Matthew Poole and continuators on 1 Chronicles 7:22

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.