1 Chronicles 7 commentary

Here is no account either of Zebulun or Dan. We can assign no reason why they only should be omitted; but it is the disgrace of the tribe of Dan, that idolatry began in that colony which fixed in Laish, and called it Dan, Jud 18 and there one of the golden calves was set up by Jeroboam. Dan is omitted, Re 7. Men become abominable when they forsake the worship of the true God, for any creature object.

CHAPTER 7

1Ch 7:1-5. Sons of Issachar.

1. Jashub--or Job (Ge 46:13).

2. whose number was in the days of David two and twenty thousand and six hundred--Although a census was taken in the reign of David by order of that monarch, it is not certain that the sacred historian had it in mind, since we find here the tribe of Benjamin enumerated [1Ch 7:6-12], which was not taken in David's time; and there are other points of dissimilarity.

3. five: all of them chief men--Four only are mentioned; so that as they are stated to be five, in this number the father, Izrahiah, must be considered as included; otherwise one of the names must have dropped out of the text. They were each at the head of a numerous and influential division of their tribe.

5. fourscore and seven thousand--exclusive of the 58,600 men which the Tola branch had produced (1Ch 7:24), so that in the days of David the tribe would have contained a population of 45,600. This large increase was owing to the practice of polygamy, as well as the fruitfulness of the women. A plurality of wives, though tolerated among the Hebrews, was confined chiefly to the great and wealthy; but it seems to have been generally esteemed a privilege by the tribe of Issachar, "for they had many wives and sons" [1Ch 7:4].

1Ch 7:6-12. Of Benjamin.

6. The sons of Benjamin--Ten are named in Ge 46:21, but only five later (1Ch 8:1; Nu 26:38). Perhaps five of them were distinguished as chiefs of illustrious families, but two having fallen in the bloody wars waged against Benjamin (Jud 20:46), there remained only three branches of this tribe, and these only are enumerated.

Jediael--Or Asbel (Genesis 46. 21).

7. the sons of Bela--Each of them was chief or leader of the family to which he belonged. In an earlier period seven great families of Benjamin are mentioned (Nu 26:38), five of them being headed by these five sons of Benjamin, and two descended from Bela. Here five families of Bela are specified, whence we are led to conclude that time or the ravages of war had greatly changed the condition of Benjamin, or that the five families of Bela were subordinate to the other great divisions that sprang directly from the five sons of the patriarch.

12. Shuppim also, and Huppim--They are called Muppim and Huppim (Ge 46:21) and Hupham and Shupham (Nu 26:39). They were the children of Ir, or Iri (1Ch 7:7).

and Hushim, the sons--"son."

of Aher--"Aher" signifies "another," and some eminent critics, taking "Aher" as a common noun, render the passage thus, "and Hushim, another son." Shuppim, Muppim, and Hushim are plural words, and therefore denote not individuals, but the heads of their respective families; and as they were not comprised in the above enumeration (1Ch 7:7, 9) they are inserted here in the form of an appendix. Some render the passage, "Hushim, the son of another," that is, tribe or family. The name occurs among the sons of Dan (Ge 46:23), and it is a presumption in favor of this being the true rendering, that after having recorded the genealogy of Naphtali (1Ch 7:13) the sacred historian adds, "the sons of Bilhah, the handmaid, who was the mother of Dan and Naphtali." We naturally expect, therefore, that these two will be noticed together, but Dan is not mentioned at all, if not in this passage.

1Ch 7:13. Of Naphtali.

13. Shallum--or Shillem (Ge 46:24).

sons of Bilhah--As Dan and Naphtali were her sons, Hushim, as well as these enumerated in 1Ch 7:13, were her grandsons.

1Ch 7:14-40. Of Manasseh.

14-15. The sons of Manasseh--or descendants; for Ashriel was a grandson, and Zelophehad was a generation farther removed in descent (Nu 26:33). The text, as it stands, is so confused and complicated that it is exceedingly difficult to trace the genealogical thread, and a great variety of conjectures have been made with a view to clear away the obscurity. The passage [1Ch 7:14, 15] should probably be rendered thus: "The sons of Manasseh were Ashriel, whom his Syrian concubine bare to him, and Machir, the father of Gilead (whom his wife bare to him). Machir took for a wife Maachah, sister to Huppim and Shuppim."

21. whom the men of Gath ... slew, &c.--This interesting little episode gives us a glimpse of the state of Hebrew society in Egypt; for the occurrence narrated seems to have taken place before the Israelites left that country. The patriarch Ephraim was then alive, though he must have arrived at a very advanced age; and the Hebrew people, at all events those of them who were his descendants, still retained their pastoral character. It was in perfect consistency with the ideas and habits of Oriental shepherds that they should have made a raid on the neighboring tribe of the Philistines for the purpose of plundering their flocks. For nothing is more common among them than hostile incursions on the inhabitants of towns, or on other nomad tribes with whom they have no league of amity. But a different view of the incident is brought out, if, instead of "because," we render the Hebrew particle "when" they came down to take their cattle, for the tenor of the context leads rather to the conclusion that "the men of Gath" were the aggressors, who, making a sudden foray on the Ephraimite flocks, killed the shepherds including several of the sons of Ephraim. The calamity spread a deep gloom around the tent of their aged father, and was the occasion of his receiving visits of condolence from his distant relatives, according to the custom of the East, which is remarkably exemplified in the history of Job (Job 2:11; compare Joh 11:19).

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

The sons of Izrahiah - five - There are, however, only four names in the text. Instead of five, the Syriac and Arabic read four. If five be the true reading, then Izrahiah must be reckoned with his four sons.

The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher and Jediael - In Gen 46:21, ten sons of Benjamin are reckoned; viz., Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Eri, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard. In Num 26:38, etc., five sons only of Benjamin are mentioned, Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shupham, and Hupham: and Ard and Naaman are there said to be the sons of Bela; consequently grandsons of Benjamin. In the beginning of the following chapter, five sons of Benjamin are mentioned, viz., Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha; where also Addar, Gera, Abihud, Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, a second Gera, Shephuphan, and Huram, are all represented as grandsons, not sons, of Benjamin: hence we see that in many cases grandsons are called sons, and both are often confounded in the genealogical tables. To attempt to reconcile such discrepancies would be a task as endless as it would be useless. The rabbins say that Ezra, who wrote this book, did not know whether some of these were sons or grandsons; and they intimate also that the tables from which he copied were often defective, and here we must leave all such matters.

Whom the men of Gath - slew - We know nothing of this circumstance but what is related here. The Targum paraphrases the whole thus: "These were the leaders of the house of Ephraim; and they computed their period [or boundary, כיצא kitsa] from the time in which the Word of the Lord of the universe spake with Abraham between the divisions, [i.e., the separated parts of the covenant sacrifice; see Gen 15:9-21], but they erred, for they should have counted from the time in which Isaac was born; they went out of Egypt therefore thirty years before the period: for, thirty years before the birth of Isaac the Word of the Lord of the universe spake with Abraham between the divisions. And when they went out of Egypt, there were with them two hundred thousand warriors of the tribe of Ephraim, whom the men of Gath, the natives of the land of the Philistines, slew, because they came down that they might carry away their cattle. 22. - And Ephraim their father mourned for them many days, and all his brethren came to comfort him. 23. - And he went in to his wife, and she conceived and bare a son, and called his name Beriah, (בריעה in evil), because he was born in the time in which this evil happened to his house.

His daughter was Sherah - That is, remnant; "called so," says the Targum, "because she was the remnant that escaped from the slaughter mentioned above."

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

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

Three - They were ten, Gen 46:25, and five of them are named, chap.1Ch 8:1, but here only three are mentioned, either because these were most eminent; or because the other families are now extinct.

Heads - Each of them head of that family to which he belonged. For it may seem by comparing this with chap.8:3, &c. that these were not the immediate sons of Belah, but his Grand - children descended each from a several father.

She - His wife; his concubine is here opposed to her.

Second - Of the second son or grandson of Machir; for so Zelophehad was. Had daughters - Only daughters, and no sons.

These - Ashriel and Zelophehad, named ver.14,15, the relative being here referred to the remoter antecedent; as is frequent in the Hebrew.

His - Gilead's sister. Mahalah - Understand, and Shemida, out of the next verse.

Slew - This history is not recorded else where in scripture, but it is in the ancient Hebrew writers. The Philistines (one of whose cities Gath was) and the Egyptians were next neighbours; and in those ancient times it was usual for such to make inroads one into another's country, and to carry thence what prey they could take. And as the Philistines had probably made such inroads formerly into Egypt, and particularly into the land of Goshen, which was the utmost part of Egypt bordering upon the Philistines land; so the Israelites might requite them in the like kind: and particularly the children of Ephraim, to their own loss. And this seems to have happened a little before the Egyptian persecution, and before the reign of that new king mentioned Exod 1:8. And this clause, that were born in that land, may be added emphatically, as the motive which made them more resolute in their fight with the Ephraimites, because they fought in, and for their own land, wherein all their wealth and concerns lay.

Bare a son - Thus the breach was in some measure repaired, by the addition of another son in his old age. When God thus restores comfort to his mourners, he makes glad according to the days wherein he afflicted, setting the mercies over against the crosses, we ought to observe the kindness of his providence. Yet the joy that a man was born into his family could not make him forget his grief. For he gives a melancholy name to his son, Beriah, that is, in trouble: for he was born when the family was in mourning. It is good to have in remembrance the affliction and the misery which are past, that our souls may be humbled within us.

1 NOw the sons of Issachar were, Tola, and Puah, Jashub , and Shimron, [illegible: 1+ letters]our.

called by way of contraction, Iob, Gen. 46. 13.

Marginal references: Gen. [illegible: 1 word] 1[illegible: 1+ letters]. Numb [illegible: 1 word]; Or, [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word].

2 And the sons of Tola; Uzzi, and Rephajah, and Jeriel, and Jahmai, Jibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their fathers house, to wit, of Tola: they were valiant men of might in their generations, whose number was in the days of David , two and twenty thousand and six hundred.

When he numbred the People, 2 Sam. 24. 1, &c.

Marginal references: 2 [illegible: 1 word] 1, 2.

3 And the sons of Uzzi, Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Jo[illegible: 1+ letters]h Ishiah, five : all of them chief men.

For, the son: for he names bu[illegible: 1+ letters] one Son.

Including their father Izrahiah.

4 And with them by their generations, after the house of their fathers were bands of souldiers for war, six and thirty thousand men : for they had many wives and sons.

To wit, of the Posterity of Uzzi, as the other 22600, v. 2. were the Posterity of Tobah.

6 The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three .

They were Ten, Gen. 46. 21. and five of them are named, ch. 8. 1. but here onely three are mentioned, either because these were most Eminent for Courage or Fruitfulness; or because the other Families were now extinct.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] 16. 21.

7 And the sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth, and Iri, five; heads of the house of their fathers , mighty men of valour, and were reckoned by their genealogies, twenty and two thousand and thirty and four.

Each of them Head, or Chief, or Commander of that House or Family from which he was descended or to which he belonged. For it may seem by comparing this with ch. 8. 3, &c. that these were not the immediate sons of Belah, but his Grandchildren descended each from a several Father; and their Fathers are here omitted peradventure, because they were obscure persons, as their sons are mentioned for their Eminency.

12 Shuppim also and Huppim , the children of Ir, and Hushim, the sons of Aher .

Called Muppim and Huppim, Gen. 46. 21. also Hupham and Shupham, Numb. 26. 39.

But divers take the Hebrew word [illegible: 1 word] for a Common, not Proper, Name, and render the words thus, [illegible: 1+ letters]uther son, or the son of another Family or Tribe, to wit, of Dan, as may be gathered 1. from Gen. 46. 23. where Hushim is mentioned as the onely Son of Dan, where also the word sons is used of that one Man, as it is here. 2. From the Clause of the next Verse, the sons of Bilhah, who was Mother both to Dan and Napthali. 3. Because otherwise the Genealogy of Dan is quite left out. 4. From the word another, which is used in the Hebrew Writers to design an Abominable thing which the Writer disdained to mention; whence they call a Swine, which to him was a very unclean and loathsome Creature, another thing. And it must be remembred that the Tribe of Dan had made themselves and their Memory Infamous and Detestable by that gross Idolatry, which began first and continued longest in that Tribe, Iudg. 18. For which reason many Interpreters conceive this Tribe is omitted in the numbring of the sealed Persons, Rev. 7.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 1.; [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word]. 16. 18.

13 The sons of Naphtali; Jahziel, and Guni, and Jazer, and Shallum, the sons of Bilhah.

i. e. The Grandchildren: for Bilhah was Iacobs Concubine, and Mother both to Napthali, the Father of these last named Persons, and to Dan. See on v. 12.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 46. 24. [illegible: 1 word].

14 The sons of Manasseh; Ashriel, whom she bare , (but his concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead .

i. e. Grandehildren, as, v. 13. For both Ashriel and Zelophehad were the Grandchildren of Machir Son of Manasseh, Numb. 26. 29, &c. and 27. 1.

To wit, his Wife, as may be thought, because his Concubine is here opposed to her. Or, whom he got; for the Hebrew Word yalad is sometimes used of Mens begetting, as, Gen. 5. 18, &c Compare Psal. 2. 7. But these and the following words may be otherwise rendred according to the Hebrew Text, whom his Concubine the Aramitess bare, who bare him (which Ellipses are very frequent in the Hebrew) for meeth, of, or by Machir: So this was a differing Ashriel from him named Numb. 26. 31. for that was Gileads Son, and this his Brother.

A Person so called, as is manifest from v. 17. & Numb. 26. 29.

15 And Machir took to wise the sister of Huppim, and Shuppim, whose sisters name was Maachah) and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters .

Which Word is here fitly understood out of the following Clause, where it is expressed, and she is called Maachah, who also is called the wife of Machir, v. 16.

Of the second Son or Grandson of Machir; for so Zelophehad was, Numb. 26. 29, &c. Or, Zelophehad is here called the second, because he was the younger Brother of Ashriel, who was the eldest Son of Hepher, the Son of Gilead, the Son of Machir.

i. e. Onely Daughters, and no Sons.

17 And the sons of Ulam, Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.

To wit, Ashriel and Zelophehad named, v. 14, 15. the Relative being here referred to the remoter Antecedent; as is frequent in the Hebrew.

Marginal references: 1 Sam. 12 1[illegible: 1+ letters] ▪

18 And his sister Hammoleketh bare Ishod, and Abiezer, and Mahalah .

i. e. Gileads Sister.

Understand, and Shemida, out of the next Verse.

20 And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son , and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son,

Either 1. the son of Shatelah; and so Tahath the son of Bered; and so the rest, which make up seven succeeding Generations. Or, 2. the son of Ephraim, and so Tahath is the son not of Bered, but of Ephraim, and so forward. And thus all these were Brethren, and Sons or Grandchildren of Ephraim living together at one time with their Father. Obj. This cannot be because then Ephraim had two sons called Shathelah, and two called Tahath. Ans. That might easily happen; either because the first Shathelah and Tahath were dead before the other two of those Names were born: or because two of them were Ephraims Sons, and two of them his Grandchildren called after their Uncles Names. For this is certain the Name of Sons is promiscuously used concerning immediate Children, and Grandchildren, and Great Grandchildren.

21 And Zabad his son, and Shutelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land, slew , because they came down to take away their cattel.

This History is not recorded elsewhere in Scripture, but it is in the Ancient Hebrew Writers, though mixed with many Fables. The Philistins (one of whose Cities this Gath was) and the Egyptians were next Neighbours; and in those Ancient Times it was usual for such to make Inroads one into anothers Country, and to carry thence what Prey they could take; as we find both in Scripture and in Profane Writers. And as the Philistins had probably made such Inroads formerly into Egypt, and particularly into the Land of Goshen, which was the utmost part of Egypt bordering upon the Philistins Land; so the Israelites might requite them in the like kind: and particularly the Children of Ephraim either presuming upon their Numbers and strength; or having possibly received the greatest Injury from the Philistins in their last Invasion, might make an Attempt upon the Philistins to their own great loss; as is here related. And this seems to have happened a little before the Egyptian Persecution, and before the Reign of that new King mentioned, Exod. 1. 8. The Philistins are here called the men of Gath, either because they were Subject to the King of Gath, as afterwards that People were; or because they lived about Gath. And this Clause, that were born in that land, may be added emphatically as the motive which made them more resolute and furious in their Fight with the Ephraimites, because they fought in, and for their own Land, wherein all their wealth and concerns lay, and against those that unjustly endeavoured to turn them out of their Native Country.

22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him.

Either 1. that Ephraim of whom he speaks v. 20 whose sons are here named. But that to many seems hard, especially if these several sons named v. 20, 21. be understood successively so as each Man be the Son of him who is named next and immediately before him, which seems most probable for so here are 7 successive Generations of Ephraim; which it is not likely that [illegible: 1 word] lived [illegible: 1+ letters]o see; for then he must have been near 200 years old. Although it is not necessary that the Persons here said to be slain, should be that Generation which was last mentioned, but the Particle whom may belong to the other Sons of Ephraim of the Fourth, or Fifth, or Sixth Generation. Nor is the word, whom, in the Hebrew Text, which runs thus, and the men of Gath—slew them, i. e. the Sons of Ephraim in the general as they are expressed in the beginning of v. 20. without respect to this or that particular Generation. And the relative Particle, them, may be referred not unto the Persons last named, but unto some of the other and more remote persons: this being a common Observation of Hebricians, that the Relative oft belongs to the remoter Antecedent. Or, 2. Zabad the Father of the three Persons and Families last named, who might possibly have two Names, and be called both Zabad and Ephraim. Or rather the Name of Ephraim may be put patronymically (as the Learned speak) for the Son and Successor of Ephraim; who being now in Ephraims stead, the Head of the Tribe, as old Ephraim was in his Time, might well be called by the same Name. Thus Isaac is put for his Son Iacob or▪ Israel, Amos 7. 9. and Moses for the Sons of Moses, Psal. 90. Title▪ and David for his Son Rehoboam, 1 King. 12. 6. and for Christ, Ier. 30. 9. Ezek. 34. 23. and (as many think) Abraham for Iacob Abrahams Grandchild, Act. 7. 16. And these words, their father, seem to be added by way of distinction, to shew that he meant not this of the old Ephraim, but of another, who was Father to the three Persons said to be slain, v. 21. For if he had understood this of the first Ephraim, having called these the sons of Ephraim, it might seem superfluous and tautological to tell us that Ephraim was their father.

i. e. his Kinsmen, as that word is frequently used.

24 (And his daughter was Sherah, who built , Beth-horon the nether, and the upper, and Uzzensherah.)

i. e. His Grandchild or Great Grandchild; for such are oft called sons or daughters in Scripture.

i. e. Rebuilt or repaired: which possibly she did in Ioshua's time. And this work may be [illegible: 1+ letters] scribed to her, because these works were done either by her design or contrivance; or by her instigation and influence upon her Husband and Brethren who did it.

26 Laadan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son,

The Head of the Tribe of Ephraim in the Wilderness, Num. 1. 10.

28 And their possessions and habitations were Beth▪el , and the towns thereof, and east-ward Naaran, and west-ward Gezer, with the towns thereof, Shechem also and the towns thereof, unto Gaza and the towns thereof.

i. e. The Portion allotted to the Tribe of Ephraim.

Which stood in the Border of Benjamin, but belonged to Ephraim.

Not that of the Philistins, which belonged to another Tribe and was remote from Ephraim, but another of the same Name. Or rather Ad-azza, as it is in the Margent of our Bible; the Particle, ad, here rendred unto, being a part of the Name; for why should unto be put to this Town which is not put to any of the other?

Marginal references: Heb. daughters.; Josh. 16. 7.; Heb. daughters.; Or, Ad-azza.

29 And by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth shean and her towns, Tannach and her towns, Megiddo and her towns, Dor and her towns. In these dwelt the children of Joseph , the son of Israel.

i. e. Of Ephraim, Iosephs eldest Son, who is sometimes called Ioseph, as hath been noted before.

Marginal references: Josh. 17. 7.; Josh. 17. 11.

35 And the sons of his brother , Helem, Zophah, and Imnah, and Shelesh, and Amal.

Brother either of Shamer the eldest, namely Hotham: or of Aram last mentioned.

39 And the sons of Ulla ; Arah, and Haniel, and Reziah.

Another Son of Iether, as may be gathered by the course of the Genealogy, though he be not expressed with his Brethren, v. 38. See the like defect v. 18, & 34.

1Ch 7:1-5 Sons and families of Issachar. - 1Ch 7:1. Instead of ולבני, we must certainly read בּני, as in 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:30, or וּבני, as in 1Ch 7:20; 1Ch 5:11, and elsewhere. The לבני has come into the text only by the recollection of the copyist having dwelt on the so frequently recurring לבני in 1Ch 6:42, 1Ch 6:46-47, cf. 1Ch 6:48, 1Ch 6:56, 1Ch 6:62, for it is not possible to take ל as the ל of introduction, because the names of the sons follow immediately. The names of the four sons are given as in Num 26:23., while in Gen 46:13 the second is written פּוּה, and the third יוב;vide on Gen. loc. cit.

1Ch 7:6-11 Sons and families of Benjamin. - In 1Ch 7:6 only three sons of Benjamin-Bela, Becher, and Jediael - are mentioned; and in 1Ch 7:7-11 their families are registered. Besides these, there are five sons of Benjamin spoken of in 1Ch 8:1-2, - Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth; while in 1Ch 7:3-5 five other בּנים are enumerated, viz., אדּר, גּרא (twice), נעמן, שׁפוּפן, and חוּרם. If we compare here the statements of the Pentateuch as to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in Gen 46:21 the following sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi (אחי) and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard (ארדּ); and in Num 26:38-40 seven families, of which five are descended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham (חוּפם); and two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, Ard and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that of the בּנים mentioned in Gen 46:21 at least two were grandsons, but also that the names אחי and מפּים (Gen.) are only other forms of אחירם and שׁפוּפם (Num.). It is, however, somewhat strange that among the families (in Num.) the names בּכר, גּרא, and ראשׁ are wanting. The explanation which at once suggests itself, that their descendants were not numerous enough to form separate families, and that they on that account were received into the families of the other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and Rosh, of whom it is nowhere recorded that they had numerous descendants, cannot meet the case of Becher, for in 1Ch 7:8, 1Ch 7:9 of our chapter mention is made of nine sons of his, with a posterity of 20,200 men. The supposition that the name of Becher and his family has been dropped from the genealogical register of the families in Num 26, will not appear in the slightest degree probable, when we consider the accuracy of this register in other respects. The only remaining explanation therefore is, that the descendants of Becher were in reality not numerous enough to form a משׁפּחה by themselves, but had afterwards so increased that they numbered nine fathers'-houses, with a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. The numbers in our register point unquestionably to post-Mosaic times; for at the second numbering by Moses, all the families of Benjamin together numbered only 45,600 men (Num 26:41), while the three families mentioned in our verses number together 59,434 (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of Benjamin, which moreover was entirely destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, in the war which it waged against the other tribes in the earlier part of the period of the judges (Jdg 20:47), could not have increased to such an extent before the times of David and Solomon. The name of the third son of Benjamin, Jediael, occurs only here, and is considered by the older commentators to be another name of Ashbel (Gen 46:21 and Num 26:38), which cannot indeed be accepted as a certainty, but is very probable.

1Ch 7:12 1Ch 7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, “And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir,” would seem, if we may judge from the ו cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names וחפּים מפּים occur in Gen 46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Num 26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called שׁוּפמי from שׁפוּפם, and another חוּפמי from חוּפם, are introduced; we must consequently hold מפּים to be an error for שׁפם or שׁוּפם. And (2) the name עיר is most probably identical with עירי in 1Ch 7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., וחפּם שׁפם, seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with וּלשׁפּים לחפּים in 1Ch 7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1Ch 7:15 belong to the Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled with the purpose (1Ch 7:6) to mention none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further statement, “Hushim, sons of Aher,” is utterly enigmatical. The name חשׁים is found in Gen 46:23 as that of Dan’s only son, who, however, is called in Num 26:42 שׁוּחם, and who founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names חוּשׁים and חשׁים are again met with in 1Ch 8:8, 1Ch 8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our חשּׁם and that family.

The word אהר, alius, is not indeed found elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so here; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction w, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted from our chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is omitted.Bertheau’s judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts that חשׁים (Gen 46:27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Gen 46 and Num 26, Dan follows after Benjamin; that in Gen 46 Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1Ch 7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, “sons of Bilhah,” can, according to Gen 46:25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, - he thinks there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and that חשׁם was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word אהר, “the other,” he draws the further inference that it may have been, according to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designation of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself from the congregation of Israel; cf. Judg. 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1Ch 6:61 and 1Ch 6:69, and is named only in 1Ch 2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1Ch 12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that אהר בּן חשּׁם, “Hushim the son of the other,” viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for חשּׁם דן וּבני. The name Aher, then, had so completely concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new commencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, שׁפם and חפם, to the similarly-sounding חשׁם, though probably at first only in the margin. This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in 1Ch 2:2 and 1Ch 12:35, but also in 1Ch 27:22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in 1Ch 6:61, 1Ch 6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1Ch 6:61 the words, “Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan,” and after 1Ch 6:69 a whole verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can there by any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, for in 1Ch 6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1Ch 6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any “dislike.” When Berth. quotes Jdg 18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri מנשׁה the name משׁה is supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage משׁה has been altered into מנשׁה from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it “to solve the enigma of our verse.” If the words in question do really contain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been dropped out. Yet the בּלהה בּני at the end of 1Ch 7:13 is not sufficient to warrant such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that בלהה בני would have to be referred to both, the conj. ו could not have been omitted before נפתּלי בּני. The want of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a conjunction; cf. 1Ch 7:6, 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:30. ו is found only before אפרים בּני, 1Ch 7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold נף בני, 1Ch 7:13, without ו cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that בלהה בני includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.

1Ch 7:13 The sons of Naphtali. - Only the sons of Naphtali are named, the families descended from them being passed over. The names correspond to those in Gen 46:24 and Num 26:48., except that there the first is יחצאל, and the last שׁלּם instead of שׁלּוּם.

1Ch 7:14-19 Families of the half-tribe of Manasseh. - The families of Manasseh which dwelt in Gilead and Bashan have already been mentioned in 1Ch 5:23, 1Ch 5:14. Our verses deal with the families of this tribe which received their inheritance in Canaan, on this side Jordan. These were, according to Num 26:30, Num 26:34, and Jos 17:2, six families, of which, however, only two are here spoken of - Ashriel, 1Ch 7:14, and Shemidah, 1Ch 7:19; or perhaps three, if Abiezer, 1Ch 7:18, be the same person as Jeezer (Num 26:30), who is called Abiezer in Jos 17:2. The statements of 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:15 are very obscure. At the head of the register of the Manassites stands Ashriel, who, according to Num 26:31, belonged to the sons of Gilead the son of Manasseh and the grandson of Joseph (cf. Gen 50:23), and founded one of the six families of the cis-Jordanic Manassites. But the words which follow are obscure; the words are וגו ילרה אשׁר, “whom his Aramaic concubine bore; she bore Machir the father of Gilead.” But since Ashriel, according to this, was the great-grandson of Manasseh, while Machir was his son, the relative clause can refer only to Manasseh, to whom his concubine bore Machir. Movers and Berth. would therefore erase אשׂריאל, as a gloss arising out of a doubling of the following יל אשר. By this expedient the difficultly as to the connection of the relative clause is certainly got rid of, but the obscurities of the following verse (1Ch 7:15) are not thereby removed. The analogy of the other registers in our chapter requires, rather, that immediately after מנשּׁה בּני there should stand the name of a descendant, - a fact which speaks strongly in favour of the authenticity of אשׂריאל. It is therefore a much more probable suggestion, that after the name אשׂריאל, some additional clause, such as בּן־מנשּׁה, has been dropped, or regarded as superfluous by a copyist, and so omitted. To such an omitted מנשׁה בן, the relative sentence, which gives more details as to the descent of Ashriel, would be attacked in a simple and natural manner, since it was known from Num 26:30. that Ashriel was descended from Manasseh through Gilead.

1Ch 7:20-23 The families of Ephraim. - 1Ch 7:20. Among the Ephraimites, the descendants of Shuthelah, the founder of one of the chief families of this tribe, Num 26:35, are traced down through six generations to a later Shuthelah. The names ואלעד ועזר which follow בּנו שׁוּתלח, “And his son Shuthelah,” after which בּנו is wanting, are not to be considered descendants of the second Shuthelah, but are heads of a family co-ordinate with that of Shuthelah, or of two fathers'-houses intimately connected with each other. These names are to be taken as a continuation of the list of the sons of Ephraim, which commenced with שׁוּתלח. The suffix in והרגוּם refers to both these names: “The men of Gath, that were born in the land, smote Ezer and Elead.” These “men born in the land” Ewald and Bertheau take to be the Avvites, the aboriginal inhabitants of that district of country, who had been extirpated by the Philistines emigrating from Caphtor (Deu 2:23). But there is no sufficient ground for this supposition; for no proof can be brought forward that the Avvaeans (Avvites) had ever spread so far as Gath; and the Philistines had taken possession of the south-west part of Canaan as early as the time of Abraham, and consequently long before Ephraim’s birth. “The men of Gath who were born in the land” are rather the Canaanite or Philistine inhabitants of Gath, as distinguished from the Israelites, who had settled in Canaan only under Joshua. “For they (Ezer and Elead) had come down to take away their cattle” (to plunder). The older commentators assign this event to the time that Israel dwelt in Egypt (Ewald, Gesch. i. S. 490), or even to the pre-Egyptian time. But Bertheau has, in opposition to this, justly remarked that the narratives of Genesis know nothing of a stay of the progenitors of the tribe of Ephraim in the land of Palestine before the migration of Israel into Egypt, for Ephraim was born in Egypt (Gen 46:20). It would be more feasible to refer it to the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, as it is not impossible that the Israelites may have undertaken predatory expeditions against Canaan from Goshen; but even this supposition is not at all probable. Certainly, if in 1Ch 7:23-27 it were said, as Ewald thinks, that Ephraim, after the mourning over the sons thus slain, became by his wife the father of three other sons, from the last named of whom Joshua was descended in the seventh generation, we should be compelled to refer the expedition to the pre-Egyptian period. But the opinion that Rephah and Resheph, 1Ch 7:25, were begotten only after that misfortune has no foundation. Moreover, the statement that Ephraim, after he was comforted for the loss of his slain sons, went in unto his wife and begat a son, to whom he gave the name Beriah, because he was born in misfortune in his house, does not at all presuppose that the patriarch Ephraim was still alive when Ezer and Elead were slain. Were that the case, the necessary result would of course be, that this event could only be referred to the time when the Israelites dwelt in Egypt. In opposition to this, Bertheau’s remark that the event in that case would be per se enigmatical, as we would rightly have great hesitation in accepting the supposition of a war, or rather a plundering expedition to seize upon cattle carried out by the Ephraimites whilst they dwelt in Egypt, against the inhabitants of the Philistine city of Gath, is certainly not all decisive, for we know far too little about those times to be able to judge of the possibility or probability of such an expedition.

The decision to which we must come as to this obscure matter depends, in the first place, on how the words וגו ירדוּ כּי are to be understood; whether we are to translate “for they had gone,” or “when they had gone down to fetch their cattle,” i.e., to plunder. If we take the כּי par partic. ration., for, because, we can only take the sons of Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, for the subject of ירדוּ, and we must understand the words to mean that they had gone down to carry off the cattle of the Gathites. In that case, the event would fall in the time when the Ephraimites dwelt in Canaan, and went down from Mount Ephraim into the low-lying Gath, for a march out of Egypt into Canaan is irreconcilable with the verb ירד. If, on the contrary, we translate ירדוּ כּי “when they had gone down,” we might then gather from the words that men of Gath went down to Goshen, there to drive away the cattle of the Ephraimites, in which case the Gathites may have slain the sons of Ephraim when they were feeding their cattle and defending them against the robbers. Many of the old commentators have so understood the words; but we cannot hold this to be the correct interpretation, for it deprives the words “those born in the land,” which stand in apposition to גת אנשׁי, of all meaning, since there can be absolutely no thought of men of Gath born in Egypt. We therefore take the words to mean, that the sons of Ephraim who are named in our verse attempted to drive away the cattle of the Gathites, and were by them slain in the attempt. But how can the statement that Ephraim after this unfortunate event begat another son, Beriah, be reconciled with such a supposition, since the patriarch Ephraim was dead long before the Israelites came forth out of Egypt. Bertheau understands the begetting figuratively, of the whole of the tribe of Ephraim, or of a small Ephraimite family, which at first was not numbered with the others, into the number of the famous families of this tribe. But this straining of the words by an allegorical interpretation is not worthy of serious refutation, since it is manifestly only a makeshift to get rid of the difficulty. The words, “And Ephraim went in unto his wife, and she conceived and bare a son,” are not to be interpreted allegorically, but must be taken in their proper sense; and the solution of the enigma will be found in the name Ephraim. If this be taken to denote the actual son of Joseph, then the event is incomprehensible; but just as a descendant of Shuthelah in the sixth generation was also called Shuthelah, so also might a descendant of the patriarch Ephraim, living at a much later time, have received the name of the progenitor of the tribe; and if we accept this supposition, the event, with all its issues, is easily explained. If Ezer and Elead went down from Mount Ephraim to Gath, they were not actual sons of Ephraim, but merely later descendants; and their father, who mourned for their death, was not Ephraim the son of Joseph, who was born in Egypt, but an Ephraimite who lived after the Israelites had taken possession of the land of Canaan, and who bore Ephraim’s name. He may have mourned for the death of his sons, and after he had been comforted for their loss, may have gone in unto his wife, and have begotten a son with her, to whom he gave the name Beriah, “because it was in misfortune in his house,” i.e., because this son was born when misfortune was in his house.

1Ch 7:24-25 “And his daughter Sherah,” the daughter of the above-mentioned Ephraim, “built Beth-horon the nether and the upper,” the present Beit-Ur-Fok and Tachta (see on Jos 10:10), “and Uzzen-sherah,” a place not elsewhere referred to, which she probably founded, and which was called after her. The building of the two Beth-horons is merely an enlarging and fortifying of these towns. Sherah was probably an heiress, who had received these places as her inheritance, and caused them to be enlarged by her family. In 1Ch 7:25-27 the ancestors of Joshua the son of Nun, who brought Israel into the land of Canaan, are enumerated. As the word בּנו is wanting after רשׁף, we must hold Rephah and Resheph to be brothers, but we are not informed from which of the four Ephraimite stocks enumerated in Num 26:35. they were descended. “Telah his son,” Bertheau holds to be a son of Rephah. The name Tahan occurs in Num 26:35 as that of the founder of one of the families of Ephraim; but he can hardly be identical with our Tahan, who was probably a son of that Tahan from whom an Ephraimite family descended. If this conjecture be correct, Joshua would be of the family of Tahan.

1Ch 7:26-27

Elishama the son of Ammihud was a contemporary of Moses, Num 1:10, and prince of the tribe of Ephraim, Num 7:48; Num 10:22. נון (Non) is so pronounced only in this place; in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua it is נוּן (Nun).

1Ch 7:28-29

In 1Ch 7:28 and 1Ch 7:29 the possessions and dwelling-places of the tribe of Ephraim (and as we learn from the superscription, 1Ch 7:29), also those of West Jordan Manasseh, are given, but in a very general way; only the chief places on the four sides being mentioned. Bethel, now Beitin, on the frontier of the tribal domains of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:2; Jos 18:13), and assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:22), is here mentioned as an Ephraimite city on the southern frontier of the Ephraimite territory, as it belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; whence we gather that this register was prepared after that kingdom had come into existence. As to its position, see on Jos 7:2. Her daughters are the smaller villages which belonged to Bethel. Naaran, without doubt the same place which is called in Jos 16:7 נערתה (with ה loc.), is the eastern frontier city lying to the north-east of Jericho; see on Jos 16:7. “And westward Gezer,” according to Jos 16:3, lying between Beth-horon and the sea (see on Jos 10:33), is the frontier city on the south-west; and Shechem and Avvah (עוּה), with their daughters, are places which mark the boundary on the north-west. As to שׁכם, Shechem, the present Nabulus, see on Jos 17:7. Instead of עוּה, most of the editions of the Bible agree with lxx and Vulg. and Chald. in having עזּה, but not the Philistine Gaza: it is only an error of the transcribers and printers, as all the more accurate MSS and the better printed copies have עוה; see De Rossi, Variae Lectt. ad h. l. The locality עוּה or עיּה is certainly met with nowhere else, but, if we may judge by Jos 16:6 and Jos 17:17, is to be sought not far from Shechem in a north-western direction, perhaps on the site of the there mentioned Michmethah, the position of which has, however, not yet been ascertained.

1Ch 7:30 The sons and several families of Asher. - 1Ch 7:30. The names of the four sons of Asher and that of their sister coincide with the statement of Gen 46:17; but in Num 26:44-47, on the contrary, the name Ishuai does not occur among the families of Asher.

1Ch 7:31-34

The sons of Beriah, Heber and Malchiel, are also to be found in Gen 46:17 and Num 26:45 as the heads of two families; but the further statement, “he (i.e., Malchiel) the father of Birzavith,” is found only here. How ברזות, the Kethibh, is to be pronounced, cannot be with certainty determined. Gesen. in Thes. p. 239 makes it בּרזות, and considers the word to be the name of a woman; Bertheau, on the contrary conjectures that it is a compound of בר = בּאר and זית, “well of the olive-tree,” and so the name of a place. In 1Ch 7:32-34 the descendants of Heber are enumerated in three generations, which are mentioned nowhere else. In 1Ch 7:32 we have four sons and one daughter. The name יפלט is not to be connected with יפלטי, Jos 16:3, “because a family of Asher is not to be sought for in the neighbourhood there referred to” (Berth.). In 1Ch 7:33 we have four sons of Japhlet, and in 1Ch 7:34 the sons of his brother Shemer. It is somewhat remarkable that שׁומר, 1Ch 7:32, is called here שׁמר. אחי is not an appellative, but a proper name, as the ו before the following name shows; cf. another Ahi in 1Ch 5:15. For יחבּה we should read וחבּה.

1Ch 7:35-39

Descendants of Helem-in 1Ch 7:35 sons, in 1Ch 7:36-38 grandsons.

As Helem is called אהיו, “his brother” (i.e., the brother of the Shemer mentioned in 1Ch 7:34), הלם would seem to be the third son of Heber, who is called in 1Ch 7:32 חותם. If so, one of the two names must have resulted from an error in transcription; but it is now impossible to determine which is the original and correct form of the name. Eleven names are introduced as those of the sons of Zophah (1Ch 7:36, 1Ch 7:37); and in 1Ch 7:38 we have, besides, three sons of Jether (יתר), who is called in 1Ch 7:38 יתרן. In 1Ch 7:39 there follow three names, those of the sons of Ulla; on which Bertheau rightly remarks, the whole character of our enumeration would lead us to conjecture that עלּא had already occurred among the preceding names, although we find neither this name nor any similar one, with which it might be identified, in the preceding list.

1Ch 7:40 1Ch 7:40 contains a comprehensive concluding statement as to the descendants of Asher: “All these (those just mentioned by name) were heads of fathers'-houses, chosen valiant heroes (חילים, as in 1Ch 7:5), chief of the princes,” Vulg. duces ducum, i.e., probably leaders of the larger divisions of the army, under whom were other נשׂיאים. “And their genealogical register is for service of the host in war,” i.e., was prepared with reference to the men capable of bearing arms, and had not, like other registers, reference to the number of inhabitants of the various localities; cf. 1Ch 9:22. It amounted to 26,000 men. According to Num 1:41, Asher numbered 41,500, and according to Num 26:47, 53,000 men. But we must observe that the number given in our verse is only that of the men capable of bearing arms belonging to one of the greater families of Asher, the family of Heber, of which alone a register had been preserved till the time of the chronicler. The families of Benjamin enumerated in this chapter were probably separated from those in 1Ch 7:6-11, merely on the ground that all the registers which are grouped together in 1 Chron 7 were taken from another genealogical document than that from which the registers in our chapter, which form a supplement to the short fragments in 1Ch 7:6-11, have been derived.

Genealogies. (b. c. 1689.)

1 Now the sons of Issachar were, Tola, and Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four. 2 And the sons of Tola; Uzzi, and Rephaiah, and Jeriel, and Jahmai, and Jibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their father's house, to wit, of Tola: they were valiant men of might in their generations; whose number was in the days of David two and twenty thousand and six hundred. 3 And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men. 4 And with them, by their generations, after the house of their fathers, were bands of soldiers for war, six and thirty thousand men: for they had many wives and sons. 5 And their brethren among all the families of Issachar were valiant men of might, reckoned in all by their genealogies fourscore and seven thousand. 6 The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three. 7 And the sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth, and Iri, five; heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men of valour; and were reckoned by their genealogies twenty and two thousand and thirty and four. 8 And the sons of Becher; Zemira, and Joash, and Eliezer, and Elioenai, and Omri, and Jerimoth, and Abiah, and Anathoth, and Alameth. All these are the sons of Becher. 9 And the number of them, after their genealogy by their generations, heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men of valour, was twenty thousand and two hundred. 10 The sons also of Jediael; Bilhan: and the sons of Bilhan; Jeush, and Benjamin, and Ehud, and Chenaanah, and Zethan, and Tharshish, and Ahishahar. 11 All these the sons of Jediael, by the heads of their fathers, mighty men of valour, were seventeen thousand and two hundred soldiers, fit to go out for war and battle. 12 Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir, and Hushim, the sons of Aher. 13 The sons of Naphtali; Jahziel, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shallum, the sons of Bilhah. 14 The sons of Manasseh; Ashriel, whom she bare: (but his concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead: 15 And Machir took to wife the sister of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister's name was Maachah;) and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters. 16 And Maachah the wife of Machir bare a son, and she called his name Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem. 17 And the sons of Ulam; Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh. 18 And his sister Hammoleketh bare Ishod, and Abiezer, and Mahalah. 19 And the sons of Shemida were, Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam.

We have here a short view given us,

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

II. Of the tribe of Benjamin. Some account is here given of this tribe, but much larger in the next chapter. The militia of this tribe scarcely reached to 60,000; but they are said to be mighty men of valour, v. 7, 9, 11. Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf, Gen. xlix. 27. It was the honour of this tribe that it produced Saul the first king, and more its honour that it adhered to the rightful kings of the house of David when the other tribes revolted. Here is mention (v. 12) of Hushim the sons of Aher. The sons of Dan are said to be Hushim (Gen. xlvi. 23), and therefore some read Aher appellatively, Hushim—the sons of another (that is, another of Jacob's sons) or the sons of a stranger, which Israelites should not be, but such the Danites were when they set up Micah's graven and molten image among them.

III. Of the tribe of Naphtali, v. 13. The first fathers only of that tribe are named, the very same that we shall find, Gen. xlvi. 24, only that Shillem there is Shallum here. None of their descendents are named, perhaps because their genealogies were lost.

IV. Of the tribe of Manasseh, that part of it which was seated within Jordan; for of the other part we had some account before, ch. v. 23, &c. Of this tribe observe, 1. That one of them married an Aramitess, that is, a Syrian, v. 14. This was during their bondage in Egypt, so early did they begin to mingle with the nations. 2. That, though the father married a Syrian, Machir, the son of that marriage, perhaps seeing the inconvenience of it in his father's house, took to wife a daughter of Benjamin, v. 15. It is good for the children to take warning by their father's mistakes and not stumble at the same stone. 3. Here is mention of Bedan (v. 17), who perhaps is the same with that Bedan who is mentioned as one of Israel's deliverers, 1 Sam. xii. 11. Jair perhaps, who was of Manasseh (Judg. x. 3), was the man.

Genealogies. (b. c. 1630.)

20 And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son, 21 And Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle. 22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him. 23 And when he went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house. 24 (And his daughter was Sherah, who built Beth-horon the nether, and the upper, and Uzzen-sherah.) 25 And Rephah was his son, also Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son, 26 Laadan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son, 27 Non his son, Jehoshua his son. 28 And their possessions and habitations were, Bethel and the towns thereof, and eastward Naaran, and westward Gezer, with the towns thereof; Shechem also and the towns thereof, unto Gaza and the towns thereof: 29 And by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth-shean and her towns, Taanach and her towns, Megiddo and her towns, Dor and her towns. In these dwelt the children of Joseph the son of Israel. 30 The sons of Asher; Imnah, and Isuah, and Ishuai, and Beriah, and Serah their sister. 31 And the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel, who is the father of Birzavith. 32 And Heber begat Japhlet, and Shomer, and Hotham, and Shua their sister. 33 And the sons of Japhlet; Pasach, and Bimhal, and Ashvath. These are the children of Japhlet. 34 And the sons of Shamer; Ahi, and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and Aram. 35 And the sons of his brother Helem; Zophah, and Imna, and Shelesh, and Amal. 36 The sons of Zophah; Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual, and Beri, and Imrah, 37 Bezer, and Hod, and Shamma, and Shilshah, and Ithran, and Beera. 38 And the sons of Jether; Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara. 39 And the sons of Ulla; Arah, and Haniel, and Rezia. 40 All these were the children of Asher, heads of their father's house, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. And the number throughout the genealogy of them that were apt to the war and to battle was twenty and six thousand men.

We have here an account,

I. Of the tribe of Ephraim. Great things we read of that tribe when it came to maturity. Here we have an account of the disasters of its infancy, while it was in Egypt as it should seem; for Ephraim himself was alive when those things were done, which yet is hard to imagine if it were, as is here computed, seven generations off. Therefore I am apt to think that either it was another Ephraim or that those who were slain were the immediate sons of that Ephraim that was the son of Joseph. In this passage, which is related here only, we have, 1. The great breach that was made upon the family of Ephraim. The men of Gath, Philistines, giants, slew many of the sons of that family, because they came down to take away their cattle, v. 21. It is uncertain who were the aggressors here. Some make the men of Gath the aggressors, men born in the land of Egypt, but now resident in Gath, supposing that they came down into the land of Goshen, to drive away the Ephraimites' cattle, and slew the owners, because they stood up in the defence of them. Many a man's life has been exposed and betrayed by his wealth; so far is it from being a strong city. Others think that the Ephraimites made a descent upon the men of Gath to plunder them, presuming that the time had come when they should be put in possession of Canaan; but they paid dearly for their rashness and precipitation. Those that will not wait God's time cannot expect God's blessing. I rather think that the men of Gath came down upon the Ephraimites, because the Israelites in Egypt were shepherds, not soldiers, abounded in cattle of their own, and therefore were not likely to venture their lives for their neighbours' cattle: and the words may be read, The men of Gath slew them, for they came down to take away their cattle. Zabad the son of Ephraim, and Shuthelah, and Ezer, and Elead (his grandchildren), were, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, the men that were slain. Jacob had foretold that the seed of Ephraim should become a multitude of nations (Gen. xlviii. 19), and yet that plant is thus nipped in the bud. God's providences often seem to contradict his promises; but, when they do so, they really magnify the promise, and make the performance of it, notwithstanding, so much more illustrious. The Ephraimites were the posterity of Joseph, and yet his power could not protect them, though some think he was yet living. The sword devours one as well as another. 2. The great grief which oppressed the father of the family hereupon: Ephraim mourned many days. Nothing brings the aged to the grave with more sorrow than their following the young that descend from them to the grave first, especially if in blood. It is often the burden of those that live to be old that they see those go before them of whom they said, These same shall comfort us. It was a brotherly friendly office which his brethren did, when they came to comfort him under this great affliction, to express their sympathy with him and concern for him, and to suggest that to him which would support and quiet him under this sad providence. Probably they reminded him of the promise of increase which Jacob had blessed him when he laid his right hand upon his head. Although his house was not so with God as he hoped, but a house of mourning, a shattered family, yet that promise was sure, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. 3. The repair of this breach, in some measure, by addition of another son to his family in his old age (v. 23), like Seth, another seed instead of that of Abel whom Cain slew, Gen. iv. 25. When God thus restores comfort to his mourners, makes glad according to the days wherein he afflicted, setting the mercies over against the crosses, we ought therein to take notice of the kindness and tenderness of divine Providence; it is as if it repented God concerning his servants, Ps. xc. 13, 15. Yet joy that a man was born into his family could not make him forget his grief; for he gives a melancholy name to his son, Beriah—in trouble, for he was born when the family was in mourning, when it went evil with his house. It is good to have in remembrance the affliction and the misery, the wormwood and the gall, that our souls may be humbled within us, Lam. iii. 19, 20. What name more proper for man that is born of a woman than Beriah, because born into a troublesome world? It is added, as a further honour to the house of Ephraim, (1.) That a daughter of that tribe, Sherah by name, at the time of Israel's setting in Canaan, built some cities, either at her own charge or by her own care; one of them bore her name, Uzzen-sherah, v. 24. A virtuous woman may be as great an honour and blessing to a family as a mighty man. (2.) That a son of that tribe was employed in the conquest of Canaan, Joshua the son of Nun, v. 27. In this also the breach made on Ephraim's family was further repaired; and perhaps the resentment of this injury formerly done by the Canaanites to the Ephraimites might make him more vigorous in the war.

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