible: 1+ letters] destroyed by Saul, or David, or his Successors.

Either 1. until the Captivity of the Ten Tribes. But that happening so speedily after this time, this Expression may seem to be very improper and insignificant here. Or rather 2. until the Babylonish Captivity or the time next after it, when these books were written. For although the main Body of that Tribe dwelling in Canaan were carried into Captivity, yet this small Remnant of them having removed their Dwellings, and being planted in Mount Seir, which by Southward from Iudah, might possibly be continued and preserved in those Parts, when their Brethren were gone into Captivity.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span].

1Ch 4:1 1Ch 4:1 is evidently intended to be a superscription to the genealogical fragments which follow. Five names are mentioned as sons of Judah, of whom only Pharez was his son (1Ch 2:4); the others are grandchildren or still more distant descendants. Nothing is said as to the genealogical relationship in which they stood to each other; that is supposed to be already known from the genealogies in 1 Chron 2. Hezron is the son of Pharez, and consequently grandson of Judah, 1Ch 2:8. Carmi, a descendant of Zerah, the brother of Pharez, see on 1Ch 2:6-7. Hur is a son of Caleb, the son of Hezron, by Ephratah (see on 1Ch 2:19 and 1Ch 2:50); and Shobal is the son of Hur, who has just been mentioned (1Ch 2:50). These five names do not denote here, any more than in 1 Chron 2, “families of the tribe of Judah” (Berth.), but signify persons who originated or were heads of families. The only conceivable ground for these five being called “sons of Judah,” is that the families registered in the following lists traced their origin to them, although in the enumeration which follows the genealogical connection of the various groups is not clearly brought out. The enumeration begins,

1Ch 4:2 1Ch 4:2, with the descendants of Shobal. As to Reaiah the son of Shobal, see 1Ch 2:52. He begat Jahath, a name often occurring in Levite families, cf. 1Ch 6:5, 1Ch 6:28; 1Ch 23:10., 1Ch 24:22, 2Ch 34:12; but of the descendant of David who bore this name nothing further is known. His sons Ahumai and Lahad founded the families of the Zorathites, i.e., the inhabitants of Zora, who also, according to 1Ch 2:53, were descended from sons of Shobal. Our verse therefore gives more detailed information regarding the lineage of these families.

1Ch 4:3 1Ch 4:3 and 1Ch 4:4 contain notices of the descendants of Hur. The first words of the third verse, “these, father of Etam, Jezreel,” have no meaning; but the last sentence of the second verse suggests that משׁפּחות should be supplied, when we read, “and these are the families of (from) Abi-Etam.” The lxx and Vulgate have עיטם בני אלה, which is also to be found in several codices, while other codices read בני אלה אבי עיטם. Both readings are probably only conjectures. Whether עיטם אבי is to be taken as the name of a person, or appellatively, father = lord of Etam, cannot be decided. עיטם is in 1Ch 4:32, and probably also in Jdg 15:8, Jdg 15:11, the name of a town of the Simeonites; and in 2Ch 11:6, the name of a little town in the highlands of Judah, south of Jerusalem. If עיטם be the name of a place, only the lest named can be here meant. The names Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash denote persons as progenitors and head of families or branches of families. For יזרעאל as the name of a person, cf. Hos 1:4. That these names should be those of persons is required by the succeeding remark, “and their sister Hazelel-poni.” The formation of this name, with the derivative termination i, seems to express a relationship of race; but the word may also be an adjective, and as such may be a proper name: cf. Ew. §273, e.

1Ch 4:4

Penuel, in Gen 32:31., Jdg 8:8, name of a place in the East-Jordan land, as here, and in Jdg 8:25 the name of a man. Gedor is, we may suppose, the town of that name in the mountains of Judah, which is still to be found in the ruin Jedur (see on Jos 15:58). Penuel is here called father of Bedor, while in 1Ch 4:18 one Jered is so called, whence we must conclude that the inhabitants of Gedor were descended from both. Ezer (Help) occurs in 1Ch 7:21; 1Ch 12:9; Neh 3:19, of other men; father of Hushah, i.e., according to the analogy of Abi-Gedor, also the name of a place not elsewhere mentioned, where the hero Sibbecai had his birth, 1Ch 11:29; 2Sa 23:27. Those thus named in 1Ch 4:3 and 1Ch 4:4 are sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah (1Ch 2:19), the father of Bethlehem. The inhabitants of Bethlehem then, according to this, were descended from Hur through his son Salma, who is called in 1Ch 2:51 father of Bethlehem. The circumstance, too, that in our 1Ch 4:3, 1Ch 4:4 other names of persons are enumerated as descendants of Hur than those given in 1Ch 2:50-55 gives rise to no discrepancy, for there is no ground for the supposition that in 1Ch 2:50-55 all the descendants of Hur have been mentioned.

1Ch 4:5-6 Sons of Ashur, the father of Tekoa, who, according to 1Ch 2:24, was a posthumous son of Hezron. Ashur had two wives, Helah and Naarah. Of the latter came four sons and as many families: Ahuzam, of whom nothing further is known; Hepher, also unknown, but to be distinguished from the Gileadite of the same name in 1Ch 11:36 and Num 26:32. The conjecture that the name is connected wit the land of Hepher (1Ki 4:10), the territory of a king conquered by Joshua (Jos 12:17) (Berth.), is not very well supported. Temani (man of the south) may be simply the name of a person, but it is probably, like the following, the name of a family. Haahashtari, descended from Ahashtar, is quite unknown.

1Ch 4:7

The first wife, Helah, bore three sons, Zereth, Jezoar, and Ethnan, who are not elsewhere met with. For the Kethibh יצחר there is in the Keri וצחר, the name of a son of Simeon (Gen 46:10), and of a Hittite chief in the time of the patriarchs (Gen 23:8), with whom the son of Helah has nothing to do.

1Ch 4:8-10 1Ch 4:8-10 contain a fragment, the connection of which with the sons of Judah mentioned in 1 Chron 2 is not clear. Coz begat Anub, etc. The name קוץ occurs only here; elsewhere only הקּוץ is found, of a Levite, 1Ch 24:10, cf. Ezr 2:61 and Neh 3:4 - in the latter passage without any statement as to the tribe to which the sons of Hakkoz belonged. The names of the sons begotten by Coz, 1Ch 4:8, do not occur elsewhere. The same is to be said of Jabez, of whom we know nothing beyond what is communicated in 1Ch 4:9 and 1Ch 4:10. The word יעבּץ denotes in 1Ch 2:55 a town or village which is quite unknown to us; but whether our Jabez were father (lord) of this town cannot be determined. If there be any genealogical connection between the man Jabez and the locality of this name or its inhabitants (1Ch 2:55), then the persons named in 1Ch 4:8 would belong to the descendants of Shobal. For although the connection of Jabez with Coz and his sons is not clearly set forth, yet it may be conjectured from the statements as to Jabez being connected with the preceding by the words, “Jabez was more honoured than his brethren.” The older commentators have thence drawn the conclusion that Jabez was a son or brother of Coz. Bertheau also rightly remarks: “The statements that he was more honoured than his brethren (cf. Gen 34:19), that his mother called him Jabez because she had borne him with sorrow; the use of the similarly sounding word עצב along with the name יעבּץ (cf. Gen 4:25; Gen 19:37., Gen 29:32-33, Gen 29:35; Gen 30:6, Gen 30:8, etc.); and the statement that Jabez vowed to the God of Israel (cf. Gen 33:20) in a prayer (cf. Gen 28:20), - all bring to our recollection similar statements of Genesis, and doubtless rest upon primeval tradition.” In the terms of the vow, עצבּי לבלתּי, “so that sorrow may not be to me,” there is a play upon the name Jabez. But of the vow itself only the conditions proposed by the maker of the vow are communicated: “If Thou wilt bless me, and enlarge my coast, and Thy hand shall be with me, and Thou wilt keep evil far off, not to bring sorrow to me,” - without the conclusion, Then I vow to do this or that (cf. Gen 28:20.), but with the remark that God granted him that which he requested. The reason of this is probably that the vow had acquired importance sufficient to make it worthy of being handed down only from God’s having so fulfilled his wish, that his life became a contradiction of his name; the son of sorrow having been free from pain in life, and having attained to greater happiness and reputation than his brothers.

1Ch 4:11-12

The genealogy of the men of Rechah. - As to their connection with the larger families of Judah, nothing has been handed down to us. Chelub, another form of the name Caleb or Chelubai (see 1Ch 2:9 and 1Ch 2:18), is distinguished from the better known Caleb son of Hezron (1Ch 2:18 and 1Ch 2:42), and from the son of Jephunneh (1Ch 4:15), by the additional clause, “the son of Shuah.” Shuah is not met with elsewhere, but is without reason identified with Hushah, 1Ch 4:4, by the older commentators. Mehir the father of Eshton is likewise unknown. Eshton begat the house (the family) of Rapha, of whom also nothing further is said; for they can be connected neither with the Benjamite Rapha (1Ch 8:2) nor with the children of Rapha (1Ch 20:4, 1Ch 20:6, 1Ch 20:8). Paseah and Tehinnah are also unknown, for it is uncertain whether the sons of Paseah mentioned among the Nethinim, Ezr 2:49; Neh 7:51, have any connection with our Paseah. Tehinnah is called “father of the city of Nahash.” The latter name is probably not properly the name of a town, but rather the name of a person Nahash, not unlikely the same as the father of Abigail (2Sa 17:25), the step-sister of David (cf. 1Ch 2:16). The men (or people) of Rechah are unknown.

1Ch 4:13-14 Descendants of Kenaz. - קנז is a descendant of Hezron the son of Pharez, as may be inferred from the fact that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, a descendant of Hezron’s son Caleb, is called in Num 32:12 and Jos 14:6 קנזּי, and consequently was also a descendant of Kenaz. Othniel and Seraiah, introduced here as קנז בּני, are not sons (in the narrower sense of the word), but more distant descendants of Kenaz; for Othniel and Caleb the son of Jephunneh were, according to Jos 15:17 and Jdg 1:13, brothers.The words used in Jdg 1:13, cf. Jos 15:17, of the relationship of Othniel and Caleb, הקּטון כלב אחי בּן־קנז, may be, it is true, taken in different senses, either as signifying filius Kenasi fratris Caleb, according to which, not Othniel, but Kenaz, was a younger brother of Caleb; or in this way, filius Kenasi, frater Calebi minor, as we have interpreted them in the text, and also in the commentary on Jos 15:17. This interpretation we still hold to be certainly the correct one, notwithstanding what Bachmann (Buch der Richter, on 1Ch 1:13) has brought forward against it and in favour of the other interpretation, and cannot see that his chief reasons are decisive. The assertion that we must predicate of Othniel, if he be a younger brother of Caleb, an unsuitably advanced age, is not convincing. Caleb was eighty-five years of age at the division of the land of Canaan (Jos 14:10). Now if we suppose that his younger or youngest brother Othniel was from twenty-five to thirty years younger, as often happens, Othniel would be from sixty to sixty-one or fifty-five to fifty-six years of age at the conquest of Debir, - an age at which he might well win a wife as the reward of valour. Ten years later came the invasion of the land by Cushan Rishathaim, which lasted eight years, till Othniel had conquered Cushan R., and there were judges in Israel. This victory he would thus gain at the age of seventy-eight or seventy-three; and even if he filled the office of judge for forty years-which, however, Jdg 3:11 does not state - he would have reached no greater age than 118 or 113 years, only three or eight years older than Joshua had been. If we consider what Caleb said of himself in his eighty-fifth year, Jos 14:11, “I am still strong as in the day that Moses sent me (i.e., forty years before); as my strength was then, even so is my strength now for war, both to go out and to come in,” we cannot think that Othniel, in the seventy-third or seventy-eighth years of his age, was too old to be a military leader. But the other reason: “that Caleb is always called son of Jephunneh, Othniel always son of Kenaz, should cause us to hesitate before we take Othniel to be the proper brother of Caleb,” loses all its weight when we find that Caleb also is called in Num 32:12 and Jos 14:6 קנזי = בּן־קנז, and it is seen that Caleb therefore, as well as Othniel, was a son of Kenaz. Now if the Kenazite Caleb the son of Jephunneh were a brother of Kenaz, the father of Othniel, we must suppose an older Kenaz, the grandfather or great-grandfather of Caleb, and a younger Kenaz, the father of Othniel. This supposition is certainly feasible, for, according to 1Ch 4:15 of our chapter, a grandson of Caleb again was called Kenaz; but if it be probable is another question. For the answering of this question in the affirmative, Bachmann adduces that, according to 1Ch 4:13, Othniel is undoubtedly the son of Kenaz in the proper sense of the word; but it might perhaps be difficult to prove, or even to render probable, this “undoubtedly.” In the superscriptions of the single genealogies of the Chronicle, more than elsewhere, בּני has in general a very wide signification. In 1Ch 4:1 of our chapter, for instance, sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Judah are all grouped together as יהוּדה בּני. But besides this, the ranging of the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (1Ch 4:15) after the enumeration of the sons of Kenaz in 1Ch 4:13 and 1Ch 4:14, is clearly much more easily explicable if Caleb himself belonged to the קנז בּני mentioned in 1Ch 4:13, than if he was a brother of Kenaz. In the latter case we should expect, after the analogy of 1Ch 2:42, to find an additional clause קנז אחי after בּן־יפנּה כּלב; while if Caleb was a brother of Othniel, his descent from Kenaz, or the fact that he belonged to the קנז בּני, might be assumed to be known from Num 32:12.

Kenaz, therefore, can neither have been the father of Othniel nor father of Caleb (in the proper sense of the word), but must at least have been the grandfather or great-grandfather of both. Othniel is the famous first judge of Israel, Jdg 3:9. Of Seraiah nothing further is known, although the name is often met with of different persons.

The sons of Othniel are Hathath. The plural בּני, even when only one name follows, is met with elsewhere (vide on 1Ch 2:7); but the continuation is somewhat strange, “and Meonothai begat Ophrah,” for as Meonothai is not before mentioned, his connection with Othniel is not given. There is evidently a hiatus in the text, which may most easily be filled up by repeating וּמעונתי at the end of 1Ch 4:13. According to this conjecture two sons of Othniel would be named, Hathath and Meonothai, and then the posterity of the latter is given. The name מעונתי (my dwellings) is not met with elsewhere. It is not at all probable that it is connected with the town Maon, and still less that it is so in any way with the Mehunim, Ezr 2:50. Ophrah is unknown, for of course we must not think of the towns called Ophrah, in the territory of Benjamin, Jos 18:23, and in that of Manasseh, Jdg 6:11, Jdg 6:24. Seraiah, who is mentioned in 1Ch 4:13, begat Joab the father (founder) of the valley of the craftsmen, “for they (i.e., the inhabitants of this valley, who were descended from Joab) were craftsmen.” The valley of the חרשׁים (craftsmen) is again mentioned in Neh 11:35, whence we may conclude that it lay at no great distance from Jerusalem, in a northern direction.

1Ch 4:15

Of Iru, Elah, and Naam, the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (cf. on 1Ch 4:13), nothing more is known. To connect Elah with the Edomite chief of that name (1Ch 1:52) is arbitrary. Of Elah’s sons only “and Kenaz” is mentioned; the ו copul. before קנז shows clearly that a name has been dropped out before it.Descendants of various men, whose genealogical connection with the sons and grandsons of Judah, mentioned in 1Ch 4:1, is not given in the text as it has come to us.

1Ch 4:16

Sons of Jehaleleel, a man not elsewhere mentioned. Ziph, Ziphah, etc., are met with only here. There is no strong reason for connecting the name זיף with the towns of that name, Jos 15:24, Jos 15:55.

1Ch 4:17-19

Ezra, whose four sons are enumerated, is likewise unknown. The singular בּן is peculiar, but has analogies in 1Ch 3:19, 1Ch 3:21, and 1Ch 3:23. Of the names of his sons, Jether and Epher again occur, the former in 1Ch 2:53, and the latter in 1Ch 1:33 and 1Ch 5:24, but in other families. Jalon, on the contrary, is found only here. The children of two wives of Mered are enumerated in 1Ch 4:17 and 1Ch 4:18, but in a fashion which is quite unintelligible, and shows clear traces of a corruption in the text. For (1) the name of a woman as subject of ותּהר, “and she conceived (bare),” is wanting; and (2) in 1Ch 4:18 the names of two women occur, Jehudijah and Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh. But the sons of Jehudijah are first given, and there follows thereupon the formula, “and these are the sons of Bithiah,” without any mention of the names of these sons. This manifest confusion Bertheau has sought to remove by a happy transposition of the words. He suggests that the words, “and these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered had taken,” should be placed immediately after וילון. “By this means we obtain (1) the missing subject of ותּהר;   (2) the definite statement that Mered had two wives, with whom he begat sons; and (3) an arrangement by which the sons are enumerated after the names of their respective mothers.” After this transposition the 1Ch 4:17 would read thus: “And the sons of Ezra are Jether, Mered, ... and Jalon; and these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took; and she conceived (and bare) Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa (1Ch 4:18), and his wife Jehudijah bore Jered the father of Gedor, etc.” This conjecture commends itself by its simplicity, and by the clearness which it brings into the words. From them we then learn that two families, who dwelt in a number of the cities of Judah, were descended from Mered the son of Ezra by his two wives. We certainly know no more details concerning them, as neither Mered not his children are met with elsewhere. From the circumstance, however, that the one wife was a daughter of Pharaoh, we may conclude that Mered lived before the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. The name Miriam, which Moses’ sister bore, is here a man’s name. The names introduced by אבי are the names of towns. Ishbah is father (lord) of the town Eshtemoa, in the mountains of Judah, now Semua, a village to the south of Hebron, with considerable ruins dating from ancient times (cf. on Jos 15:50). היהוּדיּה means properly “the Jewess,” as distinguished from the Egyptian woman, Pharaoh’s daughter. Gedor is a town in the high lands of Judah (cf. on 1Ch 4:4). Socho, in the low land of Judah, now Shuweikeh, in Wady Sumt (cf. on Jos 15:35). Zanoah is the name of a town in the high lands of Judah, Jos 15:56 (which has not yet been discovered), and of a town in the low land, now Zanua, not far from Zoreah, in an easterly direction (cf. on Jos 15:34). Perhaps the latter is here meant. In 1Ch 4:19, “the sons of the wife of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, are the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maachathite.” The stat. contr. אשׁת before הודיּה shows that Hodiah is a man’s name. Levites of this name are mentioned in Neh 8:7; Neh 9:5; Neh 10:11. The relationship of Hodiah and Naham to the persons formerly named is not given. קעילה is a locality in the low land of Judah not yet discovered (see on Jos 15:44). The origin of the Epithet הגּרמי we do not know. Before אשׁתּמע, אבי with ו copul. is probably to be repeated; and the Maachathite, the chief of a part of the inhabitants of Eshtemoa, is perhaps a descendant of Caleb by Maachah (1Ch 2:48).

1Ch 4:20

Of Shimon and his four sons, also, nothing is known. בּן־חנן is one name. Ishi is often met with, e.g., 1Ch 4:42 and 1Ch 2:31, but nowhere in connection with Zoheth (not further noticed). The names of the sons are wanting after בּן־זוחת.

1Ch 4:21-22 Descendants of Shelah, the third son of Judah, 1Ch 2:3, and Gen 38:5. - All the families of Judah enumerated in vv. 2-20 are connected together by the conjunction ו, and so are grouped as descendants of the sons and grandsons of Judah named in 1Ch 4:1. The conjunction is omitted, however, before שׁלה בּני, as also before יהוּדה בּני in 1Ch 4:3, to show that the descendants of Shelah form a second line of descendants of Judah, co-ordinate with the sons of Judah enumerated in vv. 1-19, concerning whom only a little obscure but not unimportant information has been preserved. Those mentioned as sons are Er (which also was the name of the first-born of Judah, 1Ch 2:3.), father of Lecah, and Laadan, the father of Mareshah. The latter name denotes, beyond question, a town which still exists as the ruin Marash in the Shephelah, Jos 15:44 (see on 1Ch 2:42), and consequently Lecah (לכה) also is the name of a locality not elsewhere mentioned. The further descendants of Shelah were, “the families of the Byssus-work of the house of Ashbea,” i.e., the families of Ashbea, a man of whom nothing further is known. Of these families some were connected with a famous weaving-house or linen (Byssus) manufactory, probably in Egypt; and then further, in 1Ch 4:22, “Jokim, and the man of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, which ruled over Moab, and Jashubi-lehem.” Kimchi conjectured that כּזבה was the place called כזיב in Gen 38:5 = אכזיב, Jos 15:44, in the low land, where Shelah was born. לחם ישׁבי is a strange name, “which the punctuators would hardly have pronounced in the way they have done if it had not come down to them by tradition” (Berth.). The other names denote heads of families or branches of families, the branches and families being included in them.Jerome has given a curious translation of 1Ch 4:22, “et qui stare fecit solem, virique mendacii et securus et incendens, qui principes fuerunt in Moab et qui reversi sunt in Lahem: haec autem verba vetera,” - according to the Jewish Midrash, in which למואב בּעלוּ אשׁר was connected with the narrative in the book of Ruth. For יוקים, qui stare fecit solem, is supposed to be Elimelech, and the viri mendacii Mahlon and Chilion, so well known from the book of Ruth, who went with their father into the land of Moab and married Moabitesses.

Nothing is told us of them beyond what is found in our verses, according to which the four first named ruled over Moab during a period in the primeval time; fir, as the historian himself remarks, “these things are old.”

1Ch 4:23 “These are the potters and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera.” It is doubtful whether המּה refers to all the descendants of Shelah, or only to those named in 1Ch 4:22. Bertheau holds the latter to be the more probable reference; “for as those named in 1Ch 4:21 have already been denominated Byssus-workers, it appears fitting that those in 1Ch 4:22 should be regarded as the potters, etc.” But all those mentioned in 1Ch 4:22 are by no means called Byssus-weavers, but only the families of Ashbea. What the descendants of Er and Laadan were is not said. The המּה may consequently very probably refer to all the sons of Shelah enumerated in 1Ch 4:21 and 1Ch 4:22, with the exception of the families designated Byssus-weavers, who are, of course, understood to be excepted. נטעים signifies “plantings;” but since גּדרה is probably the name of a city Gedera in the lowlands of Judah (cf. Jos 15:36; and for the situation, see on 1Ch 12:4), Netaim also will most likely denote a village where there were royal plantations, and about which these descendants of Shelah were employed, as the words “with the king in his business to dwell there” expressly state. המּלך is not an individual king of Judah, for we know not merely “of King Uzziah that he had country lands, 2Ch 26:10” (Berth.); but we learn from 1Ch 27:25-31 that David also possessed great estates and country lands, which were managed by regularly appointed officers.

We may therefore with certainty assume that all the kings of Judah had domains on which not only agriculture and the rearing of cattle, but also trades, were carried on.From the arrangement of the names in vv. 2-20, in which Bertheau finds just twelve families grouped together, he concludes, S. 44f., that the division of the tribe of Judah into these twelve families did actually exist at some time or other, and had been established by a new reckoning of the families which the heads of the community found themselves compelled to make after deep and wide alterations had taken place in the circumstances of the tribe. He then attempts to determine this time more accurately by the character of the names. For since only a very few names in these verses are known to us from the historical books, from Genesis to 2 Kings, and the few thus known refer to the original divisions of the tribe, which may have maintained themselves till post-exilic times, while, on the contrary, a great number of the other names recur in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; and since localities which in the earliest period after the exile were important for the new community are frequently met with in our verses, while such as were constantly being mentioned in prae-exilic times are nowhere to be found, - Bertheau supposes that a division of the tribe of Judah is here spoken of, which actually existed at some time in the period between Zerubbabel and Ezra. This hypothesis has, however, no solid foundation. The assumption even that the names in vv. 2-20 belong to just twelve families is very questionable; for this number can only be arrived at by separating the descendants of Caleb, 1Ch 4:15, from the descendants of Kenaz, 1Ch 4:13 and 1Ch 4:14, of whom Caleb himself was one, and reckoning them separately. But the circumstance that in this reckoning only the names in 1Ch 4:12-20 are taken into consideration, which no notice is taken of the descendants of Shelah the son of Judah, enumerated in 1Ch 4:21-23, is much more important. Bertheau considers this verse to be merely a supplementary addition, but without reason, as we have pointed out on 1Ch 4:21. For if the descendants of Shelah form a second line of families descended from Judah, co-ordinate with the descendants of Pharez and Zerah, the tribe of Judah could not, either before or after the exile, have been divided into the twelve families supposed by Bertheau; for we have no reason to suppose, on behalf of this hypothesis, that all the descendants of Shelah had died out towards the end of the exile, and that from the time of Zerubbabel only families descended from Pharez and Zerah existed. But besides this, the hypothesis is decisively excluded by the fact that in the enumeration, vv. 2-20, no trace can be discovered of a division of the tribe of Judah into twelve families; for not only are the families mentioned not ranger according to the order of the sons and grandsons of Judah mentioned in 1Ch 4:1, but also the connection of many families with Judah is not even hinted at. An enumeration of families which rested upon a division either made or already existing at any particular time, would be very differently planned and ordered. But if we must hold the supposition of a division of the tribe of Judah into twelve families to be unsubstantiated, since it appears irreconcilable with the present state of these genealogies, we must also believe the opinion that this division actually existed at any time between Zerubbabel and Ezra to be erroneous, and to rest upon no tenable grounds. The relation of the names met with in these verses to the names in the books from Genesis to 2 Kings on the one hand, and to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah on the other, is not really that which Bertheau represents it to be. If we turn our attention in the first place to the names of places, we find that, except a few quite unknown villages or towns, the localities mentioned in vv. 2-20 occur also in the book of Joshua, and many of them even here and there throughout Genesis, in the book of Judges, and in the books of Samuel and Kings. In these latter they are somewhat more rarely met with, but only because they played no great part in history. The fact of a disproportionate number of these towns occurring also in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is connected with the peculiar character of the contents of these books, containing as they do a number of registers of the families of Judah which had returned out of exile. Then if we consider the names of persons in vv. 2-20, we find that not a few of them occur in the historical narratives of the books of Samuel and Kings. Others certainly are found only in the family registers of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, while others again are peculiar to our verses. This phenomenon also is completely accounted for by the contents of the various historical books of the Old Testament. For example, had Nehemiah not received into his book the registers of all the families who had returned from Babylon, and who took part in the building of the walls of Jerusalem, no more names would be met with in his book than are found in the books of Samuel and Kings. Bertheau attempts to find support for his hypothesis in the way in which the names are enumerated, and their loose connection with each other, inasmuch as the disconnected statements abruptly and intermittently following one another, which to us bring enigma after enigma, must have been intended for readers who could bring a key to the understanding of the whole from an accurate knowledge of the relations which are here only hinted at; but the strength of this argument depends upon the assumption that complete family registers were at the command of the author of the Chronicle, from which he excerpted unconnected and obscure fragments, without any regard to order. But such an assumption cannot be justified. The character of that which is communicated would rather lead us to believe that only fragments were in the hands of the chronicler, which he has given to us as he found them. We must therefore pronounce this attempt at an explanation of the contents and form of vv. 2-20 to be an utter failure.

1Ch 4:24

The families of Simeon. - Of the six sons of Simeon, Gen 46:10 and Exo 6:15, only the five are here named who, according to Num 26:12-14, founded the families of this tribe. The third son, Ohad, is omitted even in Num 26:12 in the list of the families of Simeon, at the numbering of the people in the fortieth year of the journey through the wilderness, clearly only because the posterity of Ohad had either died out, or had so dwindled away that it could form no independent family. The names of the five sons agree with the names in Num 26:12-14, except in the case of Jarib, who in Num 26:12, which coincides here with Gen 46:10 and Exo 6:15, is called Jachin; יריב, consequently, must be looked upon as a transcriber’s error for יכין. Nemuel and Zerah (זרח, the rising of the sun) are called in Genesis and Exodus Jemuel (a different form of the same name) and Zohar (צחר, i.e., candor), another name of similar meaning, which, at first used only as a by-name, afterwards supplanted the original name.

1Ch 4:25-26 “Shallum (was) his son;” without doubt the son of the last named Shaul, who in Genesis and Exodus is called the son of a Canaanitish woman, and is thereby distinguished from the other sons. His family is traced down, in 1Ch 4:25, 1Ch 4:26, through six generations to one Shimei. But this list is divided into two groups by the words “and the sons of Mishma,” inserted at the beginning of 1Ch 4:26, but the reasons for the division are unknown. The plural, sons of Mishma, refers to Hammuel and his descendants Zacchur and Shimei. Perhaps these two together form, with the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons mentioned in 1Ch 4:25, a single larger family.

1Ch 4:27

Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters, by whom he became the father of a numerous race. “His brothers,” i.e., the other Simeonites, on the contrary, had not many sons. Hence it happens that they made not their whole race, i.e., the whole race of the Simeonites, numerous unto the sons of Judah, i.e., that the Simeonites were not so numerous as the descendants of Judah. This account is corroborated by the statement made at the numberings of the people under Moses; see on Num 1-4 (1:2, S. 192).

1Ch 4:28-31 The ancient dwelling-places of the Simeonites, which they received within the tribal domain of Judah at the division of the land by Joshua; cf. Jos 19:1. - There are in all eighteen cities, divided into two groups, numbering thirteen and five respectively, as in Jos 19:2-6, where these same cities are enumerated in the same order. The only difference is, that in Joshua thirteen cities are reckoned in the first group and four in the second, although the first group contains fourteen names. Between Beersheba and Moladah there stands there a שׁבע which is not found in our list, and which might be considered to be a repetition of the second part of בּאר־שׁבע, if it were not that in the list of the cities, Jos 15:26, the name שׁמע before Moladah corresponds to it. The other differences between the two passages arise partly from different forms of the same name being used, - as, for example, בּלהה for בּלה (Josh.), תּולד for אלתּולד, בּתוּאל for בּתוּל; and partly from different names being used of the same city, - e.g., בּית־בּראי (1Ch 4:31) instead of בּית־לבאות, “the house of lions” (Josh.), שׁערים instead of שׁרוּחן (Josh.). All these cities lie in the south land of Judah, and have therefore been named in Jos 15:26-32 among the cities of that district. As to Beersheba, now Bir es Seba, see on Gen 21:31; and for Moladah, which is to be identified with the ruin el Milh to the south of Hebron, on the road to Ailah, see on Jos 15:26. Bilhah (in Jos 15:29, בּעלה), Ezem, Tolad, and Bethuel (for which in Jos 15:31 כּסיל is found), have not yet been discovered; cf. on Jos 15:29 and Jos 15:30. Hormah, formerly Sephat, is now the ruin Sepata, on the western slope of the Rakhma table-land, 2 1/2 hours south of Khalasa (Elusa); cf. on Jos 12:14. Ziklag is most probably to be sought in the ancient village Aschludsch or Kasludsch, to the east of Sepata; cf. on Jos 15:31. Beth-marcaboth, i.e., “carriage-house,” and Hazar-susim (or Susa), i.e., horse-village, both evidently by-names, are called in Jos 15:31 Madmannah and Sansannah. Their position has not yet been discovered. Beth-Birei, or Beth-lebaoth, is also as yet undiscovered; cf. on Jos 15:32. Shaaraim, called in Jos 15:32 Shilhim, is supposed to be the same as Tell Sheriah, between Gaza and Beersheba; cf. Van de Velde, Reise, ii. S. 154. The enumeration of these thirteen cities concludes in 1Ch 4:31 with the strange subscription, “These (were) their cities until the reign of David, and their villages.” וחצריהם, which, according to the Masoretic division of the verses, stands at the beginning of 1Ch 4:32, should certainly be taken with 1Ch 4:31; for the places mentioned in 1Ch 4:32 are expressly called cities, and in Jos 19:6, cities and their villages, הצריהם, are spoken of. This subscription can hardly “only be intended to remind us, that of the first-mentioned cities, one (viz., Ziklag, 1Sa 27:6), or several, in the time of David, no longer belonged to the tribe of Simeon;” nor can it only be meant to state that “till the time of David the cities named were in possession of the tribe of Simeon, though they did not all continue to be possessed by this tribe at a later time” (Berth.). Ziklag had been, even before the reign of David, taken away from the Simeonites by the Philistines, and had become the property of King Achish, who in the reign of Saul presented it to David, and through him it became the property of the kings of Judah (1Sa 27:6). The subscription can only mean that till the reign of David these cities rightfully belonged to the Simeonites, but that during and after David’s reign this rightful possession of the Simeonites was trenched upon; and of this curtailing of their rights, the transfer of the city of Ziklag to the kings of Judah gives one historically attested proof. This, however, might not have been the only instance of the sort; it may have brought with it other alterations in the possessions of the Simeonites as to which we have no information. The remark of R. Salomo and Kimchi, that the men of Judah, when they had attained to greater power under David’s rule, drove the Simeonites out of their domains, and compelled them to seek out other dwelling-places, is easily seen to be an inference drawn from the notices in Jos 19:33-43 of emigrations of the Simeonites into other districts; but it may not be quite incorrect, as these emigrations under Hezekiah presuppose a pressure upon or diminution of their territory. We would indeed expect this remark to occur after Jos 19:33, but it may have been placed between the first and second groups of cities, for the reason that the alterations in the dwelling-places of the Simeonites which took place in the time of David affected merely the first group, while the cities named in Jos 19:32., with their villages, remained at a later time even the untouched possession of the Simeonites.

1Ch 4:32

Instead of the five cities, Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Tochen, and Ashan, only four are mentioned in Jos 19:7, viz., Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; עתר is written instead of תּוכן, and עיטם is wanting. According to Movers, p. 73, and Berth. in his commentary on the passage, the list of these cities must have been at first as follows: רמּון עין (one city), עתר, תּוכן, and עשׁן; in Joshua תּוכן must have fallen out by mistake, in our text עתר has been erroneously exchanged for the better known city עיטם in the tribe of Judah, while by reckoning both עין and רמּון the number four has become five. These conjectures are shown to be groundless by the order of the names in our text. For had עתר been exchanged for עיטם, עיטם would not stand in the first place, at the head of the four or five cities, but would have occupied the place of עתר, which is connected with עשׁן in Jos 19:7 and Jos 15:43. Then again, the face that in Jos 15:32 רמּון is separated from עין by the ו cop., and in Jos 19:7 is reckoned by itself as one city as in our verse, is decisive against taking עין and רמּון together as one name. The want of the conjunction, moreover, between the two names here and in Jos 19:7, and the uniting of the two words into one name, עין־תּון, Neh 11:29, is explained by the supposition that the towns lay in the immediate neighbourhood of each other, so that they were at a later time united, or at least might be regarded as one city. Rimmon is perhaps the same as the ruin Rum er Rummanim, four hours to the north of Beersheba; and Ain is probably to be identified with a large half-ruined and very ancient well which lies at from thirty to thirty-five minutes distance, cf. on Jos 15:32. Finally, the assertion that the name עיטם has come into our text by an ex change of the unknown עתר for the name of this better known city of Judah, is founded upon a double geographical error. It rests (1) upon the erroneous assumption that besides the Etam in the high lands of Judah to the south of Bethlehem, there was no other city of this name, and that the Etam mentioned in Jdg 15:8, Jdg 15:11 is identical with that in the high lands of Judah; and (2) on the mistaken idea that Ether was also situated in the high lands of Judah, whereas it was, according to Jos 15:42, one of the cities of the Shephelah; and the Simeonites, moreover, had no cities in the high lands of Judah, but had their dwelling-places assigned to them in the Negeb and the Shephelah. The existence of a second Etam, besides that in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, is placed beyond doubt by Jdg 15:8 and Jdg 15:11; for mention is there made of an Etam in the plain of Judah, which is to be sought in the neighbourhood of Khuweilife, on the border of the Negeb and the mountainous district: cf. on Jdg 15:8. It is this Etam which is spoken of in our verse, and it is rightly grouped with Ain and Rimmon, which were situated in the Negeb, while Tochen and Ashan were in the Shephelah. The statement of Jos 19:7 and Jos 15:42 leaves no doubt as to the fact that the תּוכן of our verse is only another name for עתר. Etam must therefore have come into the possession of the Simeonites after Joshua’s time, but as to when, or under what circumstances, we have no information.

1Ch 4:33

Concerning the villages belonging to these cities, cf. on Jos 19:8, where for בּעל we have the more accurate בּאר בּעלת, and Ramah of the south. The position of these places has not yet been certainly ascertained. “These are their dwelling-places, and their family register was to them;” i.e., although they were only a small tribe and dwelt in the midst of Judah, they yet had their own family register (Berth.). התיחשׂ infin. is used substantively, “the entering in the family register.”

1Ch 4:34-37 Emigrations of Simeonite families into other districts. - 1Ch 4:34-41 record an expedition of the Simeonites, in the time of Hezekiah, undertaken for purposes of conquest. In 1Ch 4:34-36, thirteen princes of the tribe of Simeon are enumerated who undertook this expedition. The families of some of them are traced through several generations, but in no case are they traced down so far as to show their connection with the families named in 1Ch 4:24-26.

1Ch 4:38 “These mentioned by their names were princes in their families; whose fathers'-houses had increased to a multitude. And they went,” etc. בשׁמות הבּאים, properly “those who have come with their names,” i.e., those who have been mentioned by name; for בּוא with בּ = to come with, is to bring something in, to introduce: cf. Psa 71:16. This formula is synonymous with בשׁמות הכּתוּבים, 1Ch 4:41; but we cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and others do, identical in meaning with בשׁמות נקּבוּ אשׁר,    1Ch 12:31; Num 1:17, etc. The predicate to אלּה is נשׂיאים, and הבּאים is a relative sentence, more accurately defining the subject אלּה. Princes in their families are not heads of families, but heads of fathers'-houses, into which the families had divided themselves. בּית־אבות is not construed with the plural, as being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the word בּית־אב: cf. Ew. §270, c.

1Ch 4:39-40

The princes named “went westward from Gedor to the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks.” גדר מבוא does not mean the entrance of Gedor (Mich., Berth., and others); but is, as the corresponding מזרח, “rising” of the sun, i.e., east, requires, a designation of the west, and is abridged from השּׁמשׁ מבוא, as in statements with reference to places מזרח is used instead of השּׁמשׁ מזרח. The locality itself, however, is to us at present unknown. So much is clear, that by Gedor, the Gedor mentioned in Jos 15:58, situated in the high lands of Judah, north of Hebron, cannot be intended, for in that district there is no open valley stretching out on either hand; and the Simeonites, moreover, could not have carried on a war of conquest in the territory of the tribe of Judah in the reign of Hezekiah. But where this Gedor is to be sought cannot be more accurately determined; for הגּיא is certainly not “the valley in which the Dead Sea lies, and the southern continuation of that valley,” as Ewald and Berth. think: that valley has, in the Old Testament, always the name הערבה. From the use of the article, “the valley,” no further conclusion can be drawn, than that a definite valley in the neighbourhood of Gedor is meant.The lxx have rendered גדר by Γεράρ, whence Ewald and Bertheau conclude that גדר is a transcriber’s error for גרר. But a slip of the pen which would make the Gerar so famed in the history of the patriarchs into Gedor is à priori not very probable; and the defective writing גדר, while Gedor in the high lands is written גּדור, cannot be adduced, as Bertheau thinks, in support of the hypothesis, since Gedor even in 1Ch 4:18 is written defectively. It is decisive against Gerar, that the dwelling-places of the Simeonites demonstrably did not extend till towards sunset (westward) from Gerar, for the cities assigned to them all lie to the east of Gerar.

Even the further statements in 1Ch 4:30, with regard to the district, that they found there fat and good pasture, and that the land extended on both sides (i.e., was wide), and at rest and secure, because formerly the Hamites dwelt there, and the statement of 1Ch 4:41, that the Simeonites found the Meunim there, and smote them, give us no firm foothold for the ascertainment of the district referred to. The whole Negeb of Judah has been as yet too little travelled over and explored by modern travellers, to allow of our forming any probable conjecture as to Gedor and the wide valley stretching out on both sides. The description of the Hamite inhabitants, וּשׁלוה שׁקטת, reminds us of the inhabitants of the ancient Laish (Jdg 18:7, Jdg 18:27). Those צם מן are people from Ham, i.e., Hamites, and they may have been Egyptians, Cushites, or even Canaanites (1Ch 1:8). This only is certain, that they were a peaceful shepherd people, who dwelt in tents, and were therefore nomads. לפנים, “formerly,” before the Simeonites took possession of the land.

1Ch 4:41

The above-mentioned Simeonite princes, with their people, fell upon the peaceful little people of the Hamites in the days of Hezekiah, and smote, i.e., destroyed, their tents, and also the Meunites whom they found there. The Meunites were strangers in this place, and were probably connected with the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of Wady Musa (cf. on 2Ch 20:1 and 2Ch 26:7), who dwelt in tents as nomads, with the Hamites in their richly pastured valley. ויּחרימם, and they destroyed them utterly, as the Vulgate rightly renders it, et deleverunt; and J. H. Mich., ad internecionem usque eos exciderunt. The word החרים, to smite with the curse, having gradually lost its original religious signification, came to be used in a wider sense, to denote complete extirpation, because all accursed persons were slain. Undoubted examples are 2Ch 20:23; 2Ch 32:14; 2Ki 19:11; Isa 37:11; and it is to be so understood here also.Bertheau ignores this secondary use of the word, and has drawn from יחרימם the extremely wide inference, that the Simeonites, impelled by holy enthusiasm, arising from the wondrous deliverance of Judah from the attack of the Assyrian power, and the elevation of feeling which it produced in the community, and filled with the thought awakened by the discourses of the great prophets, that the time had come to extend Israel’s rule, and to bring the conquered peoples under the curse, just as was done in the time of Joshua, had undertaken this war of annexation. But there is unfortunately not a single trace of this enthusiastic thought in the narrative of our verse, for it knows no other motive for the whole undertaking than the purely earthly need to seek and find new pasture lands. “Until this day,” i.e., till the composition of the historical work used by the author of the Chronicle, i.e., till the time before the exile.

1Ch 4:42-43

A part of the Simeonites undertook a second war of conquest against Mount Seir. Led by four chiefs of the sons of Shimei (cf. 1Ch 4:27), 500 men marched thither, smote the remainder of the Amalekites who had escaped, and they dwell there to this day (as in 1Ch 4:41). מהם is more accurately defined by שׁ מבּני, and is therefore to be referred to the Simeonites in general, and not to that part of them only mentioned in 1Ch 4:33 (Berth.). From the circumstance that the leaders were sons of Shimei, we may conclude that the whole troop belonged to this family. The escaped of Amalek are those who had escaped destruction in the victories of Saul and David over this hereditary enemy of Israel (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:7; 2Sa 8:12). A remnant of them had been driven into the mountain land of Idumea, where they were smitten, i.e., extirpated, by the Simeonites. It is not said at what time this was done, but it occurred most probably in the second half of Hezekiah’s reign.

The Sons of Judah; The Prayer of Jabez. (b. c. 1720.)

1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. 2 And Reaiah the son of Shobal begat Jahath; and Jahath begat Ahumai, and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathites. 3 And these were of the father of Etam; Jezreel, and Ishma, and Idbash: and the name of their sister was Hazelel-poni: 4 And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem. 5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. 6 And Naarah bare him Ahuzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. 7 And the sons of Helah were, Zereth, and Jezoar, and Ethnan. 8 And Coz begat Anub, and Zobebah, and the families of Aharhel the son of Harum. 9 And Jabez was more honourable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, Because I bare him with sorrow. 10 And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested.

One reason, no doubt, why Ezra is here most particular in the register of the tribe of Judah is because it was that tribe which, with its appendages, Simeon, Benjamin, and Levi, made up the kingdom of Judah, which not only long survived the other tribes in Canaan, but in process of time, now when this was written, returned out of captivity, when the generality of the other tribes were lost in the kingdom of Assyria. The most remarkable person in this paragraph is Jabez. It is not said whose son he was, nor does it appear in what age he lived; but, it should seem, he was the founder of one of the families of Aharhel, mentioned v. 8. Here is,

I. The reason of his name: his mother gave him the name with this reason, Because I bore him with sorrow, v. 9. All children are borne with sorrow (for the sentence upon the woman is, In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children), but some with much more sorrow than others. Usually the sorrow in bearing is afterwards forgotten for joy that the child is born; but here it seems it was so extraordinary that it was remembered when the child came to be circumcised, and care was taken to perpetuate the remembrance of it while he lived. Perhaps the mother called Habez, as Rachel called her son Benoni, when she was dying of the sorrow. Or, if she recovered it, yet thus she recorded it, 1. That it might be a continual memorandum to herself, to be thankful to God as long as she lived for supporting her under and bringing her through that sorrow. It may be of use to be often reminded of our sorrows, that we may always have such thoughts of things as we had in the day of our affliction, and may learn to rejoice with trembling. 2. That it might likewise be a memorandum to him what this world is into which she bore him, a vale of tears, in which he must expect few days and full of trouble. The sorrow he carried in his name might help to put a seriousness upon his spirit. It might also remind him to love and honour his mother, and labour, in every thing, to be a comfort to her who brought him into the world with so much sorrow. It is piety in children thus to requite their parents, 1 Tim. v. 4.

II. The eminence of his character: He was more honourable than his brethren, qualified above them by the divine grace and dignified above them by the divine providence; they did virtuously, but he excelled them all. Now the sorrow with which his mother bore him was abundantly recompensed. That son which of all her children cost her most dear she was most happy in, and was made glad in proportion to the affliction, Ps. xc. 15. We are not told upon what account he was more honourable than his brethren, whether because he raised a greater estate, or was preferred to the magistracy, or signalized himself in war; we have most reason to think it was upon the account of his learning and piety, not only because these, above any thing, put honour upon a man, but because we have reason to think that in these Jabez was eminent. 1. In learning, because we find that the families of the scribes dwelt at Jabez (ch. ii. 55), a city which, it is likely, took its name from him. The Jews say that he was a famous doctor of the law and left many disciples behind him. And it should seem, by the mentioning of him so abruptly here, that his name was well known when Ezra wrote this. 2. In piety, because we find here that he was a praying man. His inclination to devotion made him truly honourable, and by prayer he obtained those blessings from God which added much to his honour. The way to be truly great is to be truly good and to pray much.

III. The prayer he made, probably like Solomon's prayer for wisdom, just when he was setting out in the world. He set himself to acknowledge God in all his ways, put himself under the divine blessing and protection, and prospered accordingly. Perhaps these were the heads on which he enlarged in his daily prayers; for this purpose it was his constant practice to pray alone, and with his family, as Daniel. Some think that it was upon some particular occasion, when he was straitened and threatened by his enemies, that he prayed this prayer. Observe,

1. To whom he prayed, not to any of the gods of the Gentiles; no, he called on the God of Israel, the living and true God, who alone can hear and answer prayer, and in prayer had an eye to him as the God of Israel, a God in covenant with his people, the God with whom Jacob wrestled and prevailed and was thence called Israel.

2. What was the nature of his prayer. (1.) As the margin reads it, it was a solemn vow—If thou wilt bless me indeed, &c. and then the sense is imperfect, but may easily be filled up from Jacob's vow, or some such like—then thou shalt be my God. He did not express his promise, but left it to be understood, either because he was afraid to promise in his own strength or because he resolved to devote himself entirely to God. He does, as it were, give God a blank paper, let him write what he pleases: "Lord, if thou wilt bless me and keep me, do what thou wilt with me, I will be at thy command and disposal for ever." (2.) As the text reads it, it was the language of a most ardent and affectionate desire: O that thou wouldst bless me!

3. What was the matter of his prayer. Four things he prayed for:—(1.) That God would bless him indeed: "That, blessing, thou wilt bless me, bless me greatly with manifold and abundant blessings." Perhaps he had an eye to the promise God made to Abraham (Gen. xxii. 17), In blessing, I will bless thee. "Let that blessing of Abraham come upon me." Spiritual blessings are the best blessings, and those are blessed indeed who are blessed with them. God's blessings are real things and produce real effects. We can but wish a blessing: he commands it. Those whom he blesses are blessed indeed. (2.) That he would enlarge his coast, that he would prosper his endeavours for the increase of what fell to his lot either by work or war. That God would enlarge our hearts, and so enlarge our portion in himself and in the heavenly Canaan, ought to be our desire and prayer. (3.) That God's hand might be with him. The prayer of Moses for this tribe of Judah was, That his own hands might be sufficient for him, Deut. xxxiii. 7; but Jabez expects not that this can be the case, unless he have God's hand with him and the presence of his power. God's hand with us, to lead us, protect us, strengthen us, and to work all our works in us and for us, is indeed a hand sufficient for us, all-sufficient. (4.) That he would keep him from evil, the evil of sin, the evil of trouble, all the evil designs of his enemies, that they might not hurt him, nor grieve him, nor make him a Jabez indeed, a man of sorrow: in the original there is an allusion to his name. Father in heaven, deliver me from evil.

4. What was the success of his prayer: God granted him that which he requested, prospered him remarkably, and gave him success in his undertakings, in his studies, in his worldly business, in his conflicts with the Canaanites, and so he became more honourable than his brethren. God was of old always ready to hear prayer, and his ear is not yet heavy.

Genealogies. (b. c. 1420.)

11 And Chelub the brother of Shuah begat Mehir, which was the father of Eshton. 12 And Eshton begat Beth-rapha, and Paseah, and Tehinnah the father of Irnahash. These are the men of Rechah. 13 And the sons of Kenaz; Othniel, and Seraiah: and the sons of Othniel; Hathath. 14 And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Seraiah begat Joab, the father of the valley of Charashim; for they were craftsmen. 15 And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah, even Kenaz. 16 And the sons of Jehaleleel; Ziph, and Ziphah, Tiria, and Asareel. 17 And the sons of Ezra were, Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon: and she bare Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa. 18 And his wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took. 19 And the sons of his wife Hodiah the sister of Naham, the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maachathite. 20 And the sons of Shimon were, Amnon, and Rinnah, Benhanan, and Tilon. And the sons of Ishi were, Zoheth, and Benzoheth. 21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were, Er the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea, 22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And these are ancient things. 23 These were the potters, and those that dwelt among plants and hedges: there they dwelt with the king for his work.

We may observe in these verses, 1. That here is a whole family of craftsmen, handicraft tradesmen, that applied themselves to all sorts of manufactures, in which they were ingenious and industrious above their neighbours, v. 14. There was a valley where they lived which was, from them, called the valley of craftsmen. Those that are craftsmen are not therefore to be looked upon as mean men. These craftsmen, though two of a trade often disagree, yet chose to live together, for the improving of arts by comparing notes, and that they might support one another's reputation. 2. That one of these married the daughter of Pharaoh (v. 18), which was the common name of the kings of Egypt. If an Israelite in Egypt before the bondage began, while Joseph's merits were yet fresh in mind, was preferred to be the king's son-in-law, it is not to be thought strange: few Israelites could, like Moses, refuse an alliance with the court. 3. That another is said to be the father of the house of those that wrought fine linen, v. 21. It is inserted in their genealogy as their honour that they were the best weavers in the kingdom, and they brought up their children, from one generation to another, to the same business, not aiming to make them gentlemen. This Laadah is said to be the father of those that wrought fine linen, as before the flood Jubal is said to be the father of musicians and Jabal of shepherds, &c. His posterity inhabited the city of Mareshah, the manufacture or staple commodity of which place was linen-cloth, with which their kings and priests were clothed. 4. That another family had had dominion in Moab, but were now in servitude in Babylon, v. 22, 23. (1.) It was found among the ancient things that they had the dominion in Moab. Probably in David's time, when that country was conquered, they transplanted themselves thither, and were put in places of power there, which they held for several generations; but this was a great while ago, time out of mind. (2.) Their posterity were now potters and gardeners, as is supposed in Babylon, where they dwelt with the king for his work, got a good livelihood by their industry, and therefore cared not for returning with their brethren to their own land, after the years of captivity had expired. Those that now have dominion know not what their posterity may be reduced to, nor what mean employments they may be glad to take up with. But those were unworthy the name of Israelites that would dwell among plants and hedges rather than be at the pains to return to Canaan.

Genealogies. (b. c. 715.)

24 The sons of Simeon were, Nemuel, and Jamin, Jarib, Zerah, and Shaul: 25 Shallum his son, Mibsam his son, Mishma his son. 26 And the sons of Mishma; Hamuel his son, Zacchur his son, Shimei his son. 27 And Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters; but his brethren had not many children, neither did all their family multiply, like to the children of Judah. 28 And they dwelt at Beer-sheba, and Moladah, and Hazar-shual, 29 And at Bilhah, and at Ezem, and at Tolad, 30 And at Bethuel, and at Hormah, and at Ziklag, 31 And at Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susim, and at Beth-birei, and at Shaaraim. These were their cities unto the reign of David. 32 And their villages were, Etam, and Ain, Rimmon, and Tochen, and Ashan, five cities: 33 And all their villages that were round about the same cities, unto Baal. These were their habitations, and their genealogy. 34 And Meshobab, and Jamlech, and Joshah the son of Amaziah, 35 And Joel, and Jehu the son of Josibiah, the son of Seraiah, the son of Asiel, 36 And Elioenai, and Jaakobah, and Jeshohaiah, and Asaiah, and Adiel, and Jesimiel, and Benaiah, 37 And Ziza the son of Shiphi, the son of Allon, the son of Jedaiah, the son of Shimri, the son of Shemaiah; 38 These mentioned by their names were princes in their families: and the house of their fathers increased greatly. 39 And they went to the entrance of Gedor, even unto the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks. 40 And they found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old. 41 And these written by name came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and smote their tents, and the habitations that were found there, and destroyed them utterly unto this day, and dwelt in their rooms: because there was pasture there for their flocks. 42 And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and Neariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi. 43 And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day.

We have here some of the genealogies of the tribe of Simeon (though it was not a tribe of great note), especially the princes of that tribe, v. 38. Of this tribe it is said that they increased greatly, but not like the children of Judah, v. 27. Those whom God increases ought to be thankful, though they see others that are more increased. Here observe, 1. The cities allotted them (v. 28), of which see Joshua xix. 1, &c. When it is said that they were theirs unto the reign of David (v. 31) intimation is given that when the ten tribes revolted from the house of David many of the Simeonites quitted these cities, because they lay within Judah, and seated themselves elsewhere. 2. The ground they got elsewhere. When those of this tribe that revolted from the house of David were carried captive with the rest into Assyria those that adhered to Judah were remarkably owned of God and prospered in their endeavours to enlarge their coasts. It was in the days of Hezekiah that a generation of Simeonites, whose tribe had long crouched and truckled, was animated to make these bold efforts. (1.) Some of them attacked a place in Arabia, as it should seem, called the entrance of Gedor, inhabited by the posterity of accursed Ham (v. 40), made themselves masters of it, and dwelt there. This adds to the glory of Hezekiah's pious reign, that, as his kingdom in general prospered, so did particular families. It is said that they found fat pastures, and yet the land was quiet; even when the kings of Assyria were giving disturbance to all their neighbours this land escaped their alarms. The inhabitants being shepherds, who molested none, were not themselves molested, till the Simeonites came and drove them out and succeeded them, not only in the plenty, but in the peace, of their land. Those who dwell (as we do) in a fruitful country, and whose land is wide, and quiet, and peaceable, have reason to own themselves indebted to that God who appoints the bounds of our habitation. (2.) Others of them, to the number of 500, under the command of four brethren here named, made a descent upon Mount Seir, and smote the remainder of the devoted Amalekites, and took possession of their country, v. 42, 43. Now the curses on Ham and Amalek had a further accomplishment, when they seemed dormant, if not dead; as had also the curse on Simeon, that he should be divided and scattered (Gen. xlix. 7): yet to him it was turned into a blessing, for the families of Simeon, which thus transplanted themselves into those distant countries, are said to dwell there unto this day (v. 43), by which it should seem they escaped the calamities of the captivity. Providence sometimes sends those out of trouble that are designed for preservation.