# commentaries

text:
<p>Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh and said- </p><p>As noted on :13, the situation itself was the prayer; but Hezekiah, like us, does his best to articulate things in words.</p><p>Yahweh, the God of Israel, Who sits above the cherubim- </p><p>Hezekiah has just "spread" the letter before Yahweh (:13), using the same word for how the cherubim 'stretched forth their wings' (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:7'>1Ki 8:7</a> etc:). He knows that God is in Heaven with the cherubim as it were around Him, and also in the Most Holy place of the temple where Hezekiah was. And he imagined that letter as being with God, spread out as the cherubic wings were spread out. Those wings were spread out over the mercy seat, the cover over the ark, which was sprinkled with the blood of atonement each year. This is a profound insight into prayer. Our situations are not unnoticed. They are placed as it were upon the blood of the Lord Jesus, in the very presence of God, with the cherubim overshadowing them, peering down into them. And we can understand the cherubim in this context as representing God's Angelic might. And appropriately enough, an Angel was sent to bring about the great deliverance sought. There over our kitchen table with the troubling letter placed upon it, as with Hezekiah, there are the cherubim and the presence of Almighty God Himself.</p><p>God, whom we reflect, is not something nebulous of which we cannot conceive. Ezekiel saw God enthroned above the cherubim, with the silhouette of “the likeness of a man” (<a href='B:330 1:26'>Eze 1:26</a>; <a href='B:330 10:20'>Eze 10:20</a>); it is God Himself who is located above the cherubim (<a href='B:120 19:14'>2Ki 19:14</a> RV). All this has a practical import; because we are in the image of God, because it is imprinted on every part of our bodies, we must give that body to God, just as men were to give the penny which had Caesar’s image on it to Caesar (<a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a>).</p><p>You are the God, even You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth- </p><p>Believing that the cosmos was created and didn’t evolve from nothing isn’t a painless academic decision which we take somewhere within our brain cells. To believe God is the creator means that we believe that nothing in the life of this planet or our own lives is therefore too hard for Him to do.</p><p>Reflection upon God's power in creation should inspire our faith too; the God who could do that has made all men and their kingdoms, and is unlimited in what He can do for us. To let 'science' diminish our faith in God as creator is to remove such inspiration from us. Hezekiah states that God alone is the God of all kings or kingdoms of the earth; and yet we have just learnt that those kings were identified with their idols and were no more. Perhaps Hezekiah was using the present tense as God does, speaking of the reality of the final Messianic Kingdom as being so sure of ultimately coming about.</p>


text:
<p>Incline Your ear, Yahweh, and hear. Open your eyes, Yahweh, and see. Hear the words of Sennacherib, with which he has sent to defy the living God- </p><p>This is not to say that God is deaf and blind usually. Seeing and hearing are being used with the sense 'See, hear and respond'. God sees and hears but doesn't respond immediately, usually; He waits until judgment day. Hezekiah is asking for an immediate response in the here and now, for the essence of judgment day to come now, just as we noted on :16 that he was in expectation of the Messianic Kingdom being established.</p><p>Perhaps he even placed the letter upon the top of the ark, beneath the spread out wings of the cherubim, upon the blood-sprinkled mercy seat or atonement cover, symbolizing the future work of the Lord Jesus. He brought the situation before the presence of God. He asks God to open His eyes and see. I take this as a tacit recognition from Hezekiah that God had turned away His eyes from Judah and Hezekiah personally because of their sin. But Hezekiah believed in the promises of forgiveness, and asks God to therefore respond to the awful situation they were in. He believed that the cherubim-Angels, God's eyes, would take note of that letter. And it’s significant that God’s response was to send an Angel to destroy the Assyrians. It may help us to focus our faith in prayers by being aware of the way that God responds to prayer through sending out Angels. He is enthroned, as Hezekiah put it, upon the cherubim.</p>


text:
<p>Truly, Yahweh, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands- </p><p>"Destroyed / laid waste" is the word for sanctifying and devoting in a religious sense. The king of Assyria, like his latter day equivalent, was deeply religious, and saw the cruel destruction of other lands and peoples as part of his service to God, and a sign that his god was triumphant over their gods and belief systems. This exactly fits the spirit of jihadist Islam, which I suggest is the latter day equivalent.</p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. The history of Goliath would have been inspirational when the Assyrians likewise defied the living God, and again this is a theme of the record (<a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a>; <a href='B:120 19:16'>2Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 19:22-23'>2Ki 19:22-23</a>; <a href='B:140 32:17'>2Ch 32:17</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they have destroyed them- </p><p>Here we have an example of the Bible using language from the viewpoint of men on earth. They thought their gods were indeed "gods", but they were "no gods". Likewise the language of demons is used in the New Testament, but this doesn't mean demons exist or have power in reality.</p><p>Passages like this almost define God by reason of His being uncreate. Whatever is created, is not God. And it follows that if we think that we have truly created anything, or that we are anything that God didn’t create, then we are in fact playing God. Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, Yahweh our God, save us, I beg You, out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You, Yahweh, are God alone- </p><p>The day when all earth's kingdoms shall know Yahweh is the Kingdom age, as Isaiah points out elsewhere with the same Hebrew phrase (<a href='B:290 12:5'>Isa 12:5</a>; <a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a>; <a href='B:290 61:9'>Isa 61:9</a>). Hezekiah envisaged salvation from the "king of the north" as leading directly to the establishment of the Kingdom; and that is the scenario in <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a> to <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>. Perhaps it was potentially possible; but Judah's general lack of repentance and Hezekiah's apostacy meant it was deferred in fulfilment. The desire for salvation was therefore not simply for the sake of personal safety, but for the wider glory of God in the earth.</p><p>There will come a day when all the world realizes that God is one (<a href='B:290 37:20'>Isa 37:20</a> Heb:)- in that they will realize that He alone is God and all else is pure vanity. Because God alone is holy, only He will be worshipped then (<a href='B:730 15:4'>Rev 15:4</a>). "The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day" (<a href='B:290 2:11'>Isa 2:11</a>; <a href='B:290 2:17'>Isa 2:17</a>).</p><p>Hezekiah’s faith was also strengthened by having the right motives: “Save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone”. This is alluded to by the Lord in His prayer just before His death: “That the world may know” (<a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a>). Hezekiah’s prayer for the Assyrian destruction was in fact so that the Gentile nations around Judah would come to know Yahweh, to accept Him. What finer motivation! This was no selfish shriek for help.</p><p>That God is one is a command, an imperative to action (<a href='B:480 12:28-29'>Mar 12:28-29</a>). It underlies the whole law and prophets (<a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a>)- it's that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There's only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (<a href='B:120 19:18-19'>2Ki 19:18-19</a>). Because "there is none else, thou shalt keep therefore his statutes" (<a href='B:50 4:39-40'>Deu 4:39-40</a>). The Hebrew text of <a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a> suggests: "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one", thereby linking Yahweh's unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for "I will be their God" was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah saying, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘Whereas you have prayed to Me against Sennacherib king of Assyria, I have heard you-</p><p>Answers to prayer don't often come through bolts of revelation; in this case it was through another believer, Isaiah. And we note the power of one man's prayer- because of this prayer, God's word of :20 was uttered. See on <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>This is the word that Yahweh has spoken concerning him: The virgin daughter of Zion has despised you and ridiculed you. The daughter of Jerusalem has shaken her head at you- </p><p>The remnant within the closed city of Jerusalem, likened to a protected virgin who had not been 'opened', had hardly despised and ridiculed the Assyrians. They were terrified of them. But their faith was counted to them for more than it was; according to Psalms 2, it was God within Zion who despised and ridiculed the armies outside the walls. But His characteristics were counted to them. This is exactly the reasoning of Paul in Romans about imputed righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>Whom have you defied and blasphemed? Against whom have you exalted your voice and lifted up your eyes on high? Against the Holy One of Israel- </p><p>When and how was this mocking made? I suggest on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a> that a number of the Proverbs in the later part of the book of Proverbs were rewritten in the context of the Assyrian crisis at the time of Hezekiah. We may have a clue in <a href='B:240 26:6'>Pro 26:6</a>: "One who sends a message by the hand of a fool is cutting off his own feet and drinking violence". Rabshakeh, the servant of the king of Assyria, is presented as a "fool" (see on <a href='B:240 26:4'>Pro 26:4</a>), and by using him, the king of Assyria was cutting off his own feet. This and other of Hezekiah's Proverbs (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) which mock messengers would then be the reference of <a href='B:120 19:21'>2Ki 19:21</a>, where we read that the daughter of Zion had mocked at and despised the Assyrians and their messengers. There is no other recorded fulfilment of this. Defeat by Assyria looked certain, and so to mock them at the time when they would [humanly speaking] soon be seeking their grace- was a true act of faith. See on :32.</p><p>That would’ve required an extraordinary level of faith to do that. Hezekiah wasn’t just hoping for the best, using prayer as a last resort, a kind of back up insurance policy after doing all he could. This was the prayer and faith of utter confidence, believing that things that are not are in fact, and being so sure they will come about that this faith actually affects our feelings. Hezekiah felt confident, superior to the Assyrians, all the feelings that come from knowing that one is in a far stronger position. This is a challenge in our self-assessment. To what extent does our confidence in faith affect our emotions and feelings?</p><p>Sennacherib was fully aware that he had done all these things against Yahweh; the motivation for his rage against Jerusalem was his particular hatred of Yahweh. And so it shall be in the latter day invasion, which will also be strongly motivated by religion. This verse is simply restating the truth about Sennacherib. It is addressed to him, so presumably Isaiah's duty was to get the message to him. We wonder why God would, as it were, bother. But there are many points of contact with Pharaoh. God even tried to bring him to repentance, and perhaps this address to Sennacherib was to likewise give even him a chance. This is great encouragement to us, to never consider anyone not even worth trying with.</p>


text:
<p>By your messengers you have defied the Lord, and have said, ‘With the multitude of my chariots I have come up to the height of the mountains, to the innermost parts of Lebanon- </p><p>The intensive plurals here refer to the great mountain, of Zion. Sennacherib spoke in the present tense because he was certain he would achieve it. His intention was to desecrate the innermost parts of the cedar-of-Lebanon decorated temple.</p><p>And I will cut down its tall cedars, and its choice fir trees; and I will enter into His deepest dwelling place, the forest of His fruitful field- </p><p>This could continue the allusion to the cedar-of-Lebanon covered temple. Or the whole verse may be simply as GNB: "You sent your servants to boast to me that with all your chariots you had conquered the highest mountains of Lebanon. You boasted that there you cut down the tallest cedars and the finest cypress trees, and that you reached the deepest parts of the forests". However, an obsession with destroying the temple would fit the theme of Sennacherib's rage against Yahweh and particular desire to destroy the temple and gain the temple mount. This would match the similar motivations of the latter day Assyrian.</p>


text:
<p>I have dug and drunk strange waters, and with the sole of my feet will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt’- </p><p>Rabshakeh tried to cut off water from Jerusalem (hence Hezekiah's tunnel of <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). Sennacherib considered victory against Egypt as just as certain; although he was clearly fazed by Tirhakah's approach.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t you heard how I have done it long ago, and formed it of ancient times? Now have I brought it to pass, that it should be yours to lay waste fortified cities into ruinous heaps- </p><p>This is the Divine response. Understanding predestination helps us see the frailty of all human strength and device; and Paul introduces it into his argument in Romans to likewise demonstrate that salvation is of grace and not by works. "Destroy" is literally to rush upon, and the word is used of how the rushing of the nations against God's people would be turned back (see on <a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore their inhabitants were of small power. They were dismayed and confounded. They were like the grass of the field, and like the green herb, like the grass on the housetops, and like grain blasted before it has grown up- </p><p>Similar language is used in <a href='B:290 40:6'>Isa 40:6</a> of how "all flesh" is like this. The reference is to the "all flesh" of the nations around Israel whom the Assyrians had conquered, who trusted in their own human strength.</p>


text:
<p>But I know your sitting down, and your going out, and your coming in, and your raging against Me- </p><p>This reflects David's awareness that God knows our every physical movement, standing or sitting. God knew Sennacherib's going out from his homeland and how he would return there. Sennacherib's rage was against Yahweh; he intended to utterly subvert the true faith; see on :27.</p>


text:
<p>Because of your raging against Me- There was a specifically religious, spiritual aspect to the invasion; the idea was that the claims of this Yahweh were to be shown false. The motivation of the latter day Assyrian will be the same. <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a> [see note there] envisages the "king of the north" likewise raging against the God of the fortress of Zion.</p><p>And because your arrogance has come up into My ears, therefore will I put My hook in your nose and My bridle in your lips, and I will turn you back by the way by which you came- This is the language of the latter day invasion by Gog (<a href='B:330 38:4'>Eze 38:4</a>), which has this Assyrian invasion as its prototype. The Gog confederacy, of 10 nations headed by a rosh, a charismatic leader, will likewise be unsuccessful.</p>


text:
<p>This shall be the sign to you: You shall eat this year that which grows of itself, and in the second year that which springs of the same; and in the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat its fruit- </p><p>They were besieged in Jerusalem. This sign was a medium term sign, not the short term indication of salvation they perhaps wanted. The sign was that there was the potential for the house of Judah to bear fruit "upward", to God (:29); the fruit of repentance. But there are hints later in Isaiah that this sign was not believed; they did not respect the Jubilee year, they did sow instead of trusting that the land around Jerusalem would miraculously bring forth its own fruit. And this reflects how they did not bring forth the fruit of the Spirit "upward" to God but rather of their own strength (:29). See on :30. The language here seems to suggest that the events of the Assyrian invasion and deliverance happened around a year of Jubilee, which later in Isaiah is alluded to as a type of the time of the Lord's return and the Messianic Kingdom. It could have come then; but Isaiah 58 and other hints in later Isaiah are that the Jubilee year was not respected, they did plant instead of trusting in the Lord's provision, and so the Kingdom was precluded from coming then. The idea of planting vineyards and eating their fruit is used in Isaiah 65 of the Messianic Kingdom; it is kingdom language.</p><p>The verse has been translated: 'Ye did eat (the first year) such as groweth of itself, and in the second year that which springeth of the same, but in this third year sow ye'. This would mean that they were now in the third year of the Assyrian invasion. Perhaps there was a three and a half year domination of Judah by the Assyrians, just as there shall be in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>The remnant that has escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward- </p><p>See on :28,30. Apart from Jerusalem, Judah had been overrun by the Assyrians, so this remnant who escaped could refer to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; or it could be that "the remnant" refers to the spiritually faithful minority.</p><p><a href='B:290 4:2'>Isa 4:2</a> had spoken of how this "remnant" (s:w:) would be the basis of a revived kingdom of God in Judah, based around a Messianic "Branch", "in that day"- the day of <a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>, when Jerusalem would be overcome and left in ruins with hardly any men left. These "survivors" are those saved from the ruins of a desolated Jerusalem, those who "escaped" the Assyrian invasion (s:w. <a href='B:290 10:20'>Isa 10:20</a>); the same word is used in <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>; <a href='B:380 1:17'>Oba 1:17</a>, the "remnant" of <a href='B:330 14:22'>Eze 14:22</a> (s:w:). The destruction of Jerusalem was intended to elicit repentance and to lead seamlessly into a revived Zion and reestablished Kingdom of God in Israel, when again all things would be "glorious" (s:w. <a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a>; <a href='B:290 35:2'>Isa 35:2</a>). But this didn't happen. Jerusalem was saved by grace, and yet Hezekiah failed to act as "Yahweh's branch", and Judah were impenitent, unmoved by their salvation by grace.</p>


text:
<p>For out of Jerusalem a remnant will go out, and out of Mount Zion those who shall escape. The zeal of Yahweh will perform this’- </p><p>This is the language of Obadiah about the final establishment of Messiah's Kingdom. As noted on :28, this could have happened then, if Judah had kept the year of Jubilee as intended and brought forth spiritual fruit "upward" to God.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the king of Assyria, ‘He shall not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast up a mound against it- </p><p>This is in contrast to Sennacherib's first approach to Jerusalem, when according to his own inscriptions he did cast up a mound: 'Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms, and by the might of my power, I took 46 of his fenced cities, and of smaller towns scattered about I took a countless number. And I carried off as spoil 200,150 people. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in. Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs of Jerusalem, with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver'. The fact not an arrow would be fired must be compared with how <a href='B:290 22:6'>Isa 22:6</a> had predicted the presence of the archers of Elam around Jerusalem at the invasion, who would overthrow her. It was deferred until this same nation came with the Babylonians against Jerusalem at a later date (<a href='B:300 49:35'>Jer 49:35</a>). Likewise <a href='B:290 22:7'>Isa 22:7</a> foresaw the Assyrians 'coming before' the city; but this too was averted by the repentance and intercession of a minority. It is all a great lesson in the power of the repentance and intercession of a minority.</p>


text:
<p>By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come to this city’, says Yahweh- </p><p>This unsuccessful invasion is like that of Ezekiel 38 and Psalms 2; the nations surround Jerusalem but fail to capture it because of the Lord's presence there. Jerusalem will indeed fall in the last days and be desecrated, but the Lord will return and save Israel, establish Himself in Zion- and then there will be this unsuccessful invasion which He crushes.</p><p>As discussed on :21, the Proverbs of Hezekiah are relevant to this situation. At this point,&nbsp; <a href='B:240 26:8'>Pro 26:8</a> "As one who binds a stone in a sling, so is he who gives honour to a fool". I suggested on <a href='B:240 26:4'>Pro 26:4</a>; <a href='B:240 26:6'>Pro 26:6</a> that the particular fool in view is Rabshakeh, who had been honoured by the king of Assyria. But because of God's anger with this "fool", the military technology of Assyria would be confounded. Not a stone would be hurled at Jerusalem- exactly as stated here.</p>


text:
<p>‘For I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake’- </p><p>The implication could be 'not for the sake of your righteousness, but by grace alone; for My sake, and because I respect the covenant of grace I gave David'.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that night, that the angel of Yahweh went out- </p><p>He went out from the throne room of heaven, where the case had been as it were considered; see on :4. Isaiah 37 is shot through with allusions to the Angel cherubim destroying the Assyrian host. The Angel went out- perhaps referring to Him physically going forth out of the temple where He dwelt to slay the Assyrians outside the walls of Jerusalem. This phrase 'went out' is nearly always used about literal physical movement, which we have seen is what&nbsp; Angels literally do. Thus in the Ezekiel visions of the cherubim, they and the lightnings "went forth", physically and literally, in performing God's work. "Let my sentence come forth from Thy presence (Angelic language); let Thine eyes (Angels) behold the things that are equal", seeing they are involved with the 'coming forth', according to the parallelism of this verse. Similarly Job's satan Angel "went forth" from the presence of the Lord (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>). And so it happened that there were Angels on earth, as it were. <a href='B:450 2:3'>Zec 2:3</a> also has an Angel going forth to answer the prayers concerning&nbsp; restoring the fortunes of Jerusalem (see <a href='B:450 5:5'>Zec 5:5</a> too). <a href='B:230 81:5'>Psa 81:5</a> describes the Angel going out through the land of Egypt in order to "remove (Israel's) shoulder from the burden". Psalms 81 is 'Angelic', following Psalms 80, which is another such Psalm. <a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a> also offers support: the Angels are "sent forth" to minister to us- by answering prayers offered in the spirit of Hezekiah's prayer here?</p><p>And struck one hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies- </p><p>The bodies were spoiled by the Jerusalem Jews (<a href='B:290 33:4'>Isa 33:4</a>). The agent of destruction appears to have been fire and hail (<a href='B:290 29:6'>Isa 29:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:30'>Isa 30:30</a>), both of which may be used in the last days too.</p>


text:
<p>So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and lived at Nineveh- </p><p>This was due to the "tidings" he received (:8), presumably of the destruction of his army outside the walls of Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Esar Haddon his son reigned in his place- </p><p>As noted on :7, this was caused by God putting a spirit / attitude of mind in these sons to do this. His Spirit, as today, confirmed the human spirit. He was killed as he was worshipping, about 20 years later; worshipping a god who had spectacularly failed him. We see here the terrible power of religion in blinding men to spiritual reality.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Esar Haddon his son reigned in his place- </p><p>As noted on <a href='B:290 38:7'>Is. 38:7</a>, this was caused by God putting a spirit / attitude of mind in these sons to do this. His Spirit, as today, confirmed the human spirit. He was killed as he was worshipping, about 20 years later; worshipping a god who had spectacularly failed him. We see here the terrible power of religion in blinding men to spiritual reality. He was given a chance to repent; just as was Pharaoh. God was extremely patient with him.</p>


text:
<p>In those days was Hezekiah sick to death- </p><p>Hezekiah reigned 29 years (<a href='B:120 18:2'>2Ki 18:2</a>), and the sickness after which he was given 15 years therefore happened in the 14th year or his reign- the very same time that Assyria invaded (<a href='B:290 36:1'>Isa 36:1</a>). Trials so often come together, in such an intense and extreme way that the situation can only be of God rather than mere bad luck or coincidence. The full title of Isaiah is given perhaps because the theme is that Hezekiah was to live because of the prophetic word.</p><p>Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Set your house in order; for you shall die, and not live’- </p><p>We should not assume too quickly that Hezekiah had no family at this stage; for he is commanded here to put in order his household ("house" is so often 'family' rather than the bricks of a house). Indeed the very same phrase is used of how Abraham would "command his household" to keep God's laws (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>). Perhaps that was the idea. He was to urgently teach his household more of God's ways as he was to soon die.</p>


text:
<p>Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed to Yahweh saying- </p><p>The divans, which were also beds, were arranged next to the walls. We are left with the impression of a man utterly alone with God, turning his face away from Isaiah when he had delivered the message, facing the wall- and praying to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Remember now, Yahweh, I beg You, how I have walked before You in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in Your sight- </p><p>Hezekiah claimed to have lived with a good conscience but was at the same time aware of his sins (<a href='B:290 38:3'>Isa 38:3</a> cp. 17); and his cutting off the gold of the temple to try to buy peace was surely a failure. Yet the conscience can be cleansed of sin, through the depth of the power of God's forgiveness. This is not the same as forgetfulness, self-righteousness or minimization of personal failings. Paul must surely have had twinges of guilt over his behaviour at times (not least over the bust up with brethren Barnabas and Mark, <a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a> cp. <a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a>); and yet he insists that he always had a good conscience. Paul likewise claims that the Jewish forefathers served God with a pure conscience (<a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a> NIV). Yet the Jewish fathers, dear Jacob particularly, must have had plenty of twinges of guilt over their years.</p><p>Walking in truth is the term used to characterize the seed of David (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>), as David personally walked in truth (<a href='B:230 26:3'>Psa 26:3</a>; <a href='B:230 86:11'>Psa 86:11</a>), and may not of itself mean that Hezekiah is saying he has not sinned; it's as if Hezekiah assumed that because he was the seed of David, he therefore ought not to die. As will be explained later, the adding of days to his life was a way of saying that he was being accepted as the seed of David; and yet he failed to use those years to save his people. It could be argued that by refusing to die when asked to, Hezekiah was disallowing his being the fulfilment of the Messianic suffering servant who was to die for his people.</p><p>Hezekiah wept bitterly- </p><p>Perhaps in prayer, asking God to change the outcome. For as with Nineveh, in the gap between Divine statement and its fulfilment, we can repent and change the word which otherwise would have come true (<a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>). See on <a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle part of the city, that the word of Yahweh came to him saying- </p><p>Once he reached the middle court of the palace, he was told by God to "turn again" and give Hezekiah assurance of healing. The whole incident shows the speed with which God responds to prayers, and His sensitivity to human prayer and repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Turn back and tell Hezekiah the prince of My people, ‘Thus says Yahweh the God of David your father, I have heard your prayer. I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. On the third day, you shall go up to the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The defence of Zion at this time was predicated upon God's grace; judgment was intended to come unless they repented, and most of them hadn't. And so God stresses He will save Zion by grace, for His own sake and not that of His peoples' prayer or repentance. The cure was not instant, it took three days; for the same reason as there will be the process of judgment between our resurrection and entrance to the Kingdom. The period between God's pronouncement of blessing and the realization of it is for our benefit, that we might grow in appreciation. The healing enabled Hezekiah to enter the temple; from God's perspective, the most significant aspect of his illness was that its uncleanness precluded him from entering the temple. We notice the parallel between Hezekiah's prayer and his tears;&nbsp; God reads situations as prayers. Prayer is understood by Him far wider than simply words as lexical items. Otherwise those more able to verbalize would pray 'better'; and acceptable prayer is not related to our ability to verbalize.</p>


text:
<p>I will add to your days fifteen years- </p><p>The years 'added' to the king's life are expressed in the words of <a href='B:230 61:6'>Psa 61:6</a>, where David felt that God would "prolong [s:w. "add to"] the king's life [s. w. "days"]. The clear allusion to David's words was perhaps to show that God considered Hezekiah to be the Davidic king who could have been the Messianic Son of David. But Hezekiah despised that and wasted those years in self-satisfaction. There is also a theme in Solomon's teaching that his son would have 'days added' (the same Hebrew phrase) to his life, because of his obedience to wisdom (<a href='B:240 3:2'>Pro 3:2</a>; <a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:27'>Pro 10:27</a>). Again, the idea is that the adding of days to Hezekiah's life was confirming him as the seed of David.</p><p>There is a strong sense that God has determined a number of "days" for our mortal life (<a href='B:230 23:6'>Psa 23:6</a>; <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>), and David like all of us wished to know how many those days were for him, in order that he might live an appropriately humble life in response to realizing his frailty (<a href='B:230 39:4'>Psa 39:4</a>). But that predetermined number of days can be cut short (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23-24'>Psa 102:23-24</a>) or extended (<a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>). Hezekiah would be the parade example of this; his days were cut short (<a href='B:290 38:10'>Isa 38:10</a>), and then lengthened in response to prayer (<a href='B:120 20:6'>2Ki 20:6</a>). God is open to dialogue, His timetable in our personal lives is flexible according to our prayers; and He is also responsive to human behaviour. Like Job we should perceive our life as "my days" (he uses this term multiple times), so that we might use each of them for Him.</p><p>I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for My own sake, and for My servant David’s sake’- </p><p>Yahweh had earlier stated that He would not "deliver" (s:w:) Jerusalem from the Assyrian lion (<a href='B:290 5:29'>Isa 5:29</a>). But as in Hosea, God speaks in wrath but then His grace is such that He doesn't carry out what He threatens. He has emotion and speaks and acts in that fire of passion. That was normal in the Middle East; it is the western obsession with nicespeak and measured responses which make outburst behaviour and language appear inappropriate. Micah was contemporary with Isaiah, and he spoke of the 'deliverance' &nbsp;(s:w:) of the city from the Assyrians as being due to the appearance of a Messianic figure (<a href='B:400 5:6'>Mic 5:6</a>):&nbsp; Here, the deliverance of Hezekiah personally from inevitable death is tied up with the deliverance of Jerusalem from inevitable judgment. He surely could have been one of the possible fulfillments of the Messianic figure, which makes his failure to rise up to it all the more tragic.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said, Take a cake of figs. They took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered- </p><p>It’s surely significant that Hezekiah is stated to be Judah’s most faithful King, and yet he had a major lack of faith when he cut off the gold of the temple and gave it to the Assyrians; and he asks God to give him a sign that the promised healing was really going to happen. Indeed the whole nature of the dialogue here seems to indicate a man of somewhat faltering faith, needing every encouragement. And so although the healing was completely through God's power, perhaps this human mechanism of the cake of figs was used for Hezekiah's benefit; not because it had any efficacy of itself.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah said to Isaiah, What shall be the sign that Yahweh will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of Yahweh the third day?- </p><p>Hezekiah asks for a sign “to prove” that God’s predicted cure of him was going to happen. And when given the option of the shadow of the sun jumping forward by ten degrees, he almost mocks that as too ‘easy’. Yet this is the man with the accolade that no King believed in God like he did. Perhaps he reached his heights of faith through having these low moments. ‘Putting God to the test’ as it seems Hezekiah did is seen in Scripture as not fully believing in Him (<a href='B:40 14:20-24'>Num 14:20-24</a>; <a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a>; <a href='B:290 7:12'>Isa 7:12</a>; <a href='B:490 11:33-36'>Luk 11:33-36</a>). Maybe God left Hezekiah to test him in the matter of the ambassadors from Babylon as a kind of response- ‘You put me to the test, I’ll put you to the test’ (<a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a>). &nbsp;Let’s remember that in Bible characters like Hezekiah, we are reading only a few cameos of their lives. Most of his life history, his inner thoughts, are unknown to us. But God’s summary statement was that he was the most believing King of Judah. So when we read cameos from his life that reflect a weakened faith, we surely have little option but to conclude that somehow in the Divine economy, low points of faith lead a person to higher and stronger ones. And we can all take a lot of comfort from that conclusion as we survey our own lives.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said, This shall be the sign to you from Yahweh, that Yahweh will do the thing that He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps?- </p><p>It seems that unlike his father Ahaz, Hezekiah had asked for this sign (:8). It is apparent that the experiences of believers are often suggestive of those of other believers. Insofar as we appreciate this, we will find strength to go the right way. Consider how Hezekiah was intended to see the similarities between himself and the earlier king Ahaz his father, and learn the lessons. They were both threatened by invasion and tempted to turn to human help (<a href='B:290 7:2'>Isa 7:2</a>; <a href='B:290 37:1'>Isa 37:1</a>); Visited by Isaiah and told to not fear (<a href='B:290 7:4-9'>Isa 7:4-9</a>; <a href='B:290 37:6-7'>Isa 37:6-7</a>). Ahaz was unfaithful by “the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field” (<a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>); and in just the same place Hezekiah’s faith was tested and he learnt the lessons of Ahaz’ failure (<a href='B:290 36:2'>Isa 36:2</a>). Both were given a sign by God and promised deliverance (<a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a>; <a href='B:290 37:30'>Isa 37:30</a>). Ahaz refused to ask for a sign when offered one (<a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a>); whereas Hezekiah learnt, and asked for a sign (<a href='B:290 38:7'>Isa 38:7</a>; <a href='B:290 38:22'>Isa 38:22</a>). Thus his asking for a sign was not a sign of faithlessness but rather his seeking to not be like Ahaz. “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform it” was spoken to both Ahaz (<a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>) and Hezekiah (<a href='B:290 37:32'>Isa 37:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go forward ten steps. Nay, but let the shadow return backward ten steps- </p><p>The Hebrew word translated "light" can mean two things, and neither of them read very nicely for Hezekiah to say this. It can mean 'easy'; and to say it was easy for the light to go forward, involving the apparent manipulation of the sun and therefore the entire cosmos, was no "light" thing for God to do. The word can by extension mean "despised" or "cursed", and is often translated like that. Hezekiah is saying that for life to be 'fast forwarded', for him to be cut off in the midst of his days by the sun advancing forward, is easy for God. But it would be harder, surely, for God to make the sun as it were go backward, to create time, to reverse the time of his life by giving him more time. And despite that unpleasant, bitter attitude to God, God responds by giving him more life. Hezekiah had faith, but so did Elijah; but faith without hope and love is nothing, as Paul says. And Elijah was removed from his ministry despite having so much faith.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah the prophet cried to Yahweh; and He brought the shadow ten steps backward, by which it had gone down- </p><p>"Gone down" is the word used by Hezekiah in speaking of how he feels he had "gone down" into the grave (:18). It is as if Hezekiah has died, the sun gone down those degrees, and then resurrected, brought up the same amount. He could have been a Messianic figure in a reestablished kingdom of God in Judah. The "return backward" of the sun is a phrase often used of the return of the exiles from Babylon to be part of that reestablished Kingdom. Hezekiah's revival / resurrection was to be seen as that of his people. How the miracle happened is not the essential question; but it could have been caused by the glory of Yahweh bursting forth so that the shadow was chased back.</p><p>On the dial of Ahaz- </p><p>"The stairway built by King Ahaz", Hezekiah's father, was part of his idolatrous sun worship which Hezekiah ought to have destroyed. It was a kind of small ziggurat. It was the Babylonians who had begun telling the time in this way; there is no mention of "hours" of the day in the Hebrew Bible until the time of Daniel. Here we have another hint at the incomplete spirituality and reformation of Hezekiah. The "songs of degrees" were written or rewritten to apply to this experience of the sun returning ten degrees or steps. There are 15 of them, matching the 15 extra years of life given to Hezekiah.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Berodach Baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick- </p><p>Gentiles bringing presents to Zion is the language of the reestablished kingdom (<a href='B:230 68:29'>Psa 68:29</a>). It could have come about then, when the surrounding nations brought presents to Hezekiah; but human pride and impenitence precluded it. See on <a href='B:290 18:7'>Isa 18:7</a>. And Hezekiah and his descendants adopted the ways of those nations rather than ruling over them and helping them toward Israel's God. <a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a> describes these people as "the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon", but an unusual word is used there for "ambassadors"; it is the word usually translated "scorner" or "mocker". The idea is clearly that these men had an agenda and were not sincere. And Hezekiah was willfully duped by them, falling for their agenda and being blinded by their gifts, rather than seeking to share the ways of Yahweh with them. Hezekiah ought to have learnt not to trust in them, seeing that trust in the "princes and ambassadors" of Egypt had been proven so false just in recent history (<a href='B:290 30:4'>Isa 30:4</a>). God likewise brings situations into our lives whereby situations repeat- to test our faith and understanding.</p><p>The "letters" and 'ambassadors'&nbsp;recall the 'letter' from the ambassadors of Assyria in <a href='B:290 37:14'>Isa 37:14</a>. He didn't respond spiritually to this 'trial by prosperity'. Hence: "However concerning the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart" (<a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a>). "The wonder" could refer to the miracle on the sundial, or to the miraculous revival of the land physically in line with Isaiah's prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah listened to them- </p><p><a href='B:290 39:2'>Isa 39:2</a> "Hezekiah was pleased with them". "Pleased" is s:w. "joy", "to rejoice". It is used of how Hezekiah previously had rejoiced in spiritual things (<a href='B:140 29:36'>2Ch 29:36</a>; <a href='B:140 30:25'>2Ch 30:25</a>). Now he rejoices in material things, and being respected by Gentiles rather than God. His "joy" or 'pleasure' ought to have been solely in Yahweh's salvation (<a href='B:290 25:9'>Isa 25:9</a> s:w:). Hezekiah rejoiced "with them"; the Hebrew text is emphatic about this joy "with them". But the whole land had been charged not to rejoice at the fall of Assyria because it would revive in another form (s:w. <a href='B:290 14:29'>Isa 14:29</a>). Hezekiah is presented as totally ignorant of all this.</p><p>And showed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, the house of his armour and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah didn’t show them- </p><p>LXX "the houses of his treasures". This sounds as if his kingdom had become like that of Egypt and Solomon, where treasure cities were associated with gross materialism and refusal of the things of God's Kingdom. The Babylonians had revolted against Assyria, and they wanted help from Judah to form a political alliance against Assyria. But Hezekiah was taken in by the presents and attention paid to him, responding in pride rather than telling them he had nearly died because of his alliances; he ought to have told Babylon to accept Yahweh as their God, and thus be saved from Assyria as Judah had been. Presumably he agreed to the alliance; hence the judgment given, that his people would go into captivity in Babylon. He had recently been so lacking in gold that he had stripped the temple's gold and given it to the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 18:16'>2Ki 18:16</a>). This sudden abundance of wealth may well have come from nations such as Babylon, who were eager to have Judah onside with them as a now significant and respected ally against Assyria. The wealth of the Gentiles flowed in to the liberated Zion, but only as a very weak foreshadowing of the things of the Kingdom. Human "armour" ought not to have been gloried in; for the entire message of Zion's deliverance was that it was achieved by God's power and grace and not at all by human strength. But the same Hebrew word is used repeatedly of the temple vessels which Hezekiah had earlier sanctified for usage (<a href='B:140 29:19'>2Ch 29:19</a>; <a href='B:140 29:26-27'>2Ch 29:26-27</a>; <a href='B:140 30:21'>2Ch 30:21</a>). But now he had removed them out of temple service in Yahweh's house into his own house. His focus was upon his kingdom ["dominion"], rather than the things of Yahweh's Kingdom. It was these very vessels which were to be carried to Babylon (s:w. <a href='B:140 36:7'>2Ch 36:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Isaiah the prophet came to king Hezekiah and said to him, What did these men say? From where did they come to you? Hezekiah said, They have come from a far country, even from Babylon- </p><p>Surely these were rhetorical questions aimed at rebuking Hezekiah. His reply was made in pride (<a href='B:140 32:25'>2Ch 32:25</a>, although see note there). The prophetic intention had been that the Gentiles would come from far countries to Israel's God with offerings to Yahweh, but Hezekiah sees it in terms of them coming to him with presents and respect for him. He uses the very phrase of <a href='B:50 28:49'>Deu 28:49</a>, of how a nation "from a far country" was to come and destroy Israel.</p>


text:
<p>He said, What have they seen in your house? Hezekiah answered, They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them- </p><p>As in :14, these are rhetorical questions; and rather like those given to Adam in Eden, they were intended to elicit repentance. LXX "yea, also the possessions in my treasuries". Note the emphasis on "my... my:. I". The focus on his possessions and treasuries suggests the Lord quarried the parable of the rich fool from Hezekiah, who thought he had wealth to enjoy for the remainder of his days; see on :17. "My house... your house" stands in contrast to the temple / house of Yahweh which ought to have been Hezekiah's focus. All that was in his house was to be taken to Babylon (:17). The intention was that the Gentiles "from a far country" (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a>) would come to Zion and "see" or "be shown" (s:w:) God's glory (<a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a>; <a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:9'>Isa 61:9</a>; <a href='B:290 62:2'>Isa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:18'>Isa 66:18</a> s:w:). But instead Hezekiah showed them his own glory. He precluded the fulfilment of these prophecies in terms of his kingdom being the reestablished kingdom of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said to Hezekiah, Hear the word of Yahweh- </p><p>"Hear" may be an appeal to repent and stop the prophesied outcome from happening in accordance with <a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>‘Behold, the days come, that all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have laid up in store to this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left’, says Yahweh- </p><p>This would have seemed impossible; for Babylon was one of many apparently irrelevant small powers whom both Sargon and Sennacherib had overrun, destroyed her towns, and enforced direct Assyrian rule. That in 160 years' time Babylon would be the dominant power and would take Judah captive... appeared laughable. But God had just demonstrated that He could destroy the Assyrian army in a moment; and indeed it happened (<a href='B:120 24:13'>2Ki 24:13</a>). 'Storing up' is surely alluded to by the Lord in the parable of the rich fool; he stored up riches only to lose them in a moment of Divine judgment, and was not rich toward God. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>‘Of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall father, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon’- </p><p>There is a theme in Isaiah of conceiving, suffering pain in labour- but bringing forth in vain (<a href='B:290 26:18'>Isa 26:18</a>; <a href='B:290 33:11'>Isa 33:11</a>; <a href='B:290 59:4'>Isa 59:4</a>):&nbsp; And so did Hezekiah, in that he and his children turned away from true faith (<a href='B:290 39:7'>Isa 39:7</a>). In Isaiah's immediate context, the application would have been to the sense that the remnant had come to the birth but there was not strength to bring forth (<a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>); apart from a few individuals, there was no bringing forth of a significant repentant remnant who would be the basis for the restored Kingdom. It felt like they were still under the curse of bringing forth in pain but in vain. The pain in vain at the time of the Assyrian invasion led to Micah offering a reworked version of all this; they were to be in pain at the hands of the Babylonians, but would bring forth in Babylon in that they would there repent, and the spiritually reborn remnant would emerge and their captors therefore judged (<a href='B:400 4:10'>Mic 4:10</a>). But that possibility also didn't work out:&nbsp; And so this idea of bringing forth but not in vain, but rather finding meaning in the resurrection of Messiah and all in Him, came to be reapplied to the birth of the Lord Jesus from the grave in resurrection; and it would characterize the establishment of the Kingdom age in Zion (<a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a>). Hezekiah's immediate sons "who will issue from you, whom you shall father" weren't permanently taken to Babylon. Manasseh was taken there but repented and returned to Judah (<a href='B:140 33:11-13'>2Ch 33:11-13</a>); but it was in <a href='B:340 1:3'>Dan 1:3</a> that "the king's seed" were all deported there permanently. Again we have an example of a prophecy being delayed and suspended in fulfilment. This could have been because of the prayer and repentance of a minority, not least Manasseh; the spirituality of Josiah; or God's constant pity towards His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, The word of Yahweh which you have spoken is good. He said moreover, Isn’t it so, if peace and truth shall be in my days?- </p><p>Sadly despite the warning from the example of Shebna (see on <a href='B:290 22:15'>Isa 22:15</a>) and the specific command not to just live for today and resign ourselves to an eternal death (<a href='B:290 22:13'>Isa 22:13</a>), Hezekiah at the end of his life gave in to just this same mentality. The sense is as GNB "King Hezekiah understood this to mean that there would be peace and security during his lifetime, so he replied, "The message you have given me from the LORD is good". "Peace and truth" is the language of the restored kingdom of God (<a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>); and it is the same term used by Hezekiah when he failed to grasp the potential of the Kingdom being reestablished in his times; he was content with peace and truth in his times alone (see on <a href='B:290 38:18'>Isa 38:18</a>; <a href='B:290 38:20'>Isa 38:20</a>). Likewise the Jews of Esther's time were content with "peace and truth" in their times, rather than seeing that what had happened was to lead them towards the eternal peace and truth with God of His Kingdom and not their own (see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>; <a href='B:190 9:30'>Est 9:30</a>). And this is the abiding temptation for all believers; to be satisfied with some degree of "peace and truth" emotionally and intellectually in their lives now, but resign the far greater realities of the Kingdom to come when "peace and truth" shall be in eternal reality.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and all his might- </p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]... but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p><p>And how he made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>Hezekiah's doing this is cited in <a href='B:290 22:9'>Isa 22:9</a> in a negative light, as if done without faith and in seeking to defend Jerusalem in his own strength rather than God's. It was done in his might- not Yahweh's.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah slept with his fathers; and Manasseh his son reigned in his place- </p><p>Typically there is some Divine commentary upon a king when he dies. When Hezekiah began reigning, he receives a very positive accolade from God. But the silence at the end is perhaps because he messed up and failed to realize the great potential there was for him. I suggested earlier that the comment that he was faithful with God may be ultimately true, although he undoubtedly ended his life on a spiritual low. And he raised one of Judah's most wicked kings during his last 15 years. His complaint that he was dying without an heir is therefore to be contrasted with how things actually worked out.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hephzibah- </p><p>"Causing to forget" is a strange name for a child unless the father [like Joseph] had a previous life he wanted to forget. Manasseh was born three years into Hezekiah's final 15 years of life in which he turned away from God. So I suggest that his name reflects Hezekiah's desire to 'forget all that God stuff' and get on with 'enjoying' his last 15 years without God. And this was naturally reflected in the way he raised a son who was one of Israel's most evil rulers.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, after the abominations of the nations whom Yahweh cast out before the children of Israel- </p><p>We may wonder why God let such an evil man live and reign for 55 years (:1), the longest reigning of any king. Surely if he had been slain for his wickedness, as other men were, then he would have led fewer people astray? I suggest the answer is that God worked for decades towards this evil man's repentance- and it paid off. He did repent in the end. And we can look forward to eternity together with him. We see in this the huge meaning and value God places upon the individual person, and how He will not give up searching for the lost until He finds them. Manasseh would be the parade example of that.</p><p>See on :15. Jonah recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at this time (<a href='B:110 9:7'>1Ki 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel, and worshiped all the host of the sky, and served them- </p><p>This revival of idolatry would not have been possible unless the people generally were eager and willing for it. I suggested previously that Hezekiah's reforms were largely on the cusp of his becoming king. They were partly a psychological reaction against the misery of Ahaz's reign, and the reforms of 2 Chronicles 31 were often a result of group psychology rather than personal reformation of the heart. They were all too sudden and spontaneous, at the same moment, to have been the outcome of all the concerned individuals having the same heart response. There was a group psychology there, a going with the crowd. And so it is unsurprising that they all turned away relatively soon afterwards.</p>


text:
<p>He built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh said, I will put My name in Jerusalem-</p><p>The Name is called upon us; and therefore and thereby we are Yahweh's servants, dominated by His principles and character. Because the Name was called upon the temple, therefore it was simply impossible that those who realized this could worship idols in it (<a href='B:120 21:4'>2Ki 21:4</a>; <a href='B:120 21:7'>2Ki 21:7</a>); whatever has God's Name called upon it, whatever bears His image, must be devoted to Him alone. The Lord pointed out that this applies to our very bodies, which being in God's image should be given over to Him.</p><p>This was precisely the behaviour of his grandfather Ahaz. I suggest that this was only done by persuading themselves that these altars were in fact a form of Yahweh worship. For there is never any specific statement that Judah formally renounced Yahweh. And this continues to be the abiding weakness of God's people; to justify wrongdoing by claiming it is part of worshipping God. Such as justifying luxury homes and goods in the name of needing them to serve God with.</p>


text:
<p>He built altars for all the host of the sky in the two courts of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>These were the court of the priests, and the court of the common people (<a href='B:140 4:9'>2Ch 4:9</a>). The priesthood were surely complicit in this. For when Uzziah had tried to offer incense himself, 80 faithful priests resisted him. But there is no record of any such resistance to Manasseh. The priests in Hezekiah's time had been reticent to devote themselves solely to Yahweh . I suggested that this was because they were accustomed to being priests both of Yahweh and of the pagan gods. This means that they took a cut from all the offerings to all the gods.</p>


text:
<p>He made his son to pass through the fire, and practised sorcery, used enchantments and dealt with those who had familiar spirits and with wizards-</p><p>This would have meant that his surviving children would have hated him for slaying their siblings; although passing through the fire may have been a dedication ceremony rather than actually burning them to death. <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a> has "his son", <a href='B:140 33:6'>2Ch 33:6</a> has "his children". As he had more than one son, we are to infer surely that this focus upon "his son" meant that one of his sons in particular passed through the fire, and that could imply that he sacrificed his son [maybe his firstborn]. Israel should have removed from amongst them a man who did this (<a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a>), and the fact they didn't suggests they therefore passively supported him in his apostacy.</p><p>The valley of Hinnom, Ge Hinnom, was to later be known as Gehenna, and became a symbol used by the Lord for complete destruction (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a>). As they burnt their children there, to destruction, so sinners would be burnt to destruction in that same place. Joachim Jeremias explains how the literal valley of Gehenna came to be misinterpreted as a symbol of a ‘hell’ that is supposed to be a place of fire: “[Gehenna]…since ancient times has been the name of the valley west and south of Jerusalem… from the woes pronounced by the prophets on the valley (<a href='B:300 7:32'>Jer 7:32</a> = <a href='B:120 19:6'>2Ki 19:6</a>; cf. <a href='B:290 31:9'>Isa 31:9</a>; <a href='B:290 66:24'>Isa 66:24</a>) because sacrifices to Moloch took place there (<a href='B:120 16:3'>2Ki 16:3</a>; <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a>), there developed in the second century BC the idea that the valley of Hinnom would be the place of a fiery hell (Eth. Enoch 26; 90:26)… it is distinguished from sheol” (New Testament Theology, London: SCM, 1972 p. 129). AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or [ESV, GNB] "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a>; <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God's final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p><p>He worked much evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>He set the engraved image of Asherah that he had made, in the house of which Yahweh said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put My name forever- </p><p>Manasseh is criticized for placing an idol in the very place where God's Name of Yahweh was meant to dwell. He replaced the invisible things- the more abstract things of the characteristics of God which the Name speaks of- by something material and visible. We make the same mistake when we turn away from true spirituality and become lost in physical works. If Judah had not forgotten the Name [and this must refer to their lack of appreciation of it rather than forgetting the letters JHVH], then they wouldn’t have served Baal and other gods (<a href='B:300 23:27'>Jer 23:27</a>). It is this particular idol which it seems was returned to the temple just prior to the destruction of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:3'>Eze 8:3</a>), despite Manasseh himself removing it on his repentance.</p>


text:
<p>neither will I cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them- </p><p>This is apparently (:7) a quotation from what God said to David and Solomon. But it appears to be an adaptation about the promises to the singular seed, that he must continue in obedience if the promises were to be fulfilled through him. But just as Abraham's seed is both the Lord Jesus and all those in Him, the true Israel of God, so the promises about David's seed also have a collective dimension.</p>


text:
<p>But they didn’t listen: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than the nations did whom Yahweh destroyed before the children of Israel-</p><p>God's tolerance of Judah in His land was therefore by grace, and in hope of their repentance. Their doing "more evil" than the Gentiles could refer to the fact that as in covenant relationship with God, they were the more responsible for their sins. Or the idea may be that most Gentiles were faithful to their set of gods, only changing them if that was enforced upon them by the military dominance of a neighbour. But Judah went running madly to every god they could, described by Hosea under the figure of sexual addiction.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke by His servants the prophets saying- </p><p><a href='B:140 33:10'>2Ch 33:10</a> Yahweh spoke to Manasseh, and to his people; but they gave no heed". "They gave no heed", or 'did not listen', is a phrase used in the later prophets as they appeal to the exiles (<a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a>; <a href='B:450 1:4'>Zec 1:4</a>). The sins of Manasseh in 'not listening' to God's word are cited as the main reason for the exile. We note that refusing to listen to God's word is the essence of all the sins of idolatry etc. It is the spurning of relationship with God which appears to hurt Him even more than the list of sins which Manasseh was also guilty of.</p>


text:
<p>Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, and has done wickedly above all that the Amorites did who were before him, and has made Judah also to sin with his idols- </p><p>Making others to sin is a major dimension of human sin, although personal sin is still a significant issue here in the condemnation of Manasseh. The mention of the Amorites is because they were cast out of the land once they had sinned to a certain point, and Israel were treated in the same way (<a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>therefore thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I bring such evil on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears shall tingle- </p><p>God is repeatedly presented as the ultimate source of "evil". There is no radical evil in the cosmos outside of His control. There is no cosmic Satan figure; all "evil" is under His control, and performed by His Angelic "armies" manifested through human armies used by them, as the Babylonians were at this time.</p>


text:
<p>I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab- </p><p>They would be judged like Israel, because they had sinned in fact worse than Israel, according to Ezekiel's parable of the two adulterous sisters.</p><p>And I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down-</p><p>The idea is that not one drop would be left. And yet by grace many were left in Judah, and there was even some attempt at worship at the temple site, according to Jeremiah. "Turning it upside down" is ‘to turn it upon its face', as if never to be used again. "Wipe" is s:w. for utter destruction (<a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a>; <a href='B:20 32:33'>Exo 32:33</a>; <a href='B:40 5:23'>Num 5:23</a>). We could render it as 'wiping out'. Yet this was spoken in wrath, and in wrath God remembered mercy. For a set time to remember Zion was yet to come, and He would restore Jerusalem. It is this kind of apparent contradiction within God which Hosea speaks of, as His "repentings" being "kindled together" (<a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a>). See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>I will cast off the remainder of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies. They will become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies- </p><p>But Israel were not cast off eternally. See on :13, where we can understand the apparent contradiction as the wrath of love, a threat and feeling which was not carried out. Or we can argue that Israel's not being cast off was a result of a reinterpretation and redefinition of God's people. Paul’s positive approach to Israel’s conversion is reflected in his whole reasoning in Romans 11, his classic statement about preaching to Israel. He begins by saying that God has not cast off His people Israel totally, because some, e.g. himself, have turned to Christ. So, seeing that God will not cast off His people Israel in the ultimate sense, it perhaps follows that in every generation some of them will come to Christ as Paul did (<a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a>). In some sense, God has cast off His people (<a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a> RV; <a href='B:450 10:6'>Zec 10:6</a>); and yet, because a minority of them will always accept Christ, it is not true that God has cast off His people in a total sense (<a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a> RV). It was only because of this remnant that Israel have not become like Sodom (<a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a>)- even though Old Testament passages such as Ezekiel 16 clearly liken Jerusalem to Sodom. Yet they are not as Sodom ultimately, for the sake of the remnant who will believe.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake / cast off those who love Him (e.g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p>


text:
<p>because they have done that which is evil in My sight, and have provoked Me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt even to this day’- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions (see on :13), and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh-</p><p>Josephus claims many prophets were slain at this time. Jewish tradition has it that Isaiah was slain by being "sawn asunder", and that apparently is alluded to in <a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>We wonder why Kings says nothing of Manasseh’s repentance, which is recorded in detail in Chronicles and was one of the most amazing examples of human repentance (<a href='B:140 33:12-19'>2Ch 33:12-19</a>). Perhaps it is because the record wishes to provide a relatively uninterrupted record of the sins of God's people. For the Babylonian destruction was not because of the sins of the kings so much as for those of the people.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza; and Amon his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Amon was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah- </p><p>He had been raised in the spirit of his father's apostacy, and was apparently unimpressed by Manasseh's amazing repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as Manasseh his father did- </p><p><a href='B:140 33:22'>2Ch 33:22</a> adds: "He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as did Manasseh his father; and Amon sacrificed to all the engraved images which Manasseh his father had made, and served them". Manasseh had removed the images, but not apparently destroyed them. The history of the kings abounds with such references to idolatry being reformed, and then so quickly revived. The speed of its revival reflects the fact that the heart of the people generally was with the idols. And we must assess our own episodes of apparent repentance in this light. Manasseh had repaired the temple (<a href='B:140 33:16'>2Ch 33:16</a>), but by Josiah's time it needed repairing again; so it could be that Amon also desecrated and damaged the temple yet further.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them- </p><p>See on :20. He revived the idols his father had destroyed on his repentance.</p>


text:
<p>and he forsook Yahweh the God of his fathers- </p><p>We get the impression Amon was never "with" Yahweh, so his forsaking Yahweh may refer to how there is a conscience toward God in every man, however latent, but he had forsaken this.</p><p>And didn’t walk in the way of Yahweh- </p><p>Think through the implications of <a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a>, where we read that John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>; <a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of Amon conspired against him and put the king to death in his own house- </p><p>There seems a special stigma and shame attached to being murdered in ones' own home, rather than on a battlefield or dying from old age.</p>


text:
<p>But the people of the land killed all those who had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his place- </p><p>The final part of Judah's history, like that of Israel's, involves division between brethren, conspiracy and politics. Those who indulge in such things are really living out their own condemnation, as well as sounding the death toll for their own communities of God's people (see on <a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>This may not necessarily be the books of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>He was buried in his tomb in the garden of Uzza; and Josiah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>Josiah means 'foundation of Yah'. It's unlikely this was the name Amon gave him, although a repentant Manasseh may have influenced it. However, at no point did even kings like Amon and Manasseh formally deny Yahweh. They worshipped Him, so they thought, through worshipping idols. So it is not impossible that indeed this was Josiah's birth name. And from that we can take yet another warning, to serve Yahweh with our whole hearts; and not assume that our service of the flesh is serving Him.</p>


text:
<p>Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath-</p><p>Josiah means 'foundation of Yah'. It's unlikely this was the name Amon gave him, although a repentant Manasseh may have influenced it. However, at no point did even kings like Amon and Manasseh formally deny Yahweh. They worshipped Him, so they thought, through worshipping idols. So it is not impossible that indeed this was Josiah's birth name. And from that we can take yet another warning, to serve Yahweh with our whole hearts; and not assume that our service of the flesh is serving Him.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and walked in all the way of David his father, and didn’t turn aside to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>There is a huge imputation of righteousness to human beings, reflected right through Scripture. God sought them, the essence of their hearts, and was prepared to overlook much ignorance and misunderstanding along the way. Consider how good king Josiah is described as always doing what was right before God, not turning aside to the right nor left- even though it was not until the 18th year of his reign that he even discovered parts of God’s law, which he had been ignorant of until then, because the scroll containing them had been temporarily lost (<a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 22:11'>2Ki 22:11</a>). Josiah is described as having done "that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh"- even though he was ignorant of part of God's word and law (<a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 22:10-13'>2Ki 22:10-13</a>), not knowing all "that is enjoined us to do" (<a href='B:120 22:13'>2Ki 22:13</a> RVmg:), and not knowing all that was in "the book of the covenant" (<a href='B:120 23:2'>2Ki 23:2</a>). Full knowledge, even of some quite important things, didn't stop Josiah from being credited with doing what was right before God and not 'turning aside to the right hand or to the left'. He was judged according to how well he responded to that which he did know. And this may be a helpful window for us into how we should feel towards those who sincerely seek to follow the Lord and yet with imperfect knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the eighteenth year of king Josiah that the king sent Shaphan, the son of Azaliah the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of Yahweh, saying- </p><p>We wonder if Meshullam was a relative of Meshullemeth, the female form of Meshullam, who was Josiah's grandmother (<a href='B:120 21:19'>2Ki 21:19</a>). Shaphan was the father of Ahikam (:12) and the Gemariah of <a href='B:300 36:10-12'>Jer 36:10-12</a>) and the grandfather of Gedaliah of <a href='B:300 39:14'>Jer 39:14</a>; <a href='B:300 40:5'>Jer 40:5</a>; <a href='B:300 40:9'>Jer 40:9</a>; <a href='B:300 40:11'>Jer 40:11</a>. Shaphan would have been elderly, as 35 years later his grandson Gedaliah was set up as governor of Judah by the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the money which is brought into the house of Yahweh, which the keepers of the threshold have gathered of the people- </p><p>Hilkiah is well attested as the one who found the lost book of the law (<a href='B:120 22:8'>2Ki 22:8</a>), helped in Josiah's reforms (<a href='B:120 22:14-20'>2Ki 22:14-20</a>) and arranged the great Passover observance of <a href='B:140 35:1-19'>2Ch 35:1-19</a>. But Hilkiah did all this despite being the son of a High Priest called Shallum (<a href='B:130 6:12-13'>1Ch 6:12-13</a>), whose name can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. But his son / descendant rose above that bad background, as we can. The "scribe" or historian was a senior advisor in the Hebrew court (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:120 18:18'>2Ki 18:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:37'>2Ki 18:37</a>; <a href='B:140 34:8'>2Ch 34:8</a>) because of the huge value attached to history in the Hebrew mind, and as reflected in the Bible being largely history. Advice on how to act was to be based upon historical, or as we would now say, "Biblical", precedent.</p>


text:
<p>Let them deliver it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of Yahweh; and let them give it to the workmen who are in the house of Yahweh, to repair the breaches of the house- </p><p>The half shekel temple tax was to be paid when a census was taken, and it seems this is what he did. <a href='B:140 34:9'>2Ch 34:9</a> notes the generosity of the people even in the northern tribes, as well as the Israelites living in Judah ["the remnant of Israel"].</p>


text:
<p>to the carpenters, to the builders and to the masons, and for buying timber and cut stone to repair the house- </p><p><a href='B:140 34:10'>2Ch 34:10</a> says this was because "the kings of Judah had destroyed" the temple. The destruction of the temple by these kings may not have been because they totally rejected Yahweh. The essence of their apostacy, as ours, was to use the things of Yahweh for idolatry, to mix paganism and the way of the flesh with Yahweh worship. So it is likely that when we read of men like Manasseh building other temples or shrines to idols in the vicinity of the temple, what happened was that they took the materials from the temple structure and used them for the idol temples. For materials like cut stone and timber were expensive and hard to source; Solomon had spent huge effort in bringing them from far away to build Yahweh's temple.</p>


text:
<p>However there was no accounting made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand; for they dealt faithfully-</p><p>This is exactly the same as happened in <a href='B:120 12:15'>2Ki 12:15</a>. This may be in implied contrast to the priests and Levites who had not done the work at that time, perhaps because of embezzlement of the funds. The money was delivered to these overseers directly from the one who had received and counted in, and not via the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it- </p><p>All spiritual endeavour leads to the Lord inviting us deeper into that endeavour; thus it was as Barnabas and Paul went about their ministering to the Lord that they were invited to go on a missionary journey (<a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a>). Likewise it was as the Levites were in process of collecting funds for repairing the temple, that they found the book of the law- perhaps because they needed more space in which to store the donations, and whilst making space they found the scroll. In the process of being a deacon, faith is developed (<a href='B:610 3:13'>1Ti 3:13</a>). The very process of service and obedience leads to greater faith in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again and said, Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>There is an apparent parallel between money being found in the temple, and the book of the law being found (<a href='B:120 22:8-9'>2Ki 22:8-9</a>). The idea is that as David often says in Psalms 119, Yahweh's law was the greatest treasure. So much so that the Chronicles record focuses so much on the book of the law being found that no mention is made of the money also found along with it. Even in Kings, the discovery of the money is only mentioned in passing, as if the greatest discovery was not wealth, but God's law. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, Hilkiah the priest has delivered a book to me. Shaphan read it before the king- </p><p>This book was probably not the entire Pentateuch, but the curses for disobedience in Deuteronomy 28, for Josiah's response is appropriate to someone who had just heard them read. But see on :5. <a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a> refers to this: "Your words were found, and I did eat them... [they] were to me the joy and the delight of my heart: for I am called by Your name, Yahweh". Jeremiah rejoiced in those words of judgment. And as a result, “I am called by Your name”- the language of a woman marrying and taking her husband’s name (<a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>). The word of God was his “joy [and] delight”- two words used four times elsewhere in Jeremiah, and always in the context of the joy of a wedding (<a href='B:300 7:34'>Jer 7:34</a>; <a href='B:300 16:9'>Jer 16:9</a>; <a href='B:300 25:10'>Jer 25:10</a>; <a href='B:300 33:11'>Jer 33:11</a>). Jeremiah saw his prophetic task as actually a marriage to God, an inbreathing of His word and being, to the point that he could say that he personally was “full of the wrath / passion of God” (<a href='B:300 6:11'>Jer 6:11</a>). Jeremiah's lament that the people had no joy or delight in God's word (<a href='B:300 6:10'>Jer 6:10</a>) is the basis for this comment that when he found God's words, they were his joy.</p><p>What was read were the curses for disobedience. The harder side of the Father and the Lord Jesus should actually serve as an attraction to the serious believer. Peter knew that if it really was the Lord Jesus out there on the water, then He would bid him walk on the water to Him. Peter knew his Lord, and the sort of things He would ask men to do- the very hardest things for them in their situation. He knew how Jesus could be a demanding Lord. Jeremiah “knew that this was the word of the Lord” when he was asked to do something so humanly senseless- to buy property when he was in prison, when the land was clearly about to be overrun by the Babylonians (<a href='B:300 31:8'>Jer 31:8</a>):&nbsp; When Jeremiah had earlier found the curses for disobedience recorded in the book of the Law which had been lost, He 'ate them', those words of cursings were "the joy and rejoicing of my heart" - they so motivated him (<a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a> = <a href='B:140 34:18-21'>2Ch 34:18-21</a>). When Ananias and Sapphira were slain by the Lord, fear came upon "as many as heard these things" .</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he tore his clothes- </p><p>Although Josiah was personally innocent, he felt so passionately for God's people. We too need to have hearts that bleed for others, and not be solely concerned with our own standing before God. For our standing before Him involves our attitudes to others and our concern for their salvation, if we truly seek God's glory and not our own. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant saying- </p><p>We note Josiah didn't go to her himself. For the significance of this, see on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Go inquire of Yahweh for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of Yahweh that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that which is written concerning us- </p><p>"Poured out" in Chronicles is "kindled" in 2 Kings; the sense was that he realized the wrath of God was kindled and was literally about to burn against them, and so repentance must be immediate with no time to lose.</p>


text:
<p>So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the second quarter); and they talked with her- </p><p>"The second quarter" may refer to a newer area of Jerusalem (<a href='B:430 1:10'>Zep 1:10</a> RV), or as AV "the college", implying as a prophetess she had a kind of Bible study centre. "Keeper of the wardrobe" may refer to the priestly garments (cp. <a href='B:120 10:22'>2Ki 10:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: ‘Tell the man who sent you to Me- </p><p>We see here how Josiah had no direct vision from God. He was dealing all the time through the prophetic word relayed to him, and his obedience to it is the more commendable. Because it reflects his humility to God's revealed word, in a way more impressive than if these words had come directly to him. We are in his position, and should learn from him.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read- </p><p><a href='B:140 34:24'>2Ch 34:24</a> adds: "even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah". The reference to curses suggests that the scrolls discovered contained at least Deuteronomy 28 and <a href='B:50 27:15-26'>Deu 27:15-26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Because they have forsaken Me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath shall be kindled against this place, and it shall not be quenched- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p><p>Idolatrous Israel never consciously&nbsp; tried to provoke Yahweh to anger with their apostasy; the words of the prophets must have seemed to them a gross exaggeration. But this was really how God saw it (<a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a>).</p><p>Although "it shall not be quenched", Josiah knew God well enough to try to quench it, by getting all His people to make a from the heart commitment to Him. &nbsp;Even though God had told Josiah that His wrath with His people would not be quenched, it would seem that there was still some possibility of "remedy", had the people accepted God's word in their hearts (<a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>). We see here His absolute eagerness for their repentance, and unwillingness that any of His people should have to perish. And that is the same God with whom we have to do.</p>


text:
<p>But to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of Yahweh, thus you shall tell him, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: Concerning the words which you have heard- </p><p>See on :15 for the significance of Josiah not receiving these words directly.</p>


text:
<p>because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before Yahweh when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and wept before Me; I also have heard you, says Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the mutuality between God and man; He hears the man who hears Him. We see the root of humility as being in having a heart / mind sensitive to Him. But "tender heart" is the same phrase used for being "faint hearted" in time of battle (<a href='B:50 20:3'>Deu 20:3</a>; <a href='B:290 7:4'>Isa 7:4</a>; <a href='B:300 51:46'>Jer 51:46</a>). It was as if Josiah saw the judgment of God coming, as if it had come, and was faint hearted before the soldiers he saw coming against him. And yet even such a tender heart can be given by God (s:w. <a href='B:220 23:16'>Job 23:16</a>), for He can also give attitudes of mind by His sovereign operation&nbsp; .</p><p>Josiah’s zealous reforms started with reading “the book of the covenant” (<a href='B:120 23:2'>2Ki 23:2</a>), probably the list of curses which were to come for disobedience (<a href='B:120 22:19'>2Ki 22:19</a> =&nbsp; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>). In this sense Paul used the terror of possible condemnation to persuade men (<a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). Interestingly, the very words which Jeremiah was tempted not to speak forth, so stern was their message of judgment to come, were what had the power to lead Israel to repentance (<a href='B:300 26:2-3'>Jer 26:2-3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil which I will bring on this place’. They brought back this message to the king- </p><p>There are times when God takes away the righteous from the evil of this life (<a href='B:290 57:1'>Isa 57:1</a> - probably alluding to what God did to Joash, <a href='B:120 22:20'>2Ki 22:20</a> cp. 23:29). There are other Biblical instances where the wicked have long life and prosperity in this world. This is because the Bible presents the ultimate judgment and reward of human life and faith as being at the last day, and not right now.</p><p>This is a similar situation to the promise to Hezekiah and Ahab (<a href='B:110 21:29'>1Ki 21:29</a>). It is as if God judged the entire weight of sin to be such that even Josiah's reformation could only delay and not remove the judgment for it. However, if the people had all repented in their hearts, rather than passively allowing a reformer like Josiah to remove the external evidence of idolatry, then surely the outcome could have been different. See on :31.</p><p>The reality was that Josiah died in battle, not in peace (<a href='B:140 35:22-24'>2Ch 35:22-24</a>). Yet he had been promised to be gathered to his grave in peace (<a href='B:140 34:28'>2Ch 34:28</a>). Here we have an example of God making a statement about the future which is conditional upon human behaviour. Thus He stated that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days; but it wasn't, because they repented. There is a gap between the pronouncement and its fulfilment, and in that gap our behaviour can change the outcome. We too must waste so many potential futures.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent, and they gathered to him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem- </p><p>Josiah's idea was to bring about a reformation of the ordinary people, as in :2 we read of the people small and great being gathered. So presumably his gathering of the leaders was in order for them to bring their people with them.</p>


text:
<p>The king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great. He read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>See on <a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a>. Josiah’s zealous reforms started with reading “the book of the covenant” (<a href='B:120 23:2'>2Ki 23:2</a>), probably the list of curses which were to come for disobedience (<a href='B:120 22:19'>2Ki 22:19</a> =&nbsp; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>). In this sense Paul used the terror of possible condemnation to persuade men (<a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). Interestingly, the very words which Jeremiah was tempted not to speak forth, so stern was their message of judgment to come, were what had the power to lead Israel to repentance (<a href='B:300 26:2-3'>Jer 26:2-3</a>).</p><p>2 Kings has "prophets" for Chronicles "Levites". There were clearly prophets actively operating at this time. As noted on :3, Josiah saw the only way to change the threatened judgments as getting the ordinary people to repent in their hearts. Unlike Hezekiah, he was not satisfied with simply avoiding seeing judgment come in his days. Indeed he learned from Hezekiah's mistake in that matter. See on <a href='B:140 35:7'>2Ch 35:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before Yahweh, to walk after Yahweh- </p><p>Maybe a reference to <a href='B:50 10:12-13'>Deu 10:12-13</a>, which perhaps was in this scroll.</p><p>And to keep His commandments, His testimonies and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant- </p><p>Josiah recognizes that Judah have broken covenant with God and must be judged appropriately. God was unwilling to ultimately avert the judgment upon the people because of their state of heart. And yet Josiah throws himself into trying to persuade the people to totally give themselves to covenant relationship. He realized that in the gap between the pronunciation of judgment, and it being carried out, there was the possibility of repentance and the judgment not being performed. His mentor Jeremiah had made this point in Jeremiah 18, and was also appealing to the people to change their hearts so that the threatened judgment wouldn't happen. This is how open God's purpose is, and Josiah and Jeremiah perceived that.</p><p>Josiah's actions here are one of a number of Old Testament examples of preaching the word after becoming aware of the depth of one's own sins. Consider Jonah preaching the second time, with the marks in his body after three days in the whale, admitting his rebellion against Yahweh, pleading with them to respond to His word. Reflect how when his head was wrapped around with seaweed, at the bottom of the sea at the absolute end of mortal life, he made a vow to God, which he then fulfilled, presumably in going back to preach to Nineveh (<a href='B:390 2:9'>Jon 2:9</a>). His response to having confessed his sins and daring to believe in God’s forgiveness, turning again towards His temple even from underwater, was to resolve to preach to others if he was spared his life. And this he did, although as with so many of us, the pureness of his initial evangelical zeal soon flaked. Or consider Manasseh, <a href='B:140 33:16'>2Ch 33:16</a>; Jehoshaphat, <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a> cp. 18:31; 19:2; Josiah, <a href='B:140 34:29'>2Ch 34:29</a>; <a href='B:140 34:32'>2Ch 34:32</a>; Nebuchadnezzar, <a href='B:340 3:29'>Dan 3:29</a>; <a href='B:340 4:2'>Dan 4:2</a>...</p><p>We note the specific reference in <a href='B:140 34:32'>2Ch 34:32</a> to the people of Jerusalem. It seems that Josiah tried to gather together literally all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all "found" there. And yet Jerusalem particularly was to suffer in the judgments to come, and Jeremiah's prophesies at this time tend to single out Jerusalem for particular judgment for the unspirituality of the population. So again we perceive that this was all the enthusiasm of Josiah; the people's hearts weren't affected. This is the trouble with mass meetings for "revival". Reformation is essentially personal and of the heart.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the threshold, to bring forth out of Yahweh’s temple all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of the sky; and he burned them outside of Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel- </p><p>Josiah discovered the book of the Law- and he then went on to do something about it in practice. Reflect through what he did:</p><p>Passover kept in Jerusalem (23:21-23) = <a href='B:50 16:1-8'>Deu 16:1-8</a>; Removed asherahs (23:4,6,14) = <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:50 16:21'>Deu 16:21</a>; Star worship removed (23:4,11) = <a href='B:50 17:3'>Deu 17:3</a>; The ‘high places’ and cults removed (23:8-20) = Deuteronomy 12; Child sacrifice ended (23:10) = <a href='B:50 12:31'>Deu 12:31</a>; <a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a>; The cultic stones / ‘mazzeboth’ removed (23:14) = <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:50 16:22'>Deu 16:22</a>; Conjouring up the dead ended (23:24) = <a href='B:50 18:11'>Deu 18:11</a>.</p><p>Do you notice from where in Deuteronomy he got those ideas? From chapters 12 - 18. My suggestion is that he maxed out on that part of the ‘book of the law’ which was read to him, and went and did it. The Lord in the wilderness was likewise motivated by Deuteronomy chapters 6 and 8.</p><p>In the first century, when people heard the Gospel, they were generally baptized immediately. This meant that the prison keeper was baptized in the middle of the night, amidst an earthquake… in essence, people heard the message, and responded immediately. We likewise heard of the Bible’s teaching about baptism, and we did something concrete and actual- we got wet. We went under the water. But we must ask ourselves whether we are continuing to be responsive to the word of God which we become increasingly familiar with as we read daily. Our very familiarity with it can militate against a real response. When last did you read / understand something from Scripture, and then get up and do something real, concrete and actual about it?</p>


text:
<p>He put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, the moon, to the planets and to all the host of the sky- </p><p>We notice here Judah's addiction to idolatry. Usually a nation was loyal just to one god, e.g. the sun god; but as Hosea puts it, Judah were like a sexually obsessed woman going after every man or god of the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>He brought out the Asherah from the house of Yahweh, outside of Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and beat it to dust, and cast its dust on the graves of the common people- </p><p>This may have been inspired by Hezekiah, who likewise destroyed idolatry in the Kidron and then called for the Passover to be celebrated (<a href='B:140 30:14-15'>2Ch 30:14-15</a>). We are to take inspiration from Biblical history as Josiah did.</p>


text:
<p>He broke down the houses of the sodomites that were in the house of Yahweh, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah- </p><p>These sodomites were associated with the idol shrines (<a href='B:110 14:23-24'>1Ki 14:23-24</a>). They may well have been Gentiles from Phoenicia, hence they were expelled from the land rather than killed. They may well have been involved with homosexual practices, but the Hebrew qadesh means literally a devoted person.</p>


text:
<p>He brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah-</p><p>The priests had ostensibly offered only to Yahweh in the high places (<a href='B:140 33:17'>2Ch 33:17</a>), but those high places were destroyed and the priests who officiated there were removed to Jerusalem, but not allowed to come up to the altar (:9). Clearly they had mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry.</p><p>And defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba- </p><p>The limits of Judah.</p><p>And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city- </p><p>The open spaces by the city gates were where Manasseh and Amon had set up idol worship.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless the priests of the high places didn’t come up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers- </p><p>See on :8. The priests who had previously been unfaithful at the high places were disciplined, but were allowed to eat of the sacrifices which the other priests could eat. For according to the law, those portions of food could not have leave in them. "Bread" may be used here for 'food'.</p>


text:
<p>He defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech- </p><p>This became Gehenna (Ge Hinnom) in the Lord's time, the rubbish dump and previous place of idolatry which was now despised. And it was used by Him as a symbol of the total destruction and shame of the rejected at the last day. It was as if they were seen by Him as being offered there to the idols they had worshipped during their lives.</p>


text:
<p>He took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of Yahweh, by the room of Nathan Melech the officer, who was in the court; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire- </p><p>The idea was that the sun god daily drove his chariot across the sky. As so often noted, the kings of Judah had not turned away from Yahweh completely, but mixed idolatry with Yahweh worship. This kind of syncretism is seen all around us, in practical and doctrinal terms; and it is the perennial temptation of God's people to mix the flesh and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The king broke down the altars that were on the roof of the upper room of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This is a tacit recognition that Manasseh's repentance and apparent destruction of his idols had not been very thorough. Perhaps that is why Kings doesn't mention it. And Hezekiah's apparently radical reforms had not even removed the altars on the roof of his father's house. The reforms of the reformers were never really as radical as they might appear. See on :15.</p><p>And beat them down from there, and cast their dust into the brook Kidron- </p><p>This may have been inspired by Hezekiah, who likewise destroyed idolatry in the Kidron and then called for the Passover to be celebrated (<a href='B:140 30:14-15'>2Ch 30:14-15</a>). We are to take inspiration from Biblical history as Josiah did.</p>


text:
<p>The king defiled the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mountain of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon- </p><p>What a contrast with <a href='B:230 125:2'>Psa 125:2</a> "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so Yahweh surrounds His people from this time forth and forever". The hills around Jerusalem are not huge mountains. They are small hills, and this is the picture of God's protection; not hugely visible, but there. But the mountains around Jerusalem became the "high places" of idolatry (<a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>; <a href='B:140 21:11'>2Ch 21:11</a>); what should have been the symbols of Yahweh's protection became perverted. "The mount of corruption" appears to have been the mount of Olives.</p><p>The way Solomon built&nbsp;idol&nbsp;temples&nbsp;for his wives on mock temple mounts near Jerusalem was surely a studied statement that he saw himself as a hopeless apostate. Like the alcoholic or drug abuser, Solomon could analyze his problem in Ecclesiastes so accurately- and yet do nothing about it. This is the utter tragedy of all spiritual failure. Even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women didn't&nbsp;seem&nbsp;to&nbsp; achieve him the support he desired from their&nbsp;home&nbsp; countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them.</p>


text:
<p>He broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Asherim, and filled their places with the bones of men- </p><p>The idols were desecrated in the eyes of the worshippers by dead bodies being near them. And yet the sense that dead bodies brought defilement was itself from the law of Moses (<a href='B:40 19:14-15'>Num 19:14-15</a>). We see here the confused conscience of the people, partly formed by their experience of Yahweh's principles, and partly blunted by the experience of idol worship. The idols were typically associated with fertility cults, and so to make the dead bones of their priests placed on their altars and pillars was a denial of all they stood for.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, even that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and beat it to dust, and burned the Asherah- </p><p>We marvel that despite the reforms of Hezekiah and others, this altar and high place remained in Israel. There was a kind of false temple complex still there (<a href='B:110 12:31'>1Ki 12:31</a>). See on :12. The reforms of the reformers were never really as radical as they might appear. Although Bethel was in the area of the ten tribes, Josiah realized that it was their influence which had led Judah into such apostacy. He set an example for all time of having a sense of spiritual care even for brethren he was separated from; for they were still his brethren.</p>


text:
<p>As Josiah turned himself, he spied the tombs that were there in the mountain; and he sent, and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of Yahweh which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these things- </p><p>We get the impression that Josiah may have been ignorant of the prophecy of <a href='B:110 13:2'>1Ki 13:2</a>, or had forgotten it (:17); and fulfilled this unconsciously. We have the impression that he just happened to notice tombs far away in the mountain side, and the idea thus came to his mind to take the bones from there and use them to desecrate the altar. This is how the Spirit works in our lives too. We "by chance" notice something, from the corner of our eye; turn left rather than right. But that was all of God's direct operation upon our hearts and eyes, to take His purpose further and, in this case, to fulfil His prophetic word.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, What monument is that which I see? The men of the city told him, It is the tomb of the man of God, who came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel- </p><p>It seems that therefore, as noted on :16, he fulfilled those prophetic words unconsciously rather than consciously. For the man of God had prophesied of Josiah by name as doing this. But we are given to understand that he did not consciously try to fulfil it, and therefore we conclude he was either ignorant of the prophecy or had forgotten it; or perhaps didn't know all the details of it.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Let him be! Let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came out of Samaria- </p><p>Both prophets had been to some extent unfaithful to God's word, and yet in other aspects of their lives they had been faithful (<a href='B:110 13:31'>1Ki 13:31</a>). And this is surely the position with all God's children. They were at least honoured at this point as having been faithful rather than unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>All the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke Yahweh to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>He killed all the priests of the high places that were there, upon the altars, and burned men’s bones on them; and he returned to Jerusalem-</p><p>We notice the contrast with how he treated the priests of the high places in Judah (:9), whom he allowed to live. Although for sure they were also apostate, or else they would not have been demoted as they were. These priests in Israel however were not Levites. Perhaps he was made more aware of the prophecies of the man of God in <a href='B:110 13:2'>1Ki 13:2</a>, and therefore fulfilled them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded all the people saying, Keep the Passover to Yahweh your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant- </p><p>Josiah urged the people to keep this, despite having been told in <a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a> that the people would indeed to judged for their sons. He had sought to change this by appealing for all the people to enter covenant with Yahweh from their hearts (<a href='B:140 34:30'>2Ch 34:30</a>). And he seeks to confirm this by holding a huge Passover, where he provided the people with the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>Surely there was not kept such a Passover from the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah- </p><p>This Passover was unique both in terms of numbers of offerings, and in the strict obedience to all the legislation about it. We note the repeated treatment in 2 Chronicles 35 of "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" as a separate group. And yet Jeremiah, who was the contemporary prophet, specifically criticizes this group above all as being so far from Yahweh in their hearts. And this was the critical dimension which was not addressed by all this ritualistic obedience.</p>


text:
<p>but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this Passover kept to Yahweh in Jerusalem- </p><p>We have no record of what Josiah did in the last 13 years of his reign, apart from the note we will have in 2 Chron. about how he died in disobedience to God's word. Perhaps this was the end point of a spiritual slip in that period. Tragically, so many of the kings started well and slipped at the end; truly a warning to us. We would rather hope to read that Judah continued to keep Passovers after this one, but there is no record of that. See on <a href='B:140 35:20'>2Ch 35:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Josiah removed those who had familiar spirits, and the wizards, the teraphim, the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>He was trying by all means to avoid the judgments for disobedience which were written in the book of the law read to him. But God had said that He would not change that judgment. Josiah would have been motivated by the example of Moses in seeking to still change the outcome. But the reforms of a king were not the same as the required change of heart of the people. Removing all visible signs of idolatry was not the same as transforming hearts; and God looks upon the heart, rather than the external state of religion amongst His people.</p><p>Hilkiah is well attested as the one who found the lost book of the law (<a href='B:120 22:8'>2Ki 22:8</a>), helped in Josiah's reforms (<a href='B:120 22:14-20'>2Ki 22:14-20</a>) and arranged the great Passover observance of <a href='B:140 35:1-19'>2Ch 35:1-19</a>. But Hilkiah did all this despite being the son of a High Priest called Shallum (<a href='B:130 6:12-13'>1Ch 6:12-13</a>), whose name can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. But his son / descendant rose above that bad background, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>Like him was there no king before him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him- </p><p>As noted on :24, the point was that God was interested in the hearts of His individual people, and the spiritual zeal of one man could not alter that. Perhaps this is why Kings omits the account of Josiah's death in disobedience to God's word, which we find in Chronicles. The idea is that even this generally good man could not avert the judgment of others if their hearts were not with Him.</p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, Yahweh didn’t turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger was kindled against Judah, </p><p>The fact that men such as Moses and Jeremiah (<a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>) turned away God’s wrath without these things happening, or simply by prayer (<a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>) therefore means that God accepted the intercession of those men and counted their righteousness to those from whom His wrath turned away. We shouldn’t assume that these righteous men merely waved away God’s wrath. That wrath was real, and required immense pleading and personal dedication on their behalf. Thus we read that despite Josiah’s righteousness, the wrath of God against Manasseh was still not turned away. Truly “wise men turn away wrath” (<a href='B:240 29:8'>Pro 29:8</a>). And they evidently pointed forward to the work of the Lord Jesus- perhaps, like the sacrifices, those men only achieved what they did on account of the way they pointed forward to the Lord Jesus. He delivered us from God’s coming wrath (<a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a>)- the wrath of God is frequently spoken of in the New Testament as being poured out with devastating physical effects in the last days. All those not reconciled to God through the Lord Jesus are “by nature the children of wrath” (<a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a>). The very existence of the law of God creates His wrath, because we break that law (<a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a>). Romans has much to say about the wrath of God; and the letter begins with the reminder that we are all sinners, and the wrath of God will be revealed against all forms of sin (<a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a>). It is only through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus that we are saved from this wrath and ‘reconciled’ to God (<a href='B:520 5:8-10'>Rom 5:8-10</a>).</p><p>Because of all the provocation with which Manasseh had provoked Him- </p><p>There is a connection with <a href='B:240 27:3'>Pro 27:3</a> GNB, where the same Hebrew word is used: "A stone is heavy and sand is a burden; but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both". This is a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>); the "provocation" of his son Manasseh led to the huge burden of judgment upon Judah. Hezekiah's son clearly paid no attention to his father's proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, I will remove Judah also out of My sight as I have removed Israel- </p><p>Jonah recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at his time (<a href='B:110 9:7'>1Ki 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>).</p><p>And I will cast off this city which I have chosen, even Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there’-</p><p>Although it is true as it was with Saul that those who reject Yahweh's word are rejected (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>), God's grace is beyond such a simplistic picture. Israel were to despise / reject God's word (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a> s:w:). Israel rejected Yahweh when they wanted Saul to be their king (s:w. <a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a>), and yet He did not reject them immediately because of that. The relevance to the exiles was in that they were in captivity because they too had rejected God's word and therefore God had rejected them (<a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a> cp. <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>), because they rejected His prophetic words, He rejected them (<a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>; <a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a> s:w:). For ultimately God has not rejected / cast away His people (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>; <a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). This is the mystery of grace, no matter how we may seek to explain it away by Biblical exposition and balancing Bible verses against each other.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>Not necessarily the same as the books of Chronicles we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>In his days Pharaoh Necoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went against him; and Pharaoh Necoh killed him at Megiddo when he had seen him- </p><p>There are times when God takes away the righteous from the evil of this life (<a href='B:290 57:1'>Isa 57:1</a> - probably alluding to what God did to Joash, <a href='B:120 22:20'>2Ki 22:20</a> cp. 23:29). There are other Biblical instances where the wicked have long life and prosperity in this world. This is because the Bible presents the ultimate judgment and reward of human life and faith as being at the last day, and not right now.</p>


text:
<p>His servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. The people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s place-</p><p><a href='B:140 35:22'>2Ch 35:22</a> gives a different perspective (see on :25 for why this is): "Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and didn’t listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo". Going into battle disguised is exactly what Ahab did (<a href='B:140 18:29'>2Ch 18:29</a>), and was slain doing it- having also defied God's prophetic word to do so. Josiah totally failed to hear God's word at this point, both from the historical precedents and the explicit prophecy given to him. The valley of Megiddo, and mourning in it (<a href='B:140 35:24'>2Ch 35:24</a>), will have an equivalent in the latter days (<a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>). Josiah therefore seems to represent a disobedient Israel, who will be finally saved by grace as he was.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah- </p><p><a href='B:120 23:31'>2Ki 23:31</a> says that Jehoahaz was the son of Hamutal, whereas his brother Eliakim was the son of Zebudah (<a href='B:120 23:36'>2Ki 23:36</a>). So we see that Josiah practiced polygamy- another indication that he was not such a stellar example of spirituality, despite his works of obedience to the Mosaic law; see on :30 and <a href='B:140 35:19-20'>2Ch 35:19-20</a>. And the mothers of his sons are blamed in Ezekiel 19 for leading them into very bad behaviour, so these were not good women.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done- </p><p>It is possible that Josiah was spiritually sliding downwards in the last 13 years of his reign; see on :30 and <a href='B:140 35:19-20'>2Ch 35:19-20</a>. So the formative years of his sons may not have been spent under a good parental influence, which would explain their weakness and apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>Pharaoh Necoh put him in bonds at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to a tribute of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold- </p><p>He was "deposed at Jerusalem" (<a href='B:140 36:3'>2Ch 36:3</a>) but put in bonds at Riblah (<a href='B:120 23:33'>2Ki 23:33</a>), which was on the Orontes river on the road from Babylon to Palestine. This was the same place where Nebuchadnezzar was based during the destruction of Jerusalem, and where the captives were brought to him for judgment (<a href='B:120 25:20-21'>2Ki 25:20-21</a>). The parallel is to show how Judah were intended to learn from their sufferings at the hands of the Egyptians and to repent. But they didn't, and so the situation repeated with the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>Pharaoh Necoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim; but he took Jehoahaz away; and he came to Egypt, and died there- </p><p>"Eliakim" means "God will raise", alluding to their hope that <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a> would be fulfilled in him; and "Jehoiakim" means the same, only "Yah will raise". Perhaps the king made Eliakim swear by his God Jehovah, that he would be subservient to him. But it could be that the "Jeh" prefix meant something different to the Egyptians, and was effectively a sign of subservience to them; it may even refer to an Egyptian god. But see on :36. Joahaz died in Egypt as prophesied in <a href='B:300 22:12'>Jer 22:12</a>. Shallum in Jeremiah 22 is the same as Jehoahaz. Perhaps he is called Shallum because that word means 'The one marked out for judgment'. I explain on <a href='B:330 4:6'>Eze 4:6</a> that potentially, the captivity of Judah need only have lasted for 40 days or years, but this period was extended, just as it could have been reduced. But Jehoahaz was not going to experience this, he had precluded any reduction in his captivity period because of his impenitence at that time. <a href='B:300 22:11-12'>Jer 22:11-12</a> imply that the false prophets were claiming that his exile was going to be very short lived and he would return to establish a Messianic kingdom, thus twisting the prophecies of the restoration which Jeremiah may have already given, along with those of Isaiah which were already extant.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiakim gave silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh. He exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of each one according to his taxation, to give it to Pharaoh Necoh-</p><p>Jehoiakim raised the tribute for the Babylonians by imposing a poll tax on the people. And he succeeded in raising the money. Yet such a tax ought to have been paid to the temple, but Jehoiakim hadn't bothered doing that.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zebidah the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah- </p><p>The change from Eliakim to Jehoiakim (:34) is so similar that perhaps the change was just symbolic, to show Pharaoh's power over him; or maybe Jehoiakim was another name he already went under, or a name he himself suggested as an alternative.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done- </p><p><a href='B:300 22:13-18'>Jer 22:13-18</a> gives an example of the sins of Jehoiakim- he built an opulent home for himself and refused to pay the labourers for their work. He also murdered the prophet Urijah who spoke against him (<a href='B:300 26:20-23'>Jer 26:20-23</a>), and burnt the scroll of God's words and persecuted Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36).</p>


text:
<p>In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years, then rebelled against him-</p><p><a href='B:140 36:6'>2Ch 36:6</a> adds: "Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon". It may not have been Nebuchadnezzar in person. "To carry him to Babylon" means that was the intention, but it may not have happened. <a href='B:300 22:18-19'>Jer 22:18-19</a> says he was to be thrown out onto the garbage tip outside Jerusalem like a dead donkey. 2 Kings says that bands of the Babylonians attacked him at this time, and he may have been slain at this time:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, the Syrians, Moabites and of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke by His servants the prophets- </p><p><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a> had said that God's people would "perish [s:w. "destroy"] quickly from off the good land". But by grace, that didn't happen "quickly" at all. They were finally destroyed from off it (<a href='B:120 24:2'>2Ki 24:2</a> and often), but God did not bring that about quickly but after much patient pleading through the prophets. This is one of so many examples of where God simply did not punish His people to the extent He said He would; simply because of His grace and love toward them.</p>


text:
<p>Surely at the commandment of Yahweh came this on Judah, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did- </p><p>We can't be brethren in Christ who have no effect on the rest of the body. We all have an influence on others. Our behaviour, however passive, has a powerful effect on our brethren. We are all members of one body. Job pointed out that the words of another can assuage grief in a way that ones’ own self-talk simply cannot (<a href='B:220 16:5-6'>Job 16:5-6</a>). On the contrary, a whole community can be cursed for the sake of one man’s sin, even if he later repents (<a href='B:120 24:3-4'>2Ki 24:3-4</a>). The fact we can be guilty of causing others to stumble means that we can limit God's gracious plan for them. However, it is also true that God would not punish innocent people on the basis of guilt by association with a sinner. So we conclude that the "sins of Manasseh" were practiced from the heart by the people, and that was the basis of their condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>and also for the innocent blood that he shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which Yahweh would not pardon- </p><p>"Would not pardon" quotes from <a href='B:50 29:20'>Deu 29:20</a>, about the false teacher who is a root that bears gall, influencing others to idolatry: "Whose heart turns away this day from Yahweh our God, to go to serve the gods of those nations; lest there should be among you a root that bears gall and wormwood, who, when he hears the words of this curse blesses himself in his heart saying I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, to destroy the moist with the dry.</p><p>Yahweh will not pardon him, but then the anger of Yahweh and His jealousy will smoke against that man, and all the curse that is written in this book shall lie on him, and Yahweh will blot out his name from under the sky" (<a href='B:50 29:18-20'>Deu 29:18-20</a>). To&nbsp; presumptuously think that promised judgment will not come, to have a stubborn heart, is what God will not pardon. And this was the case with Jehoiakim.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>Not necessarily the same as the books of Chronicles we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Egypt didn’t come again out of his land any more; for the king of Babylon had taken, from the brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt-</p><p>This is mentioned to demonstrate the utter folly of later trusting in Egypt and breaking oaths to Babylon through alliances with Egypt. Egypt was weak, the world is weak, the arm of flesh is weak- and yet God's people always are tempted to trust in it.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem- </p><p>Three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>). And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p><p>"Nehushta" is a form of Nehushtan, 'the copper thing', a hint that his mother was an idolater.</p><p>We note that he was judged as a sinner at eighteen years old, for what he did over a 70 day period. We sometimes tend to excuse ourselves on the basis of only being products of our background. But eighteen year old Jehoiachin reigned a mere three months and ten days: and God's comment was that "he did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh". We could, of course, make the excuse that his surroundings, his immediate family, his peers... were all idolatrous. But Yahweh evidently didn't see this as any real excuse: he, at sweet eight years old, "did that which was evil" and was punished accordingly. Not only does this give an unusual insight into God's view of responsibility; but it shows that God expects even a young person to break away from background influences when they are evil. Chronicles says he was eight when he became king, not 18. Kings also gives "three months" rather than "three months and ten days", and it has been suggested that the "ten" has been misplaced by a copyist, explaining why 18 has been miscopied as 8.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his father had done-</p><p>See on :8. Jehoiachin is Jeconiah of <a href='B:130 3:16'>1Ch 3:16</a> who is Coniah in <a href='B:300 22:14'>Jer 22:14</a>, and Jehoiachin in <a href='B:140 36:8-9'>2Ch 36:8-9</a>. A reminder that people carried multiple names, explaining some of the apparent contradictions in the genealogies. Ezekiel 19 says that he was effectively made king by his ambitious mother, whose hope was to be the glorious queen mother, teaching her sons to be ambitious, aggressive lions to that end.</p>


text:
<p>At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged- </p><p>These servants were his senior military officers with their armies, as opposed to the marauding bands of :2.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to the city while his servants were besieging it- </p><p>This recalls how David came to Rabbah after it had been besieged for some time, so that he would have the honour of witnessing the surrender and taking the glory for the victory.</p>


text:
<p>and Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, his mother, his servants, his princes and his officers; and the king of Babylon took him prisoner-</p><p>His mother is mentioned because according to Ezekiel 19, she was the one driving him to independence from Babylon because she was so bent on having the glory of being queen mother for herself.</p><p>In the eighth year of his reign- </p><p>That is, of Nebuchadnezzar.</p>


text:
<p>He carried out from there all the treasures of the house of Yahweh and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold, which Solomon king of Israel had made in Yahweh’s temple- </p><p>Some had already been taken at the time of Jehoiakim (<a href='B:140 36:7'>2Ch 36:7</a>). The various stages of the exiles and taking away of the vessels were surely because God was desperately hoping that there would be repentance in response to each stage. But there was not.</p><p>As Yahweh had said- </p><p>Thus fulfilling <a href='B:120 20:17'>2Ki 20:17</a>; <a href='B:300 15:13'>Jer 15:13</a>; <a href='B:300 17:3'>Jer 17:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He carried away all Jerusalem, all the princes and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and the smiths; none remained, except the poorest sort of the people of the land- </p><p>It was to these captives that Jeremiah wrote his letter of <a href='B:300 29:1-23'>Jer 29:1-23</a>. Jeremiah explained that actually these who went into captivity in Babylon could become "good figs" if they repented there (Jeremiah 24).</p>


text:
<p>He carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; and the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officers and the chief men of the land, he carried into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon- </p><p>Ezekiel went into captivity at this time (<a href='B:330 1:2-3'>Eze 1:2-3</a>), so it seems he was a priest of some standing, or from a senior family.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of might, even seven thousand, and the craftsmen and the smiths one thousand, all of them strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon- </p><p>Although it was the wealthier who were taken into captivity and those who "had nothing" and posed no threat who were left (<a href='B:300 39:10'>Jer 39:10</a>), it seems from <a href='B:300 24:1-10'>Jer 24:1-10</a> that these were the "good figs", the spiritually stronger than the "bad figs" who remained. So we see that spirituality and poverty do not always go together, for poverty so easily distracts from spiritual focus. And although it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom, some do.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s father’s brother, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah-</p><p>Nebuchadnezzar changed the name Mattaniah, 'gift of Yah', to "Zedekiah", 'Yah is right / just'. Perhaps even Nebuchadnezzar perceived that Yahweh was judging Judah justly. But "Zedekiah" is also "Yahweh our righteousness", but his birth name was Mattaniah (<a href='B:120 24:17'>2Ki 24:17</a>). We wonder if this was a pre existing name given him by Josiah, and that Josiah named him this in keeping with his vision of reestablishing the Kingdom of God, based around a united Israel and Judah centered around worshipping Yahweh. For this is the term associated with king of the restored kingdom in <a href='B:300 23:6'>Jer 23:6</a>; <a href='B:300 33:16'>Jer 33:16</a>; <a href='B:300 51:10'>Jer 51:10</a>. But he again was a case of wasted potential.</p>


text:
<p>Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah- </p><p>Hamutal his mother is severely criticized in Ezekiel 19 as an ambitious, aggressive and scheming mother lion who set up her young lion sons for destruction by wanting them to be kings. Instead they needed to heed Jeremiah's message and humble themselves before Babylon, realizing they had sinned, rather than trying to break away from Babylon to achieve the independent kingship their mother was so obsessed with.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that Jehoiakim had done- </p><p><a href='B:140 36:12'>2Ch 36:12</a> explains more: "He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh his God; he didn’t humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking the words of Yahweh". The prophets "spoke from the mouth of Yahweh" Himself; and yet the people scoffed at them (<a href='B:140 36:12'>2Ch 36:12</a>; <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a> RV). The power of inspiration was and is so great; and to not heed God's word is therefore a personal affront to Him. And those words have been recorded. When we read His word, we hear His voice. <a href='B:110 13:21'>1Ki 13:21</a> speaks of us hearing "the mouth of God". Jeremiah spoke "from the mouth of the Lord". His word brings Him that near to us, if we will perceive it for what it is. Jeremiah's appeals for Zedekiah to submit to Babylon were repeated so often (<a href='B:300 21:1-7'>Jer 21:1-7</a>; <a href='B:300 34:8-22'>Jer 34:8-22</a>; <a href='B:300 37:1-10'>Jer 37:1-10</a>; <a href='B:300 37:17'>Jer 37:17</a>; <a href='B:300 38:17-23'>Jer 38:17-23</a>).</p><p>And yet we wonder whether Zedekiah may have finally repented. For <a href='B:330 21:14'>Eze 21:14</a> speaks of Zedekiah as "the deadly wounded", likewise "You, deadly wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose day has come" (<a href='B:330 21:25'>Eze 21:25</a>). The intention was that Zedekiah would die by the sword, but in fact he didn't. He was blinded, but died peacefully in prison (<a href='B:300 52:11'>Jer 52:11</a>). The wound that ought to have been unto death was in fact not unto death- because God wanted him to be moved by His grace to repent. And the change of judgment upon him would suggest to me that he did repent. See on <a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>.</p><p>The implication is that he was intended to have learnt from the fate of Jehoiakim his half brother, but instead he acted just the same. God also brings people into our lives so that we might learn from their life path and destiny. We never specifically read of Zedekiah worshipping idols, and he hardly comes over as the worst of Judah's kings, but his "evil" was in the weakness of character which he displayed when faced with God's demand for him to submit to Nebuchadnezzar.</p>


text:
<p>For through the anger of Yahweh, it happened in Jerusalem and Judah, until He had cast them out from His presence- </p><p>Zedekiah's rebellion was purely of his own device. But he is described here as rebelling "through the anger of Yahweh"; God intended to pour out His wrath, and so His hand was in the rebellion of Zedekiah, using that man's freewill decisions although through Jeremiah pleading with him not to go that way. We marvel at the perfect balance and intimate involvement in the psychology and decision making of people.</p><p>That Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon- </p><p><a href='B:140 36:13'>2Ch 36:13</a> adds that "He also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart against turning to Yahweh". Turning to Yahweh with a soft heart therefore involved his accepting that Judah had sinned, and therefore their servitude to Babylon was the appropriate punishment. But egged on by his mother (see on <a href='B:140 36:11'>2Ch 36:11</a>), Zedekiah broke his oath to Nebuchadnezzar, which he had made in the name of Yahweh. He thus despised the Name. The parable of <a href='B:330 17:12-20'>Eze 17:12-20</a> clearly condemns him for doing this (also <a href='B:330 21:25'>Eze 21:25</a>). <a href='B:330 17:14'>Eze 17:14</a> explains the intention of God in all this: "That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping his covenant it might stand". The idea may be that it was God's plan that through keeping the covenant, the royal family and leadership would be humbled, and this would bring about God's favourite paradox- the brought down could then be exalted, "that... it might stand". See on <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>. But they refused to repent, to be humbled, to be ashamed, and instead sought to wriggle out of the covenant by making agreements with Egypt to attack the Babylonian forces, liberate Jerusalem and perhaps later themselves from Babylon itself. Yet all these things had been explicitly promised to Judah; God would do all these things, if they repented. But instead of doing so, they sought by all manner of desperate means to bring about this liberation in the strength of Egypt. This is so typical of human behaviour. It is for us to learn the lesson.</p><p><a href='B:330 17:15'>Eze 17:15</a> commented: "Shall he who does such things escape? Shall he break the covenant, and yet escape?". This is the language of Judah breaking covenant with God, just used in <a href='B:330 16:59'>Eze 16:59</a>. God had designed the covenant between Zedekiah and the Babylonians, for the spiritual growth and repentance of the Jews. To break it was therefore to effectively break covenant with God. Or we could instead perceive that covenant breaking with God is reflected in covenant breaking with men. Our attitude to God becomes our attitude to men. Hence <a href='B:330 17:19'>Eze 17:19</a> specifically states: "Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: As I live, surely My oath that he has despised, and My covenant that he has broken, I will even bring it on his own head". Judah were light hearted in their attitude to everything; they "gave the hand" in covenant (<a href='B:330 17:18'>Eze 17:18</a>) in order just to get "bread" (<a href='B:310 5:6'>Lam 5:6</a>). They were in need, and instead of turning to God in repentance, they madly made promises of total loyalty to various peoples and their gods. It is this light hearted, not serious attitude, seeking for the immediate for the total sacrifice of principle, which dominates our age today.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and encamped against it; and they built forts against it around it-</p><p>These forts had been portrayed and 'built' by Ezekiel when he drew them upon a tile in an acted parable (<a href='B:330 4:1-3'>Eze 4:1-3</a>). Had the earlier exiles in Babylon repented, then this would not have happened. Likewise if Zedekiah had repented, it would not have happened. We see here how God doesn't just let things happen in a disinterested way, allowing natural forces to take their course. What happened was so avoidable; Zedekiah's weakness could have been cancelled out, as it were, by the repentance of the exiles with Ezekiel. And their refusal to repent could have been cancelled out by Zedekiah's repentance. Or if both of these elements failed, had the wealthy rulers of Jerusalem really let their slaves go free and not re-enslaved them, the siege could have been lifted. And there were other such factors and potential possibilities. Stubborn, proud refusal to bow our heads in repentance precludes so much from happening, and allows so much judgment to come which could have been averted.</p>


text:
<p>So the city was captured, by the eleventh year of king Zedekiah- </p><p>Literally, was entered. But “I will not enter into the city” (<a href='B:350 11:9'>Hos 11:9</a>). But the enemies of Israel, manifesting God’s judgments, did enter into the city. The Hebrew words for “enter” and “city” occur together in several passages describing this (<a href='B:120 25:2'>2Ki 25:2</a>; <a href='B:300 32:24'>Jer 32:24</a>; <a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a>; <a href='B:300 44:2'>Jer 44:2</a>; <a href='B:300 52:5'>Jer 52:5</a>; <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>; <a href='B:360 2:9'>Joe 2:9</a>). The promise that they would not was surely uttered in emotional passion; or at best it was conditional. <a href='B:300 39:1-2'>Jer 39:1-2</a> allows us to conclude that the city was besieged for exactly 18 months.</p>


text:
<p>On the ninth day of the fourth month the famine was severe in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land- </p><p>Jeremiah had earlier prophesied that many would die from famine and plague during the siege. It was by special grace that Jeremiah in prison was given bread right up to the day that Jerusalem fell.</p>


text:
<p>Then a breach was made in the city- </p><p>The Babylonians made a breach in the wall to the north, from where the cherubim had left and would return. But Zedekiah tried to escape by digging a hole in the southern wall (<a href='B:330 12:12'>Eze 12:12</a>). He did to the city what the Babylonians did. This "breach" is the same word used for the breaking up of things at the time of the flood (<a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a>), a well established foretaste of the destruction of Jerusalem by the flood waters of the Babylonians, albeit with the promise of a new creation coming as a result of it.</p><p>And all the men of war fled by night- </p><p><a href='B:300 52:7'>Jer 52:7</a> says that they "went out by night". "Went out" is the language of Judas going out (<a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a>), Cain '"went out" (<a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a>), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (<a href='B:300 39:4'>Jer 39:4</a>; <a href='B:300 52:7'>Jer 52:7</a>). Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing his righteousness and his own carnality (<a href='B:10 36:2-8'>Gen 36:2-8</a>). Even in this life, those who leave the ecclesia 'go out' after the pattern of Judas, who also went out at night, condemning themselves in advance of the judgment by their attitude to the ecclesia (<a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a> cp. <a href='B:510 15:24'>Act 15:24</a>). The unrighteous flee from God now, as they will then (<a href='B:350 7:13'>Hos 7:13</a>). Zedekiah's experience of condemnation is presented as typical of every man condemned at the last day.</p><p>By the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden (now the Chaldeans were against the city around it)- </p><p>It seems Zedekiah had taken refuge in the temple. From there, he saw the princes of Babylon who had breached the northern wall and were now at the temple gate (<a href='B:300 39:3'>Jer 39:3</a>). And so they fled by "the king's garden", which was his own private entrance to the temple, and then came to the double walls of the southern perimeter of the city. Zedekiah himself dug through those walls, the strongest point of his defence and human strength (<a href='B:330 12:12'>Eze 12:12</a>). He was being taught that all human defence, and the physical temple, was not going to save him.</p><p>And the king went by the way of the Arabah- </p><p>The chalky depression into which the river Jordan ran.</p>


text:
<p>But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him- </p><p>The allusion is to how an Israel who broke covenant with their God would surely be overtaken by curses and judgment (<a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>). As his pursuers closed the distance between them and him, with him unable to gather more speed nor find a suitable place to run, now completely alone and without his bodyguards, he was a living exemplification of how Divine judgment will catch up with every man. He would then have dearly wished he had had the humility to listen to Jeremiah's pleas for repentance and submission. And he there was and is the exemplification of every man condemned before God.</p><p>The grace of Jesus framed the parable of the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho in terms of Zedekiah's flight from Jerusalem (<a href='B:120 25:4'>2Ki 25:4</a>); a man who had repeatedly spurned the offers God made to him&nbsp; through Jeremiah, and who was attacked on that road by the Babylonians (cp. the robbers):&nbsp; Yet the parable shows that Christ will graciously save even a man like that; for according to the parable, Zedekiah represents every one of us.</p>


text:
<p>Then they took the king, and carried him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment on him- </p><p>Zedekiah fled, was overtaken, wept (<a href='B:330 7:27'>Eze 7:27</a>), judgment was given upon him (<a href='B:300 52:9'>Jer 52:9</a>), he was punished in the presence of the king (<a href='B:300 52:10'>Jer 52:10</a>), cast into prison (<a href='B:300 52:11'>Jer 52:11</a> cp. <a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a>). He had his judgment in this life; and perhaps he may yet therefore be saved in the last day, seeing he apparently repented (see on :7; <a href='B:120 24:19'>2Ki 24:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon- </p><p>We wonder why Zedekiah was spared but his sons were not. I will suggest on <a href='B:120 24:19'>2Ki 24:19</a> that he later repented, even though he refused to repent and humble himself before God's word when he ought to have done. His sons presumably were foreknown that they would not repent, and so they were slain. Perhaps seeing their deaths made Zedekiah realize that they were dying because he had not repented when he ought to have done; for it was his lack of repentance earlier which, he was told, would bring about the death of women and children. We may just possibly have some window here onto the terrible problem of the death of children.</p><p><a href='B:300 52:11'>Jer 52:11</a> says that he was imprisoned, LXX "in the mill", as if he was in hard labour, now blinded, exactly like Samson (<a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>), and as the young men were made to (<a href='B:310 5:13'>Lam 5:13</a>). And the similarities continued, in that it seems Zedekiah likewise did finally repent. <a href='B:300 21:7'>Jer 21:7</a>; <a href='B:300 27:13'>Jer 27:13</a> had prophesied that Zedekiah would be slain by the sword of Nebuchadnezzar when Jerusalem fell. But Zedekiah wasn't slain by Nebuchadnezzar, but rather died in captivity. Perhaps he repented; or God chose to work out another path of judgment with Zedekiah which would achieve more glory for Him and His objectives than simply having him slain by the sword. The statement in <a href='B:300 21:7'>Jer 21:7</a> that Nebuchadnezzar would not show him "pity nor have mercy" and not spare him was therefore not fulfilled; because he was reflecting the God who had also said He would not spare or pity, but yet He did:&nbsp;I explained on <a href='B:300 34:5'>Jer 34:5</a>&nbsp;that Zedekiah died "in peace", peace with God, and the threatened judgments upon him weren't completely carried out- presumably because he did finally repent. If we are to finally repent, then let us repent now before suffering comes upon us to elicit that repentance.</p><p>The intensity of Samson's repentance was quite something. It must have inspired Manasseh (<a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a>), who like Samson was bound (<a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>) and humbled (<a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a>; <a href='B:70 16:19'>Jdg 16:19</a> AVmg:)- and then repented with a like intensity. And Zedekiah went through the same basic experience, of capture by his enemies, having his eyes put out, his capture attributed to false gods; and he likewise repented (<a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, to Jerusalem- </p><p><a href='B:300 52:12'>Jer 52:12</a> says "in the tenth day of the month". It could be that he arrived on the seventh day, and burnt the houses and temple (:9) on the tenth day. I suggested on <a href='B:300 52:1'>Jer 52:1</a> that the Kings record was as it were copied and pasted into the appendix to Jeremiah which we have in Jeremiah 52, so we could have here a simple error in copying.</p>


text:
<p>He burnt the house of Yahweh and the king’s house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great house, burnt he with fire- </p><p>Jeremiah earlier criticized the building of these great houses on the walls of Jerusalem- for they were built on the back of abusing the poor for material and labour. They were finally torn down by the Babylonians, but even before that, the owners themselves broke them down and the materials were used to shore up the breaches in the city walls (<a href='B:300 33:4'>Jer 33:4</a>). Likewise there are foretastes of judgment ahead of time in the lives of all God's people.</p><p>Jerusalem was threatened with the eternal fire of God’s anger, due to the sins of Israel: “Then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched” (<a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a>). Jerusalem being the prophesied capital of the future Kingdom (<a href='B:290 2:2-4'>Isa 2:2-4</a>; <a href='B:230 48:2'>Psa 48:2</a>), God did not mean us to read this literally. The houses of the great men in Jerusalem were burnt down with fire (<a href='B:120 25:9'>2Ki 25:9</a>), but that fire did not continue eternally. Fire represents the anger/punishment of God against sin, but His anger is not eternal (<a href='B:300 3:12'>Jer 3:12</a>). Fire turns what it burns to dust; and we know that the ultimate wages of sin is death, a turning back to dust. This perhaps is why fire is used as a figure for punishment for sin.</p>


text:
<p>All the army of the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down the walls around Jerusalem- </p><p>We note in the prophecies of Jeremiah 50 and Jeremiah 51 a special emphasis upon the breaking down of the walls of Babylon because of what they had done to Jerusalem, i:e. breaking down her walls. But we also observed on <a href='B:300 51:44'>Jer 51:44</a> that when the Medes took Babylon, the walls weren't broken down, and in fact they were only broken down bit by bit over the course of many years. So the main fulfilment of this must yet be future. Vengeance or "recompense" was not fully taken by God upon Babylon for what they did to Israel because Israel had not repented, recognizing that actually those judgments had been rightfully deserved by their gross sins.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive the residue of the people who were left in the city, and those who fell away, who fell to the king of Babylon, and the remainder of the multitude of the people- </p><p>Or as AVmg. "residue of the artificers" or workmen. I suggested elsewhere that these may have been those skilled in building the defences; or it could refer to those who were the makers of idols. See on <a href='B:300 10:18'>Jer 10:18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But the captain of the guard left some of the poorest of the land to work the vineyards and fields- </p><p>This was probably the majority of the population. The Babylonians, unlike the Assyrians, didn't practice mass deportations. They removed the leadership of subjected peoples, and appointed locals as the leaders under their control. This is what they did to Judah, taking the royal family and priesthood into captivity, and establishing Gedaliah as puppet governor (<a href='B:300 40:7'>Jer 40:7</a>; <a href='B:120 25:2'>2Ki 25:2</a>) along with some local Jewish "elders" (<a href='B:310 5:12'>Lam 5:12</a>), with Mizpeh rather than Jerusalem as the capital:&nbsp; <a href='B:150 9:7'>Ezr 9:7</a> is clear that it was "our kings and our priests [who] have been delivered" into captivity. The Babylonians saw no economic purpose in bringing masses of unskilled peasant farmers into captivity in their cities. It's been estimated that at least 90% of Judah were peasant farmers; and these, the impoverished masses, were left in the land and not deported (<a href='B:300 52:16'>Jer 52:16</a>; <a href='B:120 25:12'>2Ki 25:12</a>). See on <a href='B:330 11:15'>Eze 11:15</a>. The Babylonian policy regarding deportation and management of conquered lands is described in N:P. Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988) and D:L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, IN: Meyer Stone, 1989). God did not therefore scatter all the people quite as He intended. There is archaeological evidence for continued agricultural activity in the land after the deportations. And <a href='B:300 41:5'>Jer 41:5</a> seems to speak of men coming to the Jerusalem temple from Shechem and Shiloh, in the ten tribe area, in order to offer grain offerings at the site of the temple. Presumably the altar had been destroyed, hence no animal sacrifices are mentioned. It has been suggested that the book of Lamentations was written as part of a temple ritual or at least material to be recited at the site of the temple. See on <a href='B:300 12:4'>Jer 12:4</a>; <a href='B:300 13:19'>Jer 13:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The Chaldeans broke up the pillars of brass that were in the house of Yahweh and the bases and the bronze sea that were in the house of Yahweh, and carried the brass pieces to Babylon- </p><p>The breaking in pieces was likely for ease of transportation. But it also symbolized the ending of the temple system. Israel had broken the covenant, and the only way back to God was to be through repentantly accepting His new covenant, as explained on Jeremiah 31.</p>


text:
<p>They took away the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the spoons, and all the vessels of brass with which they ministered- </p><p>These things were kept in Babylon and then sent back with the exiles, by the special decree of Cyrus. The new covenant offered to Israel at the time in Jeremiah 31 was not a repeat of the law of Moses, but it did include similar rituals. The worship system of Ezekiel 40-48 was command more than prediction, and it utilized these vessels.</p>


text:
<p>The captain of the guard took away the fire pans, the basins, whatever was of gold, and of silver- </p><p>We get the impression that an orderly inventory was kept, with the vessels divided up according to their metal. David's obsession with building the temple which God never wanted was so great, that he calculated the exact weight of gold for each vessel (<a href='B:130 28:14'>1Ch 28:14</a>). Even though this was not specified in the commands for building the tabernacle. <a href='B:110 7:47'>1Ki 7:47</a> implies Solomon tried to calculate the total weight of all the vessels once they had been made, but the inventory was so huge that he left off. Yet so many vessels were not required by the tabernacle service. This was a completely different, grandiose religious system of David's own device; and in the end, all these vessels of mere religion were taken off into captivity (<a href='B:120 25:14-16'>2Ki 25:14-16</a> emphasizes this).</p>


text:
<p>The two pillars, the one sea and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of Yahweh, the brass of all these things was without weight- </p><p>Although as noted on :17, the gold and silver was apparently weighed, and the bronze pillars measured.</p>


text:
<p>The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and a capital of brass was on it; and the height of the capital was three cubits, with network and pomegranates on the capital around it, all of brass, similarly the second pillar with its network- </p><p>The capitals were placed on the tops of the pillars (as in <a href='B:110 7:16'>1Ki 7:16</a>). "Tops" is "heads", and the Hebrew for "capitals" suggests "crown". The height of the capitals is given as three cubits in <a href='B:120 25:17'>2Ki 25:17</a>, but five cubits in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a>. The difference would be whether the crowns ["capitals"] were measured to the peak of the highest spike of the crown, or the top of the rim of the crown. But the idea is that everywhere in his house, Solomon had been glorifying his own kingship; forgetting that it was by grace, and conditional upon his obedience.</p>


text:
<p>The captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest-</p><p>An ancestor of Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:1'>Ezr 7:1</a>).</p><p>And Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the threshold- </p><p>The Zephaniah of <a href='B:300 21:1'>Jer 21:1</a> who refused to heed God's word and was associated with persecuting Jeremiah for speaking it (<a href='B:300 29:25'>Jer 29:25</a>; <a href='B:300 29:29'>Jer 29:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and out of the city he took an officer who was set over the men of war; and five men of those who saw the king’s face, who were found in the city; and the scribe, the captain of the army, who mustered the people of the land; and sixty men of the people of the land, who were found in the city- </p><p>Seven men in <a href='B:300 52:25'>Jer 52:25</a>. 'The seven who saw the king's face' was likely a technical term for his immediate courtiers or politburo, although they may have only numbered five men. The sixty men were surely not arbitrarily chosen, but were likely the priests in the temple "in the midst of the city", perhaps those whom Ezekiel had seen offering incense to the sun god in the temple precincts.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took them, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah- </p><p>They were obviously seen as representative of the civil and religious leadership of Judah. It was deemed that they needed to be killed so that there was no leadership left; but this then makes it all the more amazing that Zedekiah was not killed as God had said he would be. It would seem that he was the logical one to die. We recall how when the Medes took Babylon, there was little bloodshed but king Belshazzar was slain. All this was to highlight to Zedekiah the amazing grace of his survival, and it seemed he did respond in repentance (see on :7).</p>


text:
<p>The king of Babylon struck them, and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away captive out of his land-</p><p>See on :20. I noted on&nbsp;:12 that perhaps the majority of Judah remained in the land. For most of the population were the poor masses. But the exile and destruction of the leadership is seen as "Judah" being carried away captive. But perhaps the phrase is used in order to connect with the description of the ten tribe kingdom being carried away captive out of his land (<a href='B:370 7:11'>Amo 7:11</a>; <a href='B:370 7:17'>Amo 7:17</a>; <a href='B:120 17:23'>2Ki 17:23</a>). It was as if to put a final end to Judah's supposition that was somehow morally better than Israel. They shared an identical judgment.</p><p>Jehoahaz had been "deposed at Jerusalem" by Pharaoh Neco (<a href='B:140 36:3'>2Ch 36:3</a>) but put in bonds by him at Riblah (<a href='B:120 23:33'>2Ki 23:33</a>), which was on the Orontes river on the road from Babylon to Palestine. This was the same place where Nebuchadnezzar was based during the destruction of Jerusalem, and where the captives were brought to him for judgment (<a href='B:120 25:20-21'>2Ki 25:20-21</a>). The parallel is to show how Judah were intended to learn from their sufferings at the hands of the Egyptians and to repent. But they didn't, and so the situation repeated with the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>As for the people who were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, governor-</p><p>I suggested on :12 that the numbers remaining in the land were relatively large. Ahikam, Gedaliah's father, had saved Jeremiah's life (<a href='B:300 26:24'>Jer 26:24</a>). Jeremiah initially lived with Gedaliah once he became governor (<a href='B:300 40:6'>Jer 40:6</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now when all the captains of the bands of soldiers, they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, they came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of the Maacathite, they and their men- </p><p>Ishmael was later to murder Gedaliah, considering that he was the rightful king of Judah. It seems he had taken refuge with Baalis king of the Ammonites during the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:300 40:14'>Jer 40:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Gedaliah swore to them and to their men and said to them, Don’t be afraid because of the servants of the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you- </p><p>Gedaliah was advocating the earlier appeal of Jeremiah; if the people accepted they had sinned and willingly accepted the judgment for it, servitude of their enemies, then all would be well for them. They were not to fear the Babylonians; “because of the servants of the Chaldeans”, referring to the various Babylonian garrisons now stationed throughout the land. "Amend" in the earlier appeals for repentance (e.g. <a href='B:300 7:5'>Jer 7:5</a>) is the word here translated 'to do well to'. If they amended their ways, God would amend or change His plans of judgment. Here we behold the openness of God, His deep sensitivity to human repentance and change.</p>


text:
<p>But it happened in the seventh month- </p><p>Three months after the capture and two after the burning of the city.</p><p>That Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal seed, came with ten men and struck Gedaliah so that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldeans that were with him at Mizpah- </p><p>Ishmael was from the royal family, and therefore assumed that he ought to be the rightful ruler of Judah rather than Gedaliah, who was but a willing puppet of Babylon. But it was not then the time to restore the Kingdom and throne of David, and certainly not in the form of someone as deceitful as Ishmael. Ishmael clearly disbelieved the prophecies concerning the ending of the royal family. Perhaps Gedaliah's willing naivety about Ishmael in <a href='B:300 40:16'>Jer 40:16</a> was because he could not entertain any plan to slay a member of the royal family, remembering David's attitude to Saul.</p><p>They failed to accept that Nebuchadnezzar was Yahweh's servant, doing His will, and therefore the appointment of Gedaliah was also sanctioned by God. Perhaps their game plan was that Baalis of Ammon would take over Judah, and Ishmael would be made the ruler (<a href='B:300 40:14'>Jer 40:14</a>). People will commit murder and any manner of sin for the sake of dreams of power. If Ishmael truly wished to do the best for Judah by becoming their ruler, he surely would not have killed his fellow Jews. But he did so because he was working for the king of Ammon and was following his agenda, in hope of personal benefit and power thereby.</p>


text:
<p>All the people, both small and great, and the captains of the forces, arose and came to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans-</p><p>They ought not to have even though of going into Egypt, but should have trusted Yahweh's further grace to be shown to them, despite the foolish provocation of the Babylonians by Ishmael; see on <a href='B:300 42:2'>Jer 42:2</a>; <a href='B:300 42:12'>Jer 42:12</a>. Jeremiah was to assure them that in fact God's grace would continue to them through the grace of Nebuchadnezzar; he would not take revenge by slaying all Judah as they feared (<a href='B:300 42:12'>Jer 42:12</a>). Fear is so often based upon lack of faith; and such fear can become gripping and all consuming. This fear of certain revenge proving unfounded, by God's grace, is what Jacob learnt after his sons pillaged Shechem. The surrounding tribes did not attack and destroy him, as he had thought would inevitably follow. The people went to Egypt, despite Jeremiah pleading with them to believe God's grace and remain in His land. He warned them that if they went to Egypt, they would go there to their condemnation. But they insisted on going there.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison- </p><p>Lifting up the head out of prison recalls Joseph (<a href='B:10 40:13'>Gen 40:13</a>; <a href='B:10 40:20'>Gen 40:20</a>); for the similarities with Joseph, see on :29.</p>


text:
<p>He spoke kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon- </p><p>There is no reason given for this amazing grace toward Jehoiachin, who would have been considered the legitimate king of Judah. The lack of explanation is perhaps to simply highlight that it was indeed pure grace. He may well have repented, but that is not mentioned. We get the impression that God pitied His people in their well deserved captivity- simply because He so loved them.</p>


text:
<p>and changed his prison garments. Jehoiachin ate bread before him continually all the days of his life- </p><p>See on :30. The change of garments by the king would have recalled the experience of Joseph in <a href='B:10 41:14'>Gen 41:14</a>. But Jehoiachin had not had the spirituality of Joseph, and he would have reflected upon that truth; and thereby perceived yet more the huge grace being shown him. We too may experience blessings which we are totally unworthy of, just so that we bow our heads in marvel at God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>For his allowance, there was a continual allowance given him of the king, every day a portion, all the days of his life- </p><p>Reflect how Daniel refused to eat the food sent to him from the King of Babylon; but God arranged for this very thing to be sent to Jehoiachin as a sign of His recognition of his repentance (<a href='B:300 52:34'>Jer 52:34</a>)! God saw that Jehoiachin wasn't on Daniel's level, and yet He worked with him on his lower level.</p><p>Ezekiel had prophesied that those who survived the famine and invasion of Judah would go into captivity, "and I will draw out a sword after them" (<a href='B:330 5:2'>Eze 5:2</a>; <a href='B:330 5:12'>Eze 5:12</a>). We would expect from this that the exiles would be persecuted and slain in captivity, and this surely was God's intended judgment. But in Esther we find the exiles in prosperity, in positions of power, and respected by their captors; and Jeremiah concludes his long prophecy with the information that Jehoiachin, Judah's exiled King, was exalted "above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon" and he was given special favour and honour by the King of Babylon (<a href='B:300 52:31-34'>Jer 52:31-34</a>). I can only understand these things as pure grace. God showed tenderness and favour to His people in captivity, far above what He had intended or what they deserved. And He does the same with us- He gives us so much more than we deserve. And yet most of Judah abused that grace; they were so taken up with the good life God gave them in captivity that they chose to remain there and not participate in the restoration. And we so easily can end up abusing His grace likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Adam, Seth, Enosh- </p><p>We have to ask why these genealogies were prepared. It is quite likely that they were first formalized in the time of Hezekiah, but I would suggest that they were completed at the time of the restoration, when there was a problem in finding a High Priest and priesthood because it was hard to prove who was descended from Aaron, presumably because the genealogies were destroyed when the temple was burnt. The genealogies give much emphasis to the descendants of Aaron, far more than to the other tribes. There are a number of references to faithless men being punished by invasions (e.g. <a href='B:130 5:6'>1Ch 5:6</a>). Ezra 8 contains a genealogy recorded in similar style and language to these in Chronicles. Nehemiah made a special study of the genealogies in order to find an acceptable priesthood (<a href='B:160 7:5'>Neh 7:5</a>; <a href='B:160 7:64'>Neh 7:64</a>). So there were Israel returning from captivity, led by a faithful remnant of the priests, looking back through their history, right back to Abraham and beyond, and seeing that their history was shot through with failure. Such self-examination extended even to considering the names parents gave their children. Marriage out of the faith was a problem at the time of the restoration, and therefore the records of the genealogies stress how this had been a problem in the past- and had still not been forgotten by God (<a href='B:150 9:1-2'>Ezr 9:1-2</a>). The prophets foretold that Israel's restoration would only come once they achieved a suitable recognition of their sinfulness. And Isaiah's prophecies of the restoration from Babylon are without doubt applicable to the establishment of the Kingdom at Christ's return; which means that Israel at the time of the restoration should represent us now, on the brink of the second coming and the full re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom. The coming of that blessed time may well be dependent upon our self-examination, to the point of really taking a breath when we realize the extent of our personal and collective shortcomings all down the years. The priests who wrote those records in Chronicles were writing down the result of their national self-examination. This was the record of their lessons from Chronicles. Each of the genealogies say something about the people they are concerned with; and thus <a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a> RVmg. speaks of how the acts of Rehoboam are reflected in the reckoning of the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>Kenan- </p><p>Perhaps this was from whom the faithful Heber the Kenite was descended (<a href='B:70 4:11'>Jdg 4:11</a>; <a href='B:70 4:17'>Jdg 4:17</a>; <a href='B:70 5:24'>Jdg 5:24</a>).</p><p>Mahalalel, Jared- </p><p>Mahalalel is "Praise of God". It's questionable how much significance we should attach to the meaning of names; but this meaning would encourage us to again see some spirituality in the line of Seth:&nbsp; Jared had a child somewhat later in life (<a href='B:10 5:18'>Gen 5:18</a>). Perhaps this reflects a lengthy search for a Godly wife; or perhaps his earlier children were spiritual failures and weren't therefore the ones through whom the seed was to be preserved.</p>


text:
<p>Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech- </p><p>Adam Clarke and others see "Methuselah" as meaning something to the effect of "When he dies, it [or judgment] shall come". And he died in the year the flood came. <a href='B:720 1:14'>Jud 1:14</a> mentions that Enoch prophesied of judgment to come upon the world of his day. This would suggest that there had been a revelation about the flood before Noah received the command to build the ark. He would've obeyed, encouraged by Methuselah. The threat of judgment was therefore hanging over the earth for many centuries before the flood came; they were a society without excuse, and the gradual falling away of the faithful until only Noah was left would've been an awful period to live through. And the days of Noah are as our last days.</p><p>We wonder why Lamech was not saved in the ark, and why he died relatively young (<a href='B:10 5:26'>Gen 5:26</a>). We can assume that he fell away from the faith, whilst his father and son [Noah] remained faithful. To hold to the faith amidst such mass apostacy, including amongst your immediate family, is notable indeed. Or it could simply be that he died younger than the others because of persecution or natural causes.</p>&nbsp;<p>Another alternative is that we are to understand 'comfort' in <a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a> as only one possible translation; the idea could be that Lamech hoped that his son Noah would be the one who would bring about repentance / changing in God regarding the curse upon the earth. In this case, we see Lamech hoping that this son of his would be the promised "seed of the woman" of <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>, a Messiah figure. However, the Lamech of <a href='B:10 5:28'>Gen 5:28</a> may well be the Lamech of <a href='B:10 4:18-22'>Gen 4:18-22</a>; both Lamechs are described as having Methuselah as their father. As often in early Genesis, this would be a case of one history being recorded in one chapter and then another one in the next- as with the two creation accounts in Genesis 1, 2. In this case, if Lamech is the same Lamech, then Noah had very gifted and high flying siblings. His brother Jabal was the leader of the cattle owners (<a href='B:10 4:20'>Gen 4:20</a>); his brother Jubal was the leading musician of the age (<a href='B:10 4:21'>Gen 4:21</a>); Tubalcain his other brother was the leader of all the metalworkers. Lamech was the first polygamist, who killed a young man for a slight insult and boasted about it; and whose wife Adah means 'decorated / adorned'. These were people of the world. And Noah was the sidekick brother who was to do all the menial farm work so the rest of them could pursue their careers and social lives. Against this of course it can be argued that there are differences in the genealogies of Genesis chapters 4 and 5. However, in the context, <a href='B:10 6:1-4'>Gen 6:1-4</a> describes how the lines of Seth and Cain intermarried [the sons of God married the daughters of men] and it could be argued that the genealogies we have aren't complete, generations are skipped, and 'having a son' could be understood in a wider sense than referring to a son directly fathered by the person concerned. 'Lamech' in Hebrew is comprised of the three central letters of the Hebrew alphabet and it could be argued that this reflects his 'joining' function [as it does in other Semitic literature], in joining the Sethite and Cainite lines together. The resemblances between the six names in <a href='B:10 4:17-18'>Gen 4:17-18</a> with six in chapter 5 is striking, and they both culminate in Lamech, as if he was the one in whom the lines mixed. Interestingly, Lamech in <a href='B:10 4:24'>Gen 4:24</a> speaks of 77 fold vengeance coming upon him; and the Lamech of <a href='B:10 5:30'>Gen 5:30</a> [the same Lamech?] dies at 777 years old. It also needs to be carried in mind that Semitic 'genealogies' aren't always chronological; they are constructed in order to make various points or develop themes, as in the genealogies of the Lord in Matthew and Luke.</p>


text:
<p>Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth- </p><p>Did Noah's parents expect Noah to be the child who would do all the hard menial work for them, so that they would suffer less from the curse placed upon the ground in Eden? This might explain why Noah had children when he was 500, far older than others of his time (<a href='B:10 5:32'>Gen 5:32</a> - Noah's father had had his first children at 182, <a href='B:10 5:28'>Gen 5:28</a>; Seth had his first child at 105, <a href='B:10 5:6'>Gen 5:6</a>; Enos at 95, <a href='B:10 5:9'>Gen 5:9</a>; Cainan at 70, <a href='B:10 5:12'>Gen 5:12</a>; Mahalalel at 65, <a href='B:10 5:15'>Gen 5:15</a>; Jared at 162, <a href='B:10 5:18'>Gen 5:18</a>; Enoch at 65, <a href='B:10 5:21'>Gen 5:21</a>; Methuselah at 187, <a href='B:10 5:25'>Gen 5:25</a>); <a href='B:10 6:18'>Gen 6:18</a> implies that Noah only had three sons, whereas for people with such long life spans we'd have expected him to have had far more than that. He only had three children- for he prepared the ark to save "his house" (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a>) and <a href='B:10 7:1'>Gen 7:1</a> is quite clear: "Go into the ark, you and all your household"- his whole household was his wife, three sons and their wives. Period. Perhaps we get the picture of a man who was the underdog, the farm worker, the sidekick of the family, whose own family life was delayed and limited by this background. Perhaps he turned to alcohol for comfort (hence <a href='B:10 9:21'>Gen 9:21</a>). But it was he whom God chose to save, he alone who was righteous in that generation which perished. It was the quiet, broken man who was saved. The Hebrew word for "Comfort" [a play on 'Noah'] occurs later, when we read how God "repented" that He had made man (<a href='B:10 6:6-7'>Gen 6:6-7</a>). Lamech's desire for 'comfort' was fulfilled but not as he imagined; not through his son being his personal slave, but rather in God changing His mind about humanity and making a new start. We get what we desire, in essence; and so we need to desire the right thing.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras- </p><p>These and other names here occur in the list of nations in Ezekiel 38 who will invade Israel in the latter days, and we see that they are therefore all within the territory of the eretz promised to Abraham. And that is precisely the situation we see developing there today. The idea that "Japheth" refers to western Europe is mere fancy; the context here clearly explains that these are the nations living in the eretz. "Madai" refers to the Medes. "Tiras" is Tyre; and clearly Meshech refers to an area within the eretz and not to Moscow; and likewise with Tubal.</p><p>We note that out of Noah's three sons, fewest descendants are listed for Japheth. And there is no suggestion in this genealogy that they lived "in the tents of Shem", as Noah had predicted in his half drunken cursing of Ham and blessing of Japheth. This would suggest that his cursings were just that, the cursings of a man awaking with a hangover... and are not to be taken as actual prophecies of the future relationships between the sons.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Diphath and Togarmah- </p><p>Ashkenaz was one of the nations which overthrew Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:27'>Jer 51:27</a>). Again, we're dealing with a people within the eretz and not outside of it. I would argue that the Bible has very little to specifically say about the peoples beyond the eretz.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim and Rodanim- </p><p>Tarshish is a relative of Togarmah (:6), Meshech and Tubal (:5). This confirms my suggestion on Ezekiel 38 that Tarshish is with the other invaders and not against them. Tarshish may be another name for Tyre. The Tel Amarna tablets mention some of these names as peoples in the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan-</p><p>The Canaanites were therefore under Noah's curse to be subservient to Shem. But as discussed on Genesis 9, it's hard to know whether to take Noah's cursings as any more than the cursings of a man awaking from a drunken stupor.</p><p>Pan-Arabism will in the end come to its full term (however short-lived), in the final invasion of Israel. The Hebrew word translated “Libya” is also translated “Phut” or “Put”, which was another name for Libya in Bible times. “Mizraim” likewise is the Biblical name for Egypt. Significantly, Phut, Mizraim and Canaan were brothers (<a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a>). There is therefore a strong and valid idea of Arab brotherhood between the Palestinian Arabs [i:e. the Arabs living in Canaan or the land of Israel] and the Arabs of Libya, Egypt and the other countries in the surrounding Arab world. The Babylonian invasion of Judah was a type of the invasion of Israel by latter day ‘Babylon’, which will bring on the return of Christ. But this invasion [as at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Israel] was really by a confederacy of nations- including the Ethiopians, Lydians, Egyptians and Libyans (<a href='B:300 46:8-9'>Jer 46:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:410 3:9'>Nah 3:9</a>). And history will repeat itself- in that these nations along with Babylon will invade Israel in the last days. But where history shall stop, the red line of human time come to a terminus, will be in the simple fact that this time, the Lord Jesus shall return to earth to establish God’s Kingdom here.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan- </p><p>Sheba and Dedan are found in Ezekiel 38 as amongst the enemies of Israel in the last days; see on <a href='B:330 38:13'>Eze 38:13</a>. The impression is given that all the nations surrounding Israel in the eretz, descendants of all three sons of Noah, will invade her in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>Cush became the father of Nimrod, who began to be a mighty one in the earth- </p><p>Nimrod founded Babel or Babylon (<a href='B:10 10:10'>Gen 10:10</a>). The "top" or rosh of the Babel tower was to reach to heaven; as in <a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a>, the rosh refers to a person who was being elevated, and we assume this person was Nimrod. Ham and his descendants were not therefore black Africans, as proposed by 19th century racist theologians. The connection is clearly with the "mighty ones" of <a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a>, for whose sake the earth was destroyed by the flood. Again, the potential for restoring Eden was messed up by human dysfunction. The term is used of the 'mighty ones' of Canaan who were to be subdued (<a href='B:60 6:2'>Jos 6:2</a>; <a href='B:70 5:13'>Jdg 5:13</a>; <a href='B:70 5:23'>Jdg 5:23</a>). Israel in the wilderness listening to Moses' teaching would have learnt that there had been 'mighty ones in the land', the very land they were now approaching, who likewise would ultimately come to nothing.</p><p>The "mighty in the land" or eretz promised to Abraham had been the likes of the "giants" of <a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a>; Nimrod / Assyria (<a href='B:10 10:8'>Gen 10:8</a>); Babylon (<a href='B:10 46:12'>Gen 46:12</a>) and indeed all the Gentile nations of the eretz (<a href='B:330 32:27'>Eze 32:27</a>); but the hope of the promises to Abraham was and is that "his seed will be mighty in the land" (<a href='B:230 112:2'>Psa 112:2</a>). There is to be a radical inversion of all things upon the earth.</p><p>Nimrod "the mighty hunter against the Lord" (<a href='B:10 10:9'>Gen 10:9</a> Heb:) uses a word related to 'Gibbor', the title of Christ used in <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>:&nbsp;Nimrod appears to be a prototype anti-God and anti-Christ, and for this he was well known even then:&nbsp; <a href='B:10 10:10-11'>Gen 10:10-11</a> shows his characteristic of building cities in the Babylon/Assyria area:&nbsp;Seeing that "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel" (<a href='B:10 10:10'>Gen 10:10</a>), it is not unreasonable to assume that when "a man said to his neighbour, Go to, let us make brick" to build the tower of Babel, this is in fact referring to Nimrod (<a href='B:10 11:3'>Gen 11:3</a> A:V. mg:).</p>


text:
<p>Mizraim- </p><p>This is the usual word for "Egypt". The eretz extended to the river of Egypt, and so we can assume that this person lived in Egypt east of the Nile, rather than referring to "Egypt" as it is now defined.</p><p>Became the father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim- </p><p>Anamim may be related to the "anakim", the giant people who inhabited Canaan. This material reminded Israel of the origin of the peoples they were to encounter in Canaan. These people were mere men, descendants from the same Noah whom they too were descended from; and whatever their size or physical features, they were not to be unduly feared. We note the absence of Divine names in nearly all the descendants of Noah here listed; in contrast to the way that they feature in the names of those before the flood. The impression we get is that Noah's descendants failed to keep the faith, until it had totally died out and God called Abram and revealed Himself to him.</p>


text:
<p>Pathrusim, Casluhim (where the Philistines came from) and Caphtorim- </p><p>As noted on :12, one intention of this genealogy was to assure Israel that the enemies they were encountering in the eretz, such as the Philistines, were mere men; there was nothing superhuman about them.</p>


text:
<p>Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, Heth- </p><p>Sidon is known as a town in northern Palestine. Constantly, we encounter evidence that this genealogy describes the peoples of the eretz promised to Abraham. Heth likewise lived in the land of Canaan (<a href='B:10 25:3'>Gen 25:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgashite- </p><p>The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem (<a href='B:100 24:18'>2Sa 24:18</a>), and so often the Hivites, Jebusites and Amorites are spoken of as the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. There is no way that Canaan therefore refers to Africa and negroid peoples.</p>


text:
<p>the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite- </p><p>These were the tribes through whom the Israelites would've travelled on their wilderness journeys; the Sinites lives around mount Sinai.</p>


text:
<p>the Arvadite, the Zemarite and the Hamathite- </p><p><a href='B:10 10:18'>Gen 10:18</a> adds: "Afterward the families of the Canaanites were spread abroad". The same word is used for how the builders of Babel feared being "spread abroad" (<a href='B:10 11:8'>Gen 11:8</a>), and yet they were "spread abroad" after the confusion of languages (<a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a>). Again this is evidence that the genealogy of chapter 10 is descriptive of what came to pass after the Babel incident in chapter 11. We read there of how the situation in chapter 10 came about; see on :20. The same word is frequently translated "scattered", and usually refers to Divine judgment. So we could read this as meaning that the Canaanites were scattered, spread abroad, after Babel, in judgment for wanting to resist that judgment; and for wanting to build the blasphemous ziggurat, a massive temple system intending to place themselves as God Himself. There is reason to think that in the last days a similar structure will be built by the same ethnic groups in the same land... and likewise judged.</p><p>If we include Canaan himself, we have here a description of 12 tribes of Canaan. They were a fake, imitation Israel; and were to be superseded by the 12 tribes of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech- </p><p>Wherever these peoples later lived, they were at this time all within the eretz promised to Abraham. "Aram" is the word usually translated "Syria". Job lived in the land of Uz. The Meshech of Ezekiel 38 is to be interpreted as some people within the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>Arpachshad became the father of Shelah, and Shelah became the father of Eber- </p><p>"Shelah" like most of the names in this genealogy has a rather negative spiritual meaning; in this case, "missile". The impression given is that spirituality died out over these generations, until God started again with the call of Abram.</p>


text:
<p>To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days the land was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan- </p><p>This "division" refers not to plate tectonics, but to the division of the earth according to language which we read of in Genesis chapter 11. The division of the eretz at Babel is therefore presented here as occurring four generations after the flood; although the Biblical genealogies frequently skip generations, and in this case, they must be compared with the information provided in Genesis 5, 10.</p>


text:
<p>Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah- </p><p>More sons of Joktan are recorded than for any other in this genealogy. Yet his name means "made little"; perhaps we are to understand that the one who was somehow made little was the one who became great, in terms of descendants.</p>


text:
<p>Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah- </p><p>"Hadoram" meaning "high place", we again get the impression of unspirituality amongst these peoples. This genealogy is explaining how indeed the descendants of Noah were scattered throughout the eretz promised to Abraham after Babel; where they later may have migrated to isn't in view here. But it is also noteworthy that the children of Joktan would appear to be located in the Arabian peninsular and what is now Yemen. The southern borders of the eretz are hard to define; perhaps we are to include these areas within it.</p>


text:
<p>Ebal, Abimael, Sheba- </p><p>Most commentaries focus upon where these tribes ended up living later. But let's remember that we are here reading of how the descendants of Noah were scattered throughout the eretz promised to Abraham after the events of Babel. Where they may have migrated to afterwards is not what is in view here.</p>


text:
<p>Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan- </p><p>There is a "Havilah" in :9, which may suggest that the lines of Ham and Joktan intermarried. This again would be evidence that the curses of Noah didn't come into effect; for he presupposed that the lines of descent from his sons would be distinct, especially between Ham and the others. According to LXX notes, this "Jobab" is the Job of the book of Job.</p>


text:
<p>Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah- </p><p>It should be noted that the Septuagint gives different ages and inserts other generations in genealogies such as this one. Yet the Septuagint is usually the version quoted by the inspired New Testament writers, including for passages where the Masoretic Text reads quite differently. This has large implications for the theory that Adam was created 4000 BC, and the six thousand year plan theory.</p>


text:
<p>Eber, Peleg, Reu- </p><p>The genealogies of Genesis 11 reveal how some human lives repeat according to the same outline schema. See on <a href='B:10 11:10'>Gen 11:10</a>; <a href='B:10 11:14'>Gen 11:14</a>. Both Arphachsad and Shelah each lived 403 years after the births of the eldest sons.</p>


text:
<p>Serug, Nahor, Terah- </p><p>Peleg, Serug and Shelah were each 30 when their first sons were born (<a href='B:10 11:14'>Gen 11:14</a>; <a href='B:10 11:18'>Gen 11:18</a>; <a href='B:10 11:22'>Gen 11:22</a>). We too can find uncanny similarities between our lives and those of others in the faith; or between our lives and Biblical characters. The same Divine hand is at work. Nahor therefore died at 148 (<a href='B:10 11:25'>Gen 11:25</a>), the shortest liver among the post-flood patriarchs. We wonder why exactly that was... seeing that his grandson Abram was to be the one chosen. It perhaps made Abram reflect upon the brevity of life and the failure of idolatry to offer real salvation. It's a very strange 'co-incidence' (if that's indeed what it is) that Noah, Peleg and Nahor all died in the same year- when Abraham was about 50 years old, living in Ur. Whilst we have no evidence that these men were all living together, it's not impossible that they were. Perhaps they died in some calamity in Ur. So it could well be that the motive for leaving Ur in the first place was therefore mixed- it was fleeing from a material threat more than plain obedience to a Divine command. This would explain why the family settled in relatively nearby Haran, and remained there for so long.</p>


text:
<p>Abram (the same is Abraham)-</p><p>The meanings of Abraham's immediate ancestors all have associations with idolatry, confirming the note in <a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a> that Abram and his ancestors were idolaters. Out of that background, God chose a man who had the potential to be different. Another reading of "Terah" is that it means "One who tarries / remains", which would fit with his remaining in Haran and not going further towards Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Abraham: Isaac, and Ishmael- </p><p>Ishmael was born before Isaac, but clearly Isaac is presented as Abraham's lead descendant.</p>


text:
<p>These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam- </p><p>I suggested on :1 that these genealogies were written up at the time of the exile, making them contemporary with the prophecies of later Isaiah about Nebaioth and Kedar being reconciled with Abraham's seed through Isaac and Jacob, and worshipping Yahweh together in a restored, multiethnic Kingdom of God in Israel (<a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema- </p><p>Dumah intermarried with the Edomites (<a href='B:290 21:11-12'>Isa 21:11-12</a>). These 12 tribes of Ishmael make them a pseudo Israel, and yet also, as Paul develops in Galatians 4, representatives of unbelieving Israel after the flesh.</p><p>The names of Ishmael's sons make a statement about their final acceptance in God's Kingdom, in language which is picked up in the later prophecies about them in <a href='B:290 60:6-7'>Isa 60:6-7</a>; <a href='B:290 43:19-20'>Isa 43:19-20</a>: "In the high places a powerful people will experience a miracle of God. For they shall cause sweet odours to ascend, calling His fame to remembrance. Their burden will be lifted, they will become mighty in power, conquerors of the desert, strong in defence, numerous in population, at the forefront of the nations".</p>


text:
<p>Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael- </p><p>Ishmael is recorded as having 12 sons, who grew into tribes. This makes them a kind of parallel with the 12 sons and tribes of Jacob. But as noted on :29, one of the purposes of these genealogies was to persuade the exiles against their tendency to racial elitism, and to accept that all the tribes of the eretz promised to Abraham were Divinely intended to reconcile around Him in a restored kingdom of God. They were being reminded that they were in fact all very similar in their roots.</p><p>Abraham's prayer that Ishmael might be accepted into the covenant was heard [his name means 'God has heard']. The same promises were made to him as to Isaac; his 12 tribes (<a href='B:10 17:20'>Gen 17:20</a>) could also have become some kind of people of God. But in this world, they chose not to; although for Abraham's sake, their latter day representatives will finally be saved.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran, Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan: Sheba and Dedan- </p><p>These records seem to stress the weakness and occasional strength of these children of God. This is one of the major lessons from Chronicles. Every now and then, the list of names is interrupted by a piece of information which indicates God's awareness of their spirituality. For example, the fact some men had more than one wife or a wife from a nation other than Israel is often recorded (<a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:26'>1Ch 2:26</a>; <a href='B:130 2:35'>1Ch 2:35</a>; <a href='B:130 2:48'>1Ch 2:48</a>; <a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:130 8:8'>1Ch 8:8</a>). The way these interruptions occur in the lists of names stands out. This is surely to indicate two things: that many faithful men (e.g. Abraham and Caleb, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:46'>1Ch 2:46</a>) made mistakes in this area of life, and secondly that all down the centuries God has not forgotten that they married out of the faith, or that they allowed the pressures of their surrounding world to influence them to break away from the ideal one man: one woman standard of Eden. These two facts provide us with both warning and comfort, in that although God is sensitive to failure, He is still able to justify men, to count them as if they are righteous for the sake of their covenant relationship with Him, even though (e.g.) their married life was not completely in order.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Midian: Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah- </p><p><a href='B:290 60:6'>Isa 60:6</a> and <a href='B:230 72:10'>Psa 72:10</a> envisage Ephah and other children of Keturah as ultimately saved along with Israel in the Kingdom age. The blessing upon Abraham will ultimately come true upon all his seed, by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p>Abraham became the father of Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau and Israel- </p><p>Isaac had no other recorded children, which is unusual for a wealthy man who lived a long time. This would reflect a great loyalty to Rebekah, in an age of polygamy.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Esau: Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jalam and Korah- </p><p>The Eliphaz the Temanite of the book of Job, who it seems eventually came to know God through Job's forgiveness of him and prayer for him. So we see here how relationship with God skipped a generation, as often happens. Reuel is "Friend of God". We wonder if as with Eliphaz, this was another example of a spiritual person emerging from an unspiritual background and genealogy.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna and Amalek- </p><p>Amalek became a major enemy of Israel; but his father Eliphaz was a believer, if as suggested on :35 he is the Eliphaz of the book of Job. And so we see what is apparent in the records of the kings of Judah; good men have bad sons and bad men have good sons. Spirituality is personal and not inherited; and bad background is not an insurmountable handicap to faith and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah and Mizza- </p><p>Reuel, "friend of God", may have been a believer, despite having a father and mother (<a href='B:10 36:10'>Gen 36:10</a>) and maternal grandmother who didn't want the things of the Kingdom promises. The new creation in Christ means that we are free of such background influences if we truly respond to the word of promise. But his sons weren't. For the names of the sons are distinctly unspiritual, especially bearing in mind the Semitic way of giving a name to a person which reflects their character. Respectively, these names mean "declining", "sun rising" and "wasting". Their birth names could have been recorded, but instead the names they were known by later are recorded.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Seir: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer and Dishan- </p><p>Again the names are hardly suggestive of true spirituality; Dishon and Ezer respectively mean "the trampler", "man of treasure". "Dishan" is another form of "Dishon"; it would be likely that Dishon died prematurely and so was as it were replaced by Dishan. Anah could be a female name.</p><p><a href='B:10 36:20'>Gen 36:20</a> adds: "These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah". The idea is that they were formerly the inhabitants of that land, but were driven out by the Edomites (<a href='B:50 2:12'>Deu 2:12</a>; <a href='B:50 2:22'>Deu 2:22</a>), an encouragement to Israel in the wilderness who first heard Genesis to likewise drive out the tribes from their allotted possession as Edom / Esau had done. The sons of Seir are listed amongst the descendants of Esau perhaps on the basis of the idea that Gentile peoples were counted as his descendants, just as was to be true, in a different sense, of Abraham's true seed. As noted on :30, Esau's nation is portrayed as an imitation of the true people of God. Or it could be argued that the similarities are because God chose to bless Isaac's son in this life, but without the eternal and Messianic dimension which was attached to the line through Jacob.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Lotan: Hori, and Homam; and Timna was Lotan’s sister- </p><p>"Homam" means "raging anger", continuing the uncontrolled passion of the moment which was seen in Esau. We note the uncommon mention of a woman. Why this special mention of Timna ["restraint"] as being the aunty of "Heman", "raging anger"? Perhaps to continue the theme developed here- that out of all this unspirituality and unrestrained human nature, there were various individuals who were different and rose above their surrounding environment. This is of huge encouragement to us today.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shobal: Alian, Manahath, Ebal, Shephi and Onam. The sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah- </p><p>Shobal = 'overflowing'; Alian = 'haughty'; Manahath = 'rest / peace'; Ebal = 'naked'; Shephi = 'naked'; Onam = 'strong man'. As noted on :39, in the midst of these names with sexual and other very human connotations, Manahath has a much nicer meaning. Perhaps again we have one spiritual person amongst unspiritual siblings.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Anah: Dishon. The sons of Dishon: Hamran, Eshban, Ithran and Cheran- </p><p>Hamran = 'desirable wine' (s:w. <a href='B:290 27:2'>Isa 27:2</a> AV "red wine"); Eshban = 'vigorous growth'; Ithran = 'excess'; Cheran = 'angry'. We have the same idea as noted on :37,38; in the midst of very unspiritual names, we have one which speaks of something positive, of growth. Out of all this unspirituality and unrestrained human nature, there were various individuals who were different and rose above their surrounding environment. This is of huge encouragement to us today.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan and Jaakan. The sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran-</p><p>Bilhan = 'humble'; Zaavan = 'not at peace'; Jaakan = 'twister'. As noted on :41, we again have here one spiritual name in the midst of very unspiritual ones, remembering that names were attached to individuals according to what they were known well for. See on :39.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Dinhabah- </p><p>This seems a rather irrelevant statement- until it is appreciated that the point is being made that Israel's desire for a king was influenced by the fact the surrounding peoples had them. However, the reference could be to Moses as "king" of Israel effectively (<a href='B:50 33:5'>Deu 33:5</a>), and the idea may simply be that this was how things were before the time of Moses. The list of kings we now have could be a chronological list of those who reigned in the area up until the time of Moses and the book of Genesis being completed.</p>


text:
<p>Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place- </p><p>The Septuagint states that Job was the "Jobab" of <a href='B:130 1:44-45'>1Ch 1:44-45</a>, who lived five generations after Abraham. Again we see how individuals amongst the otherwise unspiritual line of Esau did turn to the true God and were accepted in covenant relationship; some of the names and localities of his three friends also occur in this list of Esau's descendants and associates. In this case we marvel at the spiritual growth of Job, coming from such an unspiritual background, with the previous king living in a city called "Robbers' den" (:43).</p>


text:
<p>Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place- </p><p>Teman is apparently near Petra and Mount Paran (<a href='B:420 3:3'>Hab 3:3</a>), as is Dinhabah (:43). We can therefore assume that Job lived in that area too.</p>


text:
<p>Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who struck Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith- </p><p>Israel in the wilderness also smote Midian (<a href='B:40 31:8'>Num 31:8</a>; <a href='B:60 13:21'>Jos 13:21</a>). The fact others had "struck Midian" was therefore recorded as encouragement to them; and we too are intended to be inspired by Biblical history, realizing that our experiences are not totally unique, but in essence are repetitions of Biblically recorded situations and past victories.</p>


text:
<p>Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place- </p><p>Masrekah means "vineyards" and we assume he was famed for his wine; contributing to the generally negative spiritual tone found in most of these names. "Samlah" likewise means 'mantle', perhaps a referring to the mantles used in religious rituals.</p>


text:
<p>Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his place- </p><p>"The river" is the Euphrates, which formed the boundary of the promised land; again the impression is given that the people of Esau chose to live outside the promised land.</p>


text:
<p>Shaul died, and Baal Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place- </p><p>Strong offers "possessor of grace" as the meaning of Baal Hanan, which would fit in with the theme of there being occasionally very spiritual people amongst the otherwise unspiritual line of Edom, encouraging us also to rise up against the factors of environment and hereditary; for his father Achbor means 'attacker'. But it could equally mean the Baal or Lord of Canaan, even though they were not in Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>Baal Hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai: and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab- </p><p>More detail is given about this Hadad. I suggested on :43 that&nbsp; this list of kings could be a chronological list of those who reigned in the area up until the time of Moses and the book of Genesis was completed. Hadad would be "the king of Edom" with whom Israel had dealings in <a href='B:40 20:14'>Num 20:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Hadad died. The chiefs of Edom were: chief Timna, chief Aliah, chief Jetheth- </p><p>There are only 11 recorded here compared to the 14 earlier in this chapter and in Genesis 36. This could be because some were assimilated into others; or because what we now read is a list of their localities rather than of individuals, and there may have been more than one "chief" within the same single locality.</p>


text:
<p>chief Oholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon- </p><p>Oholibamah ['tent of the high places'] was a woman, and I suggested on :38 that Anah was also a female chief. Elah = 'oak tree', associated with paganic shrines; Pinon = 'distracted'. All evidence of paganism and unspirituality.</p>


text:
<p>chief Kenaz, chief Teman, chief Mibzar- </p><p>Kenaz = 'hunter'; Teman = 'stronger', Mibzar = 'strong hold'; all the language of human strength and prowess. See on :54.</p>


text:
<p>chief Magdiel, chief Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom-</p><p>Iram = 'wisdom of the city'. The names of the other chiefs in :52 and :53 were all very unspiritual and some have definite paganic hints. Therefore Magdiel, 'precious to God', stands out in its meaning. Again, we are being shown that out of an unspiritual lineage, family and environment, individuals can be transformed and overcome all that to be part of God's covenant purpose. This is significant encouragement for we today who can feel swamped by unspiritual environments.</p>


text:
<p>These are the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun- </p><p>This list is not by order of birth, but is split up according to the mothers. It begins with the six sons of the first wife Leah; then the older son of Rachel’s handmaid Bilhah; the two sons of the favourite wife Rachel; the other son of Rachel’s handmaid Bilhah; and finally the two sons of Zilpah, handmaid of Leah.</p>


text:
<p>Dan, Joseph, Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad and Asher-</p><p>We note the inclusion of Dan in the list when he is later excluded in such lists. At this point, the genealogy is a statement of fact rather than theological interpretation.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Judah: Er, Onan and Shelah; which three were born to him of Shua’s daughter the Canaanitess. Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Yahweh; and He killed him- </p><p>More detail will be given to the children of Judah, because these genealogies were written up for the exiles of Judah in Babylon. And the descendants of Judah are given first. But lest there be any idea that Judah was somehow spiritually superior, the genealogy starts with a clear recollection that Judah was far from a spiritual man:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Perez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five- </p><p><a href='B:10 38:29'>Gen 38:29</a> gives the background: "It happened, as he drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came out, and she said, Why have you made a breach for yourself? Therefore his name was called Perez". The theme of the second born being the chosen one continues. It was accepted that Perez was the one in the line of the Messianic seed and that this pregnancy was of God (<a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a>), even though he was not technically the firstborn. "Made a breach" is literally 'to spread abroad', and is the word used in the promises of how the Messianic seed was to break forth or spread abroad (<a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Perez: Hezron, and Hamul- </p><p>"Hamul" means 'The one who was spared', which rather suggests he too had sinned like Er and Onan, but was spared by grace. Again, we hardly get a very positive spiritual impression of Jacob's family. They were saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Zerah: Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol and Dara; five of them in all- </p><p>Calcol and the other names mentioned in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as wise men are all mentioned in <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a> as sons of Zerah, men of Judah. The idea of <a href='B:110 4:30-31'>1Ki 4:30-31</a> is that Solomon's wisdom exceeded that of famous Gentile wise men, and also of the wise men of Judah. "Ethan the Ezrahite" of <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> and <a href='B:230 89:31'>Psa 89:31</a> is this Ethan; "Ezrahite" is "Zarhite", or descendant of Zerah. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Carmi: Achar the troubler of Israel, who committed a trespass in the devoted thing- </p><p>This is alluded to in <a href='B:240 15:27'>Pro 15:27</a>: "He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house". The initial reference would be to Achan who loved and coveted wealth and thereby troubled Israel and his own house (s:w. <a href='B:130 2:7'>1Ch 2:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The son of Ethan: Azariah- </p><p>The wise spiritual man (see on :6) had but one son , "Yah has helped". Perhaps that was enough for him, or maybe this is the one son who was faithful.</p>


text:
<p>The sons also of Hezron, who were born to him: Jerahmeel, Ram and Chelubai-</p><p>The descendants of the younger brother Ram are given first because they include David. "Chelubai" is “Caleb” (:42).</p>


text:
<p>Ram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah- </p><p>Amminadab, the generous kinsman like Boaz (see on <a href='B:80 4:19'>Rth 4:19</a>), had a descendant called Nahshon, meaning 'snake'. The abrupt juxtaposition is so that we understand that spirituality is not at all inherited genetically. It is a case of consciously choosing to follow good examples.</p>


text:
<p>and Nahshon became the father of Salma, and Salma became the father of Boaz- </p><p><a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a> says that Salmon ["Salma"] had Boaz by Rahab. Yet Rahab lived some time earlier. I therefore suggest that Salmon was the ancestor of Boaz [not the literal father], through the child he had from Rahab. This is mentioned to highlight the fact that Boaz was descended from Rahab, and therefore was generous to the strangers and saw nothing wrong with a Moabitess marrying into the congregation of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and Boaz became the father of Obed, and Obed became the father of Jesse- </p><p>I noted on Ruth how the nameless relative of Ruth refused to redeem her lest he mar the inheritance for his sons. But that petty materialist remains anonymous, as will countless millions of others like him; whereas Boaz, who was prepared for love's sake to further divide his inheritance, goes down in perpetuity as the ancestor of David and the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>and Jesse became the father of his firstborn Eliab, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third- </p><p>His sons generally have spiritual names, surely reflective of his faith. This contrasts with the genealogy and names of the background family of Saul in 1 Chronicles 8, 9.</p>


text:
<p>Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth- </p><p>Raddai may be the Rei of <a href='B:110 1:8'>1Ki 1:8</a>, one of David's warriors.</p>


text:
<p>Ozem the sixth, David the seventh- </p><p>In <a href='B:130 2:15'>1Ch 2:15</a>, David is placed seventh of seven sons, but elsewhere eighth of eight (<a href='B:90 14:10-11'>1Sa 14:10-11</a>; <a href='B:90 17:12'>1Sa 17:12</a>). Perhaps the eighth son was the Elihu of <a href='B:130 27:18'>1Ch 27:18</a>. Or perhaps one of the sons died without children, and is therefore not included in <a href='B:130 2:15'>1Ch 2:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. The sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, Joab and Asahel, three- </p><p>David several times laments the hardness of heart to be seen in "the sons of Zeruiah". I assumed that Zeruiah was a man- until considering <a href='B:130 2:16'>1Ch 2:16</a>, which says that Zeruiah was a sister of David. Joab was his nephew or cousin. The fact that the hardness of those three men seems to be associated with their mother would lead us to conclude that David's sister Zeruiah was an extremely hard woman. Her name "wounded" means that she may have been a hurt person who was therefore hard to everyone else. Inevitably there must have been strands of hardness in David too (consider his treatment of Uriah, his intended massacre of Nabal's encampment, torturing the Ammonites etc:); and yet more often than not, we get the impression that David was a real softy. His experience of life made him progressively more soft, whilst his sister and nephews went the other way. Truly could he comment towards the end of it all: "Your gentleness has made me great". We need to soberly consider the fact that we are either getting harder, or softer. There is no in between status. The softness and gentleness of the Lord Jesus, the great antitype of David, mixed as it was with that firmness of resolve and purpose (remember how He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem!) is surely something to really appreciate about Him, something to rise up to, to be truly inspired by.</p>


text:
<p>Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite-</p><p>David's sister therefore had a relationship with a non Israelite. Again we see the theme of spiritual weakness in these genealogies. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Caleb the son of Hezron fathered children by Azubah his wife, and by Jerioth; and these were her sons: Jesher, Shobab and Ardon- </p><p>Heb. "took Azubah the wife of Jerioth"; as on :17,21 we have the theme of marital and sexual weakness in the family of Israel, and David in particular at this point. Hezron the grandson of Judah was one of those who went down into Egypt with Jacob (<a href='B:10 46:12'>Gen 46:12</a>; <a href='B:10 46:26'>Gen 46:26</a>). Yet Caleb son of Jephuneh was 40 when the people left Egypt (<a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a>). So the Caleb in view is not the son of Jephuneh who spied out the land:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Azubah died, and Caleb took to him Ephrath, who bore him Hur- </p><p>Ephrath was the early name of David's home town of Bethlehem, named after a woman (cp. <a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hur became the father of Uri, and Uri became the father of Bezalel- </p><p>This is the Bezaleel who helped make the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 31:2'>Exo 31:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he took as wife when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub- </p><p>As on :17,18 we have the theme of marital and sexual weakness in the family of Israel, and David in particular at this point. From <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a> we learn that Machir was Manasseh’s oldest son by a Syrian, Gentile woman. It was the Divine intention that marriage should be within the tribes of Israel so as to keep the inheritance which God intended. But here we have Manasseh and Judah intermarrying.</p>


text:
<p>Segub became the father of Jair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead- </p><p>This is the judge of <a href='B:70 10:3-4'>Jdg 10:3-4</a>. Some claim that the Bible doesn't recognize genealogy through women, and find some problem in the Lord Jesus being descended from Abraham and David through a woman. But there are Biblical examples of genealogy being reckoned through a woman. We have one here. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (<a href='B:130 2:22'>1Ch 2:22</a>); yet in <a href='B:40 32:41'>Num 32:41</a> he is described as "the son of Manasseh", showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father.</p>


text:
<p>Geshur and Aram took the towns of Jair from them, with Kenath, and its villages, even sixty cities. All these were the sons of Machir the father of Gilead- </p><p>Heb. “the tent-villages of Jair"; "cities" is used not quite how the word is in modern English. The record of the loss of inheritance to Gentiles is again an example of spiritual weakness being recorded in the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>After that Hezron was dead in Caleb Ephrathah, then Abijah Hezron’s wife bore him Ashhur the father of Tekoa-</p><p>The sense of the Hebrew may be as in LXX “And after Hezron was dead Caleb went in to Ephrath [:19] his father Hezron’s wife and she bare him...". Again, we are seeing the record of spiritual weakness, especially in the area of sexual relationships. Hur was Ephratah's firstborn (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>), so Ashhur would have been Hur's younger brother.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron were Ram the firstborn, Bunah, Oren, Ozem and Ahijah- </p><p>"Ozem and Ahijah" could be as LXX "Ozem his brother. Jerahmeel settled in the south of Judah (1 Chron. 27:10; 30:29).</p>


text:
<p>Jerahmeel had another wife, whose name was Atarah; she was the mother of Onam- </p><p>Again we note the record of weakness in the area of sexual relationships. The point is that out of all this background weakness there arose the people of Judah and David the man after God's own heart. We cannot blame bad background for our lack of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ram the firstborn of Jerahmeel were Maaz, Jamin and Eker- </p><p>"Eker" is s:w. <a href='B:30 25:47'>Lev 25:47</a>, and may mean 'a transplanted person', as if this was an adopted Gentile son. All the genealogies, not least those of the Lord Jesus, make the point that there was much Gentile blood in "Israel"; they were identified as God's people by faith and culture, and not on ethnic grounds:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Onam were Shammai and Jada. The sons of Shammai: Nadab and Abishur- </p><p>"The sons of Shammai" is not in all the manuscripts, in which case Nadab and Abishur are two other sons of Onam.</p>


text:
<p>The name of the wife of Abishur was Abihail; and she bore him Ahban and Molid- </p><p>This unusual mention of the wife's name would imply special recognition of her. The Bible is remarkably respectful and inclusive of women when compared to contemporary writings.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Nadab: Seled and Appaim; but Seled died without children- </p><p>To die without children was seen as a curse for unfaithfulness, so maybe this is yet another hint at the weakness of the Jewish fathers.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Appaim: Ishi. The sons of Ishi: Sheshan. The sons of Sheshan: Ahlai- </p><p>In :34 we read that Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. Perhaps Ahlai had died by the point of summary given in :34. Or maybe "Ahlai" was a woman's name, and "sons" means 'descendants' rather than males [there are other examples of this].</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jada the brother of Shammai: Jether and Jonathan; and Jether died without children- </p><p>Israel's sinfulness seems to be emphasized in 'interruptions' in the flowing list of names. Thus it is sometimes stressed that a man did not have many children (e.g. <a href='B:130 2:4'>1Ch 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a>; <a href='B:130 2:16'>1Ch 2:16</a>; <a href='B:130 2:32'>1Ch 2:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:34'>1Ch 2:34</a>; <a href='B:130 4:27'>1Ch 4:27</a>), as if to indicate that God's blessing was not with him (there seems an undoubted connection in Old Testament times between blessing and number of sons):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jonathan: Peleth and Zaza. These were the sons of Jerahmeel- </p><p>"Peleth", 'the one who fled', would suggest spiritual weakness; for it was only an Israel who had broken covenant who would flee before their enemies.</p>


text:
<p>Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters- </p><p>See on :31.</p><p>Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha- </p><p>Occasionally there are implications of spiritual strength in the records (e.g. <a href='B:130 4:10'>1Ch 4:10</a>). And more than this; several times the apparent weaknesses of men are covered over by God's imputed righteousness, and because God saw the ultimate end. Thus Boaz's marriage to a Gentile is not recorded; simply "Boaz begat Obed" (<a href='B:130 2:12'>1Ch 2:12</a>), whereas others' marriage out of the faith is recorded in the same chapter (<a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:34'>1Ch 2:34</a>). In harmony with this theme of imputed righteousness, there is no mention of Dan in these genealogies of the tribes of Israel- because the serpent was his symbol? (Dan is likewise omitted in <a href='B:730 7:4'>Rev 7:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant as wife; and she bore him Attai- </p><p>Sheshan was so desperate for a line of descendants that he gave his daughter to a Gentile to marry. Yet again, an indication of spiritual weakness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Attai became the father of Nathan, and Nathan became the father of Zabad- </p><p>Possibly the Zabad who was one of the mighty men of David (<a href='B:130 11:41'>1Ch 11:41</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Zabad became the father of Ephlal, Ephlal became the father of Obed- </p><p>Zabad is in the 14th generation from the patriarch Judah, and this would make him roughly of the same generation as David:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Obed became the father of Jehu, Jehu became the father of Azariah- </p><p>"Obed", 'the servant', may mean that he was treated as a family servant because he was the youngest son, or that he was the son of a servant woman- again, an indication of spiritual weakness. And yet he had a son whom he named "Jehovah is he!" ('Jehu'):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Azariah became the father of Helez, Helez became the father of Eleasah- </p><p>We note in this line that the names are generally spiritual or include the 'Yah' prefix or suffi.<X/p>


text:
<p>Eleasah became the father of Sismai, Sismai became the father of Shallum- </p><p>It is hard to know with these Hebrew names whether they were really given at birth, or whether the person's subsequent character and life experience became the name by which they were known. The Hebrew concept of a 'name' would suggest the latter, and even in English, people were known by the name of 'shepherd' or 'smith' or 'joiner' because that was what they did in their lives. But see on :41,43.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum became the father of Jekamiah and Jekamiah became the father of Elishama- </p><p>Names like 'Yah will rise' ['Jekamiah'] and 'God of hearing' ['Elishama'] suggest these were names given at birth, in hope and thankfulness on the part of the parents; whereas other names apparently arose in reflection of the person's character and life experience. See on :40.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were Mesha his firstborn, who was the father of Ziph. The son of Mareshah was Hebron- </p><p>The question is whether this is the same Caleb of the time of Joshua, who appears in view in :49 as the father of Achsah. But it could be a different Caleb, who also had a daughter called Achsah, in imitation of the earlier Caleb. I would think not, if this is the Caleb son of Hezron of :18. Hezron the grandson of Judah was one of those who went down into Egypt with Jacob (<a href='B:10 46:12'>Gen 46:12</a>; <a href='B:10 46:26'>Gen 46:26</a>). Yet Caleb son of Jephuneh was 40 when the people left Egypt (<a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a>). So the Caleb in view is not the son of Jephuneh who spied out the land:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Hebron: Korah, Tappuah, Rekem and Shema- </p><p>"Korah" means 'bald', and would support the suggestion made on :40 that some names reflect character and life experience, rather than the birth name given by the parents.</p>


text:
<p>Shema became the father of Raham, the father of Jorkeam; and Rekem became the father of Shammai- </p><p>Who would name a child "destructive" ['Shammai'] at birth? I suggest as on :40 that many of these names reflect character and life experience, rather than the birth name given by the parents. And this is the basis upon which we shall be given a unique name in the Kingdom age, only appreciated by us and the Father and Son.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Shammai was Maon; and Maon was the father of Beth Zur- </p><p>"Maon", 'residence', and Beth Zur ['house on a rock'] have homes as a common theme. We see the concerns of the family reflected in the choice of names over the generations.</p>


text:
<p>Ephah, Caleb’s concubine, bore Haran, Moza and Gazez; and Haran became the father of Gazez- </p><p>These records seem to stress the weakness and occasional strength of these children of God. This is one of the major lessons from Chronicles. Every now and then, the list of names is interrupted by a piece of information which indicates God's awareness of their spirituality. For example, the fact some men had more than one wife or a wife from a nation other than Israel is often recorded (<a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:26'>1Ch 2:26</a>; <a href='B:130 2:35'>1Ch 2:35</a>; <a href='B:130 2:48'>1Ch 2:48</a>; <a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:130 8:8'>1Ch 8:8</a>). The way these interruptions occur in the lists of names stands out. This is surely to indicate two things: that many faithful men (e.g. Abraham and Caleb, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:46'>1Ch 2:46</a>) made mistakes in this area of life, and secondly that all down the centuries God has not forgotten that they married out of the faith, or that they allowed the pressures of their surrounding world to influence them to break away from the ideal one man: one woman standard of Eden. These two facts provide us with both warning and comfort, in that although God is sensitive to failure, He is still able to justify men, to count them as if they are righteous for the sake of their covenant relationship with Him, even though (e.g.) their married life was not completely in order. Some of the names given to children seem to hint at a weakness in the parents. One wonders why Caleb called his illegitimate son "Haran", after the city&nbsp;which Abraham left behind in order to attain God's promises.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jahdai: Regem, Jothan, Geshan, Pelet, Ephah and Shaaph- </p><p>"Jahdai" is about the closest Hebrew term for 'Judaism', literally a fullness of the things of Judah. We presume this person was one of the offspring of Caleb's various relationships with concubines:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Maacah, Caleb’s concubine, bore Sheber and Tirhanah- </p><p>"Maacah" means 'depressed', and gives weight to the suggestion discussed on :40 and elsewhere that Hebrew names were often a reflection of character and life experience, rather than the birth name given by the parents.</p>


text:
<p>She bore also Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbena, and the father of Gibea; and the daughter of Caleb was Achsah- </p><p>This makes us think that this is the same Caleb of the time of Joshua, but it could be a different Caleb, who also had a daughter called Achsah, in imitation of the earlier Caleb. See on :18; although this may be a different Caleb.</p>


text:
<p>These were the sons of Caleb, the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim- </p><p>The definition of "Caleb" is make complicated here because there appear to be men of the same name (see on :18), and one of them sought to imitate the earlier Caleb of Joshua's time (:49):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth Gader- </p><p>"Father" here may refer not to having literal children, but to being the founder of towns such as Bethlehem. This is made explicit in :52.</p>


text:
<p>Shobal the founder of Kiriath Jearim was the ancestor of the people Haroeh and half of the people of Menuhoth- </p><p>The text is difficult. It could be "Who provided for half the resting-places", as if Shobal set up the resting stations for the caravans which passed through the territory of Judah. Cp. similar details (cp. <a href='B:130 4:21-23'>1Ch 4:21-23</a>). Seraiah was called 'Prince of the resting-places' (<a href='B:300 51:59'>Jer 51:59</a> Heb:). This may have been of interest to the exiles who may have stopped at these places on their journey into exile.</p>


text:
<p>The families of Kiriath Jearim: The Ithrites, Puthites, Shumathites and the Mishraites; of them came the Zorathites and the Eshtaolites- </p><p>The faithful Ithrites (<a href='B:100 23:38'>2Sa 23:38</a>) were from Kirjath Jearim (<a href='B:130 2:53'>1Ch 2:53</a>), perhaps converted to a more spiritual outlook by the long presence of the ark amongst them (<a href='B:90 7:2'>1Sa 7:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Salma: Bethlehem and the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites- </p><p>Being a 'father' and having 'sons' here may refer not to having literal children, but to being the founder of towns such as Bethlehem. This is made explicit in :52. See there for another reading of the text "half of...":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The families of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab-</p><p>Jabez was a man from Judah (<a href='B:130 4:9'>1Ch 4:9</a>). The previous verses have been talking of the towns and settlements founded by men of Judah, so perhaps the idea is that he established a place for the scribes in his home area. The Rechabites were well known at the time of the exile (<a href='B:300 35:2'>Jer 35:2</a>), and here we learn of their origin; as Gentiles from Hammath, Kenites, who came to live with the scribes in a place set up for them by Jabez. And they remained more faithful to the law than Israel did:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now these were the sons of David, who were born to him in Hebron: the firstborn, Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second, Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess-</p><p>"Daniel", 'God is judge', is an understandable name for David to choose at a time when he was under persecution from Saul and opposition from the house of Saul to whom he had been so gracious. He was trying to learn to leave judgment to God, although his imprecatory Psalms seem to struggle at leaving things at that.</p>


text:
<p>the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith- </p><p>We note David early in his reign had relations with a Gentile woman, daughter of a Gentile king. It is unsurprising that Solomon repeated this error, also early in his reign, by marrying Pharaoh's daughter. Whilst spirituality isn't genetic, it is true that unspiritual attitudes pass on very easily from fathers to sons.</p>


text:
<p>the fifth, Shephatiah of Abital; the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp; wished&nbsp; to imitate his father David in every sense; his own&nbsp; real&nbsp; personality&nbsp; only really came out in the Ecclesiastes years,&nbsp; when he took to drink, materialism, women and idolatry. It&nbsp; took&nbsp; the&nbsp; influence&nbsp; of his parents many years to wear off. David&nbsp; had&nbsp; weaknesses&nbsp; for&nbsp; horses (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>) and many wives; and Solomon&nbsp; followed&nbsp; in&nbsp; these&nbsp; steps&nbsp; too. Note that David had six sons in seven years by six different women, including Gentiles (<a href='B:130 3:3'>1Ch 3:3</a>). And in addition to these, David had children by “the concubines” (<a href='B:130 3:9'>1Ch 3:9</a>). Doubtless Solomon reasoned, albeit deep&nbsp;&nbsp; within&nbsp; his&nbsp; psyche,&nbsp; that&nbsp; such&nbsp; behaviour&nbsp; was legitimate&nbsp; because&nbsp; David&nbsp; his father had done it. David&nbsp; seems to have over interpreted the promises made to him about Solomon and the temple, and assumed that&nbsp; his&nbsp; interpretation was certainly correct. And Solomon did exactly the same. The weaknesses of the parents all too easily are repeated by the children to an even greater extent.</p>


text:
<p>Six were born to him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months. In Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years- </p><p>David was 30 when he became king (<a href='B:100 5:4'>2Sa 5:4</a>), meaning he lived 70 years. But we must be aware that time periods are often used symbolically or generally. For David, Saul and Solomon are all said to have reigned 40 years. The period of 40 years assigned to Absalom in <a href='B:100 15:7'>2Sa 15:7</a> has to be read less than literally.</p>


text:
<p>These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel- </p><p>This could imply that Bathsheba had no other children before those she had by David. This means that she may have been barren until that point; her conception was certainly brought about by God. Was it that they would both have been aware of the unlikelihood of her bearing children, and therefore perhaps more inclined to take a chance?</p>


text:
<p>and Ibhar, Elishama, Eliphelet- </p><p>Eliphelet, "God of deliverance", was to celebrate God's deliverance of David. But he died in childhood (see on :8), perhaps to remind David that God doesn't always deliver as we expect.</p>


text:
<p>Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia- </p><p>The lists in <a href='B:130 3:5-8'>1Ch 3:5-8</a>; <a href='B:130 14:4-7'>1Ch 14:4-7</a> mention two more sons than we find in <a href='B:100 5:15'>2Sa 5:15</a>, Eliphalet or Elpalet and Nogah. Perhaps&nbsp; they are omitted here because they died in infancy, and that the second Eliphalet was named after his dead brother.</p>


text:
<p>Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet, nine- </p><p>The two sons named Eliphelet (:6) presumably means that one died and was replaced by another son of the same name.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the sons of David, besides the sons of the concubines; and Tamar was their sister- </p><p>See on :3. The repeated reference to the possession of concubines can be read as an indication of Israel's weakness in abandoning the ideal standards of God regarding marriage. Yet we read that even David had concubines- as if to show the extent of Israel's weakness in the area of marriage.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son- </p><p>The kings of Judah all have, for the most part, the 'Yah' prefix or suffix. Rehoboam stands out as an exception, as does Manasseh and Amon.</p>


text:
<p>Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son- </p><p>Ahaziah is Jehoahaz (<a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>), Azariah (<a href='B:140 22:6'>2Ch 22:6</a>) and Ahaziah (<a href='B:130 3:11'>1Ch 3:11</a>); a reminder that people carried multiple names, which explains many of the so called contradictions in the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son- </p><p>This is a parade example of how a bad king [Ahaz] has a good son [Hezekiah] who has a bad son [Manasseh]. One thing we learn from these genealogies is that spirituality is not genetic. Faith cannot be passed on, in the sense; but each must forge their own unique, individual relationship with the Father, just as today.</p>


text:
<p>Amon his son, Josiah his son- </p><p>As noted on :13, we have another example of a bad king having a good son. "Christianity" in its religious sense seems to be generally passed on from parents to children, but we learn from the genealogies that true spirituality cannot be passed on. It has to be personally forged.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Josiah: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum- </p><p>This is a list of the kings of Judah, so we wonder why Johanan is mentioned when he was never king. Shallum is also known as Jehoahaz (<a href='B:140 36:1'>2Ch 36:1</a> cp. <a href='B:300 22:11'>Jer 22:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son- </p><p>"His son" may also mean 'his heir' (see on :17), because Zedekiah was not son but uncle to Jeconiah. "Son" has a wide range of meaning in Hebrew. Jeconiah of <a href='B:130 3:16'>1Ch 3:16</a> is Coniah in <a href='B:300 22:14'>Jer 22:14</a>, and Jehoiachin in <a href='B:140 36:8-9'>2Ch 36:8-9</a>; <a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a>. A reminder that people carried multiple names, explaining some of the apparent contradictions in the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jeconiah the captive: Shealtiel his son- </p><p>"The captive" could be translated as AV as the name of another son, "Assir". Jeconiah didn't have sons in the sense that he had no son to succeed him on the throne (<a href='B:300 22:27'>Jer 22:27</a>; <a href='B:300 22:30'>Jer 22:30</a>), a reminder that "sons" doesn't always mean literal male children, but descendants who inherited the throne. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>and Malchiram, and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah- </p><p>It is unclear whose sons these were (cp. 2 Kings 24; 2 Kings 12, 15; <a href='B:300 22:30'>Jer 22:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel, and Shimei. The sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah; and Shelomith was their sister- </p><p>In Ezra 7, 15 names are listed between Ezra and Aaron- covering about 1000 years. Clearly many generations were omitted. We note there are 26 names listed between Zerubbabel (a generation or two before Ezra) and Nashon a contemporary of Aaron, in <a href='B:130 2:10-15'>1Ch 2:10-15</a>; <a href='B:130 3:1-19'>1Ch 3:1-19</a>). Some details of the omitted generations are found in <a href='B:130 9:10-11'>1Ch 9:10-11</a>; <a href='B:160 11:11'>Neh 11:11</a>.</p><p>Zerubbabel was son of Shealtiel (<a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:440 1:1-2'>Hag 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:490 3:27-31'>Luk 3:27-31</a>). But it seems he was grandson of Pedaiah on his mother's side.</p>


text:
<p>and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah and Jushab Hesed, five- </p><p>This separate group of sons may be because they were from a different mother. Jushab-hesed means "Grace is returned", as if reflecting the restoration, by grace.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah; the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah- </p><p>The LXX is very different in :19-24, giving six generations between Hananiah and Shemaiah, and accounting for eleven generations from Zerubbabel in this genealogy. </p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. The sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat, six- </p><p>This would make Hattush the great-great-grandson of Zerubbabel. He returned only at the time of <a href='B:150 8:3'>Ezr 8:3</a>, so it seems his family had not returned with Zerubbabel. Shemaiah is the one of <a href='B:160 3:29'>Neh 3:29</a>. He must have been an old man, as his son Hattush had returned to Jerusalem with Ezra (<a href='B:150 8:2-3'>Ezr 8:2-3</a>); again we get the impression of those not naturally adequate to the work still doing it (goldsmiths, perfumers, daughters, administrators and now old men). Whilst we are given talents which we should use in God's service, it is also true that His service is a going against the grain of our natural desires and not a mere reinforcement of our natural aptitudes and personalities; ultimately, we are called to carry the cross of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, Hizkiah and Azrikam, three- </p><p>Elioenai means “My eyes are towards Jehovah”, implying the looking for the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, </p><p>Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah and Anani, seven- </p><p>Hodaviah (<a href='B:130 3:24'>1Ch 3:24</a>) may be Abiud (<a href='B:470 1:13'>Mat 1:13</a>) or Juda (<a href='B:490 3:26'>Luk 3:26</a>), (<a href='B:150 3:9'>Ezr 3:9</a>; <a href='B:160 11:9'>Neh 11:9</a>; cp. <a href='B:150 2:40'>Ezr 2:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:7'>1Ch 9:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur and Shobal- </p><p>Again, "sons of" is being used in a broad sense of 'descendants of', as Hezron was the son of Perez (<a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a>), and Shobal was the son of Hur (<a href='B:130 2:50'>1Ch 2:50</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Reaiah the son of Shobal became the father of Jahath; and Jahath became the father of Ahumai and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathites- </p><p>In <a href='B:130 2:53'>1Ch 2:53</a> the Zorathites appear to be people who lived in Zorah, rather than a descendant of a person called Zerah or Zorah.</p>


text:
<p>These were the sons of the father of Etam: Jezreel, Ishma and Idbash; and the name of their sister was Hazzelelponi- </p><p>Whenever a woman is specifically mentioned in these genealogies, it appears she is worthy of particular significance. But we my be reading here of names of places, remembering that the 'daughters of' a town are the villages surrounding it. Etham was a town in Judah (<a href='B:140 11:6'>2Ch 11:6</a>). People and their towns appear to be united at times, making the genealogies even more difficult to follow from our distance.</p>


text:
<p>and Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the founder of Bethlehem- </p><p>Ephratah was a woman mentioned in <a href='B:130 2:19'>1Ch 2:19</a>; <a href='B:130 2:24'>1Ch 2:24</a>. She is credited for founding the town which was later known as Bethlehem (<a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah- </p><p>The note of polygamy is again an example of spiritual weakness being recorded in the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah- </p><p>"Naarah" is the usual word for 'young woman' or 'girl'. Perhaps Ashhur came to despise the older wife (see on :7) and married a youngster, whom he continued to call "the girl". His marriage doesn't sound very happy. Polygamy led to no pleasure for him in real terms.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Helah were Zereth, Izhar and Ethnan- </p><p>"Helah" is the usual word translated "scum", and we wonder whether Ashhur called his wife this; for it would hardly have been her birth name. Again we have the theme of weak marriages. Ashhur didn't find any joy in his polygamy but rather came to bitterly despise one of his wives.</p>


text:
<p>Hakkoz became the father of Anub, Zobebah, and the families of Aharhel the son of Harum- </p><p>Hakkoz is introduced abruptly, as we find at times happens in the genealogies. But in the context, he must have had some connection with the tribe and inheritance of Judah, and the names mentioned must have been significant to the exiles or whoever was the primary audience of the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>Jabez was more honourable than his brothers: and his mother named him Jabez saying, Because I bore him with sorrow- </p><p>The idea is "But his mother had named him Jabez", meaning 'he brings sorrow'. This is the classic case of the underdog rising up to honour through his faith in God. Hence Jabez prays that he would not bring sorrow (:10), but rather have God's hand with him to enlarge his border, to the joy of others and God's glory. We are all to some extent in some way born under a bad sign, some more visibly than others, i:e. we have many factors against us, bad cards dealt, it seems, by the hand of fortune. But these need not hold us back. That is the inspiration of the example of Jabez. We can rise above all that; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, Oh that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that Your hand might be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that it not be to my sorrow! God granted him that which he requested- </p><p>See on :9. Jabez just appears on the scene in :9, not "the son of" anyone. His calling "on the God of Israel" may mean he was a Gentile, who through faith came to be associated with the tribe of Judah. Which is why he is mentioned at this point in the genealogy of Judah. He asked that he too would be blessed as a seed of Abraham, who were to be blessed and "multiplied" (s:w. "enlarge"). I noted on :9 that Jabez had the spiritual ambition to rise up above the ties that apparently bind. The land was divided up by God amongst the tribes. But he had the spiritual ambition to ask that his allotment be enlarged. And as we see from comparing the various descriptions of the land's boundaries, the allotments were indeed negotiable and were changed by God over time in accordance with Israel's spiritual ambition. The only other reference to Yahweh's hands being with man is in fulfilment of His promises (<a href='B:230 89:21'>Psa 89:21</a>). This incident is an example of where occasionally there are implications of spiritual strength in the records, amidst many hints of spiritual weakness. The targum on :13 claims that Jabez is Othniel, the nephew of Caleb.</p><p>This gives an example of using previous Angelic promises and preparatory work in order to achieve an act of faith. Some of the children of Judah later requested that their border be enlarged, at the expense of driving out neighbouring Canaanite tribes:&nbsp;"Jabez called on the God of Israel (an Angelic term), saying, Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed (a reference back to the Angelic blessing of Abraham's seed with the promise of possession of the land?), and enlarge my coast, and that Thine hand (an Angelic phrase) 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. In passing, is this the basis of "deliver us from evil... (i e:) lead us not into (spiritual) temptation" in the Lord's prayer? In that case our sins are being likened to the tribes&nbsp; which&nbsp; Jabez&nbsp; drove out in faith, and we should believe that our Angel has driven our sins out for us in prospect, so that we might inherit the promises.</p>


text:
<p>Chelub the brother of Shuhah became the father of Mehir, who was the father of Eshton- </p><p>This could be the Shuhah of <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:10 38:2'>Gen 38:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Eshton became the father of Beth Rapha, Paseah and Tehinnah the father of Ir Nahash. These are the men of Recah-</p><p>I have mentioned earlier that people and places appear confused in the genealogies. This appears confusing to modern readers, but the Hebrew audience would have understood the connection between a person and his living place; hence a town had 'daughters', an idiom referring to inhabitants or surrounding villages. And this verse seems an example of this. 'Beth Rapha', house of the giant, seems a typical example.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Kenaz: Othniel, and Seraiah. The son of Othniel: Hathath-</p><p>This may be mentioned at this point because it could be that Jabez of :10 was the original name of Othniel, but he changed his name to Othniel, "force of God", because he had seen God acting with such force in response to his own desire to rise above all the things implied in his birth name.</p>


text:
<p>Meonothai became the father of Ophrah: and Seraiah became the father of Joab the father of Ge Harashim; for they were craftsmen- </p><p>AV "the father of the valley of Charashim" suggests that as discussed on :12, we are reading of towns and geographical areas which came to be the names of people. The same thing is reflected in the Anglo Saxon surnames which are also place names, "London", "Essex", "Wales" etc.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh: Iru, Elah and Naam; and the son of Elah: Kenaz- </p><p>Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother (<a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a>). This would be possible once we understand the wide elasticity of the Hebrew terms "son of" and "brother".</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jehallelel: Ziph, Ziphah, Tiria and Asarel- </p><p>Ziph was a town in southern Judah (<a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:19'>1Sa 23:19</a>). The reference may therefore be to where the sons of Jehallelel came to settle.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered, Epher and Jalon; and she bore Miriam, Shammai and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa- </p><p>It is unclear who the "she" refers to, and it may be possible to connect this sentence with the Bithia of :18. Eshtemoa may refer to the town in Judah of that name; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>His wife the Jewess bore Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soco and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. These are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took- </p><p>See on :17. "His wife" would refer to Mered, and Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh is called "the Jewess" because she married Mered from Judah, and was totally accepted as a Jewess, having totally identified with Judah and the hope of Israel. The obvious daughter of Pharaoh whom we think of was the one who saved Moses. Perhaps she, like Moses, resigned from the wealth of Pharaoh and went to live with the Hebrew slaves, and married Mered, a man of Judah. And she renamed herself to Bithiah, "daughter of Yah"- rather than daughter of Pharaoh. She had a daughter called Miriam (:17), which is corroborating evidence for the idea that she was the princess who saved Moses and from the Nile and spoke with Miriam, sister of Moses, at the time. This was one of the most amazing conversions of all Biblical history; but we would never know it, were it not for the Chronicles genealogies. But "Mered" means 'rebel', the word used of Israel's rebellions against Yahweh in the wilderness. It could be that for all her outstanding devotion to Yahweh, the man she married was not worthy of her, and died in rebellion against Yahweh in the wilderness. She will be one we look forward to meeting in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of the wife of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, were the fathers of Keilah the Garmite and Eshtemoa the Maacathite- </p><p>Keilah and Eshtemoa were both towns in Judah, and there may be a geographical reference here as discussed on :12.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shimon: Amnon, Rinnah, Ben Hanan and Tilon. The sons of Ishi: Zoheth and Ben Zoheth- </p><p>We see how the son of Zoheth ["Ben Zoheth"] was counted as a son of Ishi, although he was his grandson. Again we see the elasticity of the phrase "son of" in Hebrew.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shelah the son of Judah: Er the father of Lecah, Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of those who worked fine linen, of the house of Ashbea- </p><p>Er was slain by Yahweh for gross wickedness (<a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>). It seems his brother Shelah called his own son Er in memory of his slain brother, perhaps suggesting his disagreement with Yahweh's judgment. Lecah and Mareshah are place names (see on :12).</p>


text:
<p>and Jokim, the men of Cozeba, Joash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. The records are ancient- </p><p>"Had dominion" can also mean 'married'. Perhaps this is another record of marriage to Gentiles, reflecting the continual and widespread spiritual weakness of God's people. "Jashubilehem" could be translated "who returned to Bethlehem", and this creates a parallel with the family of Naomi; they too married in Moab but returned to Bethlehem. The idea would then be that situations repeat in and between human lives, that we might learn from spiritual history and the hand of God in human history.</p>


text:
<p>These were the potters, and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah where they lived and worked for the king-</p><p>The reference may be to those who worked in preparation of things for the temple in Solomon's time (<a href='B:110 7:46'>1Ki 7:46</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Simeon: Nemuel, Jamin, Jarib, Zerah and Shaul- </p><p>"The sons of Simeon were Nemuel, Jamin... and Shaul"; but <a href='B:10 46:10'>Gen 46:10</a> shows that Shaul was Simeon's son by a wrong, casual relationship. Yet this is not recorded in Chronicles, even though so many other weaknesses are. Surely this is to demonstrate how if God imputes righteousness for a repented of sin, there really is no record of this kept by Him. This and other such lessons from Chronicles only come from digging under the surface.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum his son, Mibsam his son, Mishma his son- </p><p>The record in Numbers 26 implies these were the sons through Shaul. But Shaul was the one born from a wrong, casual relationship with a Gentile (<a href='B:10 46:10'>Gen 46:10</a>). But it was through this that Simeon's line is considered as continuing. Again we see God's working through human weakness, and the fact that Israel were not at all ethnically pure.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Mishma: Hammuel his son, Zaccur his son, Shimei his son-</p><p>"Zaccur" is the word for "remember" often used in the restoration narratives (<a href='B:160 1:8'>Neh 1:8</a> etc:). Remember that these genealogies were rewritten for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters; but his brothers didn’t have many children, neither did all their family multiply like the children of Judah- </p><p>Israel's sinfulness seems to be emphasized in 'interruptions' in the flowing list of names. Thus it is sometimes stressed that a man did not have many children (e.g. <a href='B:130 2:4'>1Ch 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a>; <a href='B:130 2:16'>1Ch 2:16</a>; <a href='B:130 2:32'>1Ch 2:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:34'>1Ch 2:34</a>; <a href='B:130 4:27'>1Ch 4:27</a>), as if to indicate that God's blessing was not with him (there seems an undoubted connection in Old Testament times between blessing and number of sons).</p>


text:
<p>They lived at Beersheba, Moladah and Hazarshual- </p><p>Beersheba was in Judah, but had been given to Simeon as a shared inheritance (<a href='B:60 19:1-2'>Jos 19:1-2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and at Bilhah, Ezem, Tolad- </p><p>These are the same 13 cities with five accompanying "cities" / villages (:32) as in <a href='B:60 19:1-9'>Jos 19:1-9</a>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Bethuel, Hormah, Ziklag- </p><p>These towns were all associated with David, and he sent presents of the Amalekite spoil to them (<a href='B:90 30:26-31'>1Sa 30:26-31</a>). It seems he wanted them under the control of Judah not Simeon.</p>


text:
<p>Beth Marcaboth and Hazar Susim, Beth Biri and at Shaaraim. These were their cities to the reign of David- </p><p>The implication could be that David tended towards a policy of 'Judah for the men of Judah', and the agreement that Simeonites could live in Judah was then not honoured. This was to come to full term in the tragic division of the kingdom in the next generation.</p>


text:
<p>Their villages were Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Tochen and Ashan, five cities- </p><p>The parable of the pounds describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities (<a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a>). This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a>; <a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a>; <a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and " five cities" in <a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a>) and preparation of reward (<a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a>; <a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a> Heb:; 23:20; <a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a> Heb:) . We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is only eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p>


text:
<p>and all their villages that were around the same cities, to Baal. These were their habitations, and they have their genealogy- </p><p>Baal is Baalath Beer (<a href='B:60 19:8'>Jos 19:8</a>). <a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of 1 Chron. (4:33; 5:1,7,17; 7:5,7,9,40; 9:1,22). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when He writes up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come. This is another reason for understanding Ezekiel’s temple as being broadly of the same dimensions as that of Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Meshobab, Jamlech, Joshah the son of Amaziah- </p><p>We now have a list of 13 leaders of Simeon who went looking for new territory. These 13 may have been the leaders of the Simeonite communities in the 13 towns in Judah just listed, where the Simeonites had been allowed to live. But it seems they were effectively expelled from those towns by Judah, although they were allowed to live there according to <a href='B:60 19:1-9'>Jos 19:1-9</a>. And so they went looking for new territory.</p>


text:
<p>Joel, Jehu the son of Joshibiah, the son of Seraiah, the son of Asiel- </p><p>The names of these Simeonite leaders are nearly all spiritual and include the name of Yahweh. It would have been wrong to exclude them from the inheritance in Judah which they had been specifically allowed (:34).</p>


text:
<p>and Elioenai, Jaakobah, Jeshohaiah, Asaiah, Adiel, Jesimiel, Benaiah-</p><p>Jeshohaiah ("Yah will empty") and Jesimiel ("Yah will place") could be seen as names expressing faith that God would provide for these displaced Simeonites, and place them in a new inheritance. These men and their faith is being held up to the exiles as their pattern. For in essence they were in a similar situation.</p>


text:
<p>Ziza the son of Shiphi, the son of Allon, the son of Jedaiah, the son of Shimri, the son of Shemaiah-</p><p>We wonder why this one of the 13 Simeonite leaders has his genealogy traced back five generations, unlike the others mentioned.</p>


text:
<p>these mentioned by name were princes in their families; and their fathers’ houses increased greatly- </p><p>They therefore needed more land, and as discussed on :34, they were effectively pushed out of the special allotment given them within the tribe of Judah. So there was a desperate need to find land.</p>


text:
<p>They went to the entrance of Gedor, even to the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks- </p><p>A territory called "Gedor" which matches the description in :40 is hard to locate. So we may consider LXX "Gerar". This was then under Philistine control but was taken from them in Asa's time (<a href='B:140 14:14'>2Ch 14:14</a>). However this doesn't seem to fit the description of the land as "peaceable" in :40, and :41 says they took this land in Hezekiah's time.</p>


text:
<p>They found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, quiet and peaceable; for those who lived there before were of Ham- </p><p>Perhaps the Simeonites' determination to find and enjoy their inheritance was presented as inspirational to the exiles, who likewise were promised a land of "fat pasture" at the restoration- if they too believed and acted in faith (s:w. <a href='B:330 34:14'>Eze 34:14</a>). Likewise a quiet and peaceable land was promised at the restoration (s:w. <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>; <a href='B:450 1:11'>Zec 1:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>These written by name came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and attacked their tents, and the Meunim who were found there, and destroyed them utterly to this day, and lived in their place; because there was pasture there for their flocks- </p><p>This could suggest that these genealogies were initially written up in the time of Hezekiah, perhaps explaining his regret that he was to die with no descendant; although they were rewritten at the time of the exiles. The motivation however was not to drive out the pagans from Yahweh's land, but because there was pasture there for their flocks. The question of why we wish to inherit the Kingdom must be capable of a genuine, spiritual answer; rather than a materialistic and fleshly one.</p>


text:
<p>Some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to Mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi- </p><p>Because of their lack of land and removal from the inheritance within Judah they were promised in <a href='B:60 19:1-9'>Jos 19:1-9</a>, they had to find and make the effort to inherit some new land. They are thereby an example to the exiles, for whom these genealogies were rewritten [under Divine inspiration]. These captains all have God's Name within their names, perhaps meant to imply that they did what they did in faith.</p>


text:
<p>They struck the remnant of the Amalekites who escaped, and have lived there to this day- </p><p>Saul was empowered to smite the Amalakites but he didn't completely do this (s:w. <a href='B:90 15:3'>1Sa 15:3</a>; <a href='B:90 15:7'>1Sa 15:7</a>). As often happens, God then passed on the job to another, firstly David (<a href='B:100 1:1'>2Sa 1:1</a>), and now to these sons of Simeon. We can see His hand working in similar ways today. This seems to be the idea of <a href='B:190 4:14'>Est 4:14</a>. If she had not saved her people, then God would have pursued another plan to the same end.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn; but, because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright- </p><p>These records seem to stress the weakness and occasional strength of these children of God. This is one of the major lessons from Chronicles. Every now and then, the list of names is interrupted by a piece of information which indicates God's awareness of their spirituality. For example, the fact some men had more than one wife or a wife from a nation other than Israel is often recorded (<a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:26'>1Ch 2:26</a>; <a href='B:130 2:35'>1Ch 2:35</a>; <a href='B:130 2:48'>1Ch 2:48</a>; <a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:130 8:8'>1Ch 8:8</a>). The way these interruptions occur in the lists of names stands out. This is surely to indicate two things: that many faithful men (e.g. Abraham and Caleb, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:46'>1Ch 2:46</a>) made mistakes in this area of life, and secondly that all down the centuries God has not forgotten that they married out of the faith, or that they allowed the pressures of their surrounding world to influence them to break away from the ideal one man: one woman standard of Eden. These two facts provide us with both warning and comfort, in that although God is sensitive to failure, He is still able to justify men, to count them as if they are righteous for the sake of their covenant relationship with Him, even though (e.g.) their married life was not completely in order.</p>


text:
<p>For Judah prevailed above his brothers, and of him came the prince; but the birthright was Joseph’s)- </p><p>"Prince" or "captain" is God's term for the king of His people (<a href='B:90 9:16'>1Sa 9:16</a>; <a href='B:90 10:1'>1Sa 10:1</a>). Israel's true king was to be from Judah, and God therefore didn't accept those of the ten tribe kingdom as the true kings of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron and Carmi- </p><p>Hanoch [s:w. Enoch] was named after the son of Cain (<a href='B:10 4:17'>Gen 4:17</a>) and means "initiated", rather hinting at unspirituality and paganism.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Joel: Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son- </p><p>Gog was an apostate Jew who went away from the God of Israel, attracted by the grazing grounds to the north east of Israel, and who eventually ended up living permanently in the land of Israel's enemies, the land of the Hagarenes (sons of Hagar, i:e. the Arabs) and Assyria. The Gog of Ezekiel 38 may well be an apostate Jew (after the pattern of Rabshakeh) who leads an invasion of his ancient homeland. He attacks because he loves cattle (<a href='B:330 38:11-12'>Eze 38:11-12</a>)- which was a characteristic of the Gog of 1 Chronicles 5.</p>


text:
<p>Micah his son, Reaiah his son, Baal his son- </p><p>Naming a Hebrew child "Baal" surely indicates unspirituality and the besetting weakness of idolatry which dogged the generations.</p>


text:
<p>and Beerah his son, whom Tiglath Pilneser king of Assyria carried away captive: he was prince of the Reubenites- </p><p>We have to ask why these genealogies were prepared. It is quite likely that they were first formalized in the time of Hezekiah, but I would suggest that they were completed at the time of the restoration, when there was a problem in finding a High Priest and priesthood because it was hard to prove who was descended from Aaron, presumably because the genealogies were destroyed when the temple was burnt. The genealogies give much emphasis to the descendants of Aaron, far more than to the other tribes. There are a number of references to faithless men being punished by invasions (e.g. <a href='B:130 5:6'>1Ch 5:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>His brothers by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was reckoned: the chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah- </p><p><a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of the Chronicles genealogies (<a href='B:130 4:33'>1Ch 4:33</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 5:7'>1Ch 5:7</a>; <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a>; <a href='B:130 7:5'>1Ch 7:5</a>; <a href='B:130 7:7'>1Ch 7:7</a>; <a href='B:130 7:9'>1Ch 7:9</a>; <a href='B:130 7:40'>1Ch 7:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Ch 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a>). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come.</p>


text:
<p>and Bela the son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Joel, who lived in Aroer, even up to Nebo and Baal Meon- </p><p>Aroer was on the east of Jordan, and these areas were always associated with Moab in later scripture. "Nebo" continued to be the name used for that town, and it was the name of an idol. "Baal Meon", habitation of Baal, likewise suggests that these Reubenites were ill advised to go so far into pagan territory in search of material advantage. And they ended up drifting into the Gentile world and losing their identity as God's people. All the time we see this sad drift going on in lives.</p>


text:
<p>and eastward he lived even to the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates, because their livestock were multiplied in the land of Gilead- </p><p>This continues the theme of 1 Chronicles 4, that the men of Simeon likewise went away from their tribal allotment in search of pasture for their flocks. And it drove them away from the sanctuary and the teaching priests, until they assimilated into the Gentile world on the edges of the land promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Saul, they made war with the Hagrites, who fell by their hand; and they lived in their tents throughout all the land east of Gilead-</p><p>God so seeks for faith, and some of the ‘flash’ victories He granted in the Old Testament were to otherwise unspiritual men who in their desperation turned to Him. He so respects faith that He responded (e.g. <a href='B:130 5:10-20'>1Ch 5:10-20</a>). Perhaps more details follow in :18-22, although that may refer to later conflict.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Gad lived over against them, in the land of Bashan to Salecah- </p><p>The boundaries of Gad appear to in practice encroach upon that given to Manasseh (<a href='B:130 5:11'>1Ch 5:11</a> cp. <a href='B:60 13:8'>Jos 13:8</a>; <a href='B:60 13:7'>Jos 13:7</a>; <a href='B:60 13:11'>Jos 13:11</a>; <a href='B:60 13:25'>Jos 13:25</a>; <a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a>; <a href='B:50 3:10-13'>Deu 3:10-13</a>). But the tribe of Manasseh had extended their borders northward (<a href='B:130 5:23'>1Ch 5:23</a>). The territory was given to Israel as their intended inheritance in the Kingdom of God; but God was open to some flexibility about this. We think of Caleb and Othniel asking for territory as an inheritance. And so it is with our dialogue with God's and His eternal intentions for us.</p>


text:
<p>Joel the chief, Shapham the second, Janai and Shaphat, in Bashan- </p><p>LXX "Janai the scribe".</p>


text:
<p>Their brothers of their fathers’ houses: Michael, Meshullam, Sheba, Jorai, Jacan, Zia and Eber, seven- </p><p>These may have been a group of seven who were the effective governing body of the tribe. It is unclear when these people lived, but we could guess they were the leaders at the time of the war with Hagrites in Saul's time (:10, 18-22).</p>


text:
<p>These were the sons of Abihail, the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz- </p><p>The seven ruling brothers of :13 were sons of Abihail, and we then have a very long genealogy for that man. To have seven sons who formed the ruling elite of a tribe was a significant achievement, and so his name was Abihail, 'father of might'. But this exemplifies how names were often given to people appropriate to their character and life experience, and are not necessarily their birth names.</p>


text:
<p>Ahi the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of their fathers’ houses- </p><p>Ahi was perhaps the leader in Gilead (:16) whereas Joel was the chief in Bashan generally (:12).</p>


text:
<p>They lived in Gilead in Bashan, and in its towns, and in all the suburbs of Sharon, as far as their borders- </p><p>There is no Sharon known on the east of Jordan, although there may have been. If the Sharon near Carmel is intended, then we have the picture of these people so obsessed with their cattle that they herded them from the east of Jordan to territory they controlled in Sharon.</p>


text:
<p>All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel- </p><p>Perhaps these kings took a census of their people, in seeking to calculate their military might. This material has been worked into these records. Jeroboam was full of works, of activity in fighting the Lord's battles. He was active in the Truth, as we would say. In <a href='B:110 12:32'>1Ki 12:32</a> we read of Jeroboam ordaining a feast "Like&nbsp; unto the feast which was in Judah". He ordained a new feast on the 15th day of the 8th month, no doubt copying the feast of tabernacles, on the 15th of the 7th month. So Jeroboam lacked an attention to detail, despite an appearance of spirituality. <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a> says that in Jeroboam's reign, the genealogies we read in the early chapters of Chronicles were written. So in some ways, he gave great attention to detail- when it suited him.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war, were forty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty, that were able to go forth to war- </p><p>"Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>; <a href='B:120 6:22'>2Ki 6:22</a>; <a href='B:130 5:18'>1Ch 5:18</a>; <a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They made war with the Hagrites, with Jetur, Naphish and Nodab- </p><p>These were all descendants of the twelve sons of Ishmael. These twelve tribes make them a pseudo Israel, and yet also, as Paul develops in Galatians 4, representatives of unbelieving Israel after the flesh. God gave His people victory against them in fulfilment of the promises about Ishmael and His favour for the chosen seed; but not necessarily because the chosen seed at the time were great believers in Him. These are the same peoples we read of in Psalms 83, which appears to be a prophecy of God's latter day conflict with these people, which has as its prototype this victory of a spiritually weak Israel against them, empowered by God by grace.</p>


text:
<p>They were helped against them, and the Hagrites were delivered into their hand, and all who were with them; for they cried to God in the battle, and He was entreated of them, because they put their trust in Him- </p><p>This could imply that they began to lose the battle, but as Jehoshaphat cried out to God in the midst of a battle he shouldn't have been fighting and was saved, so it seems these Israelites did. I suggested on :19 that there were reasons for the victory within God's broader narrative. "The war was of God" (:22). Although it began by Israelites wanting more pasture land for their flocks.</p>


text:
<p>They took away their livestock; of their camels fifty thousand, and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand, and of donkeys two thousand, and of men one hundred thousand- </p><p>The motive of the war was to find more pasture land. But not only did these Israelites want more lebensraum, they also stole a huge amount of cattle. Yet God worked through this because He wanted to vindicate His chosen seed over that of Ishmael. At times victories or blessings can be given to us which are part of a wider Divine narrative, and should not be seen as a blessing upon us for our spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>For there fell many slain, because the war was of God. They lived in their place until the captivity-</p><p>There was a wider narrative going on here (see on :19-21). God's Spirit works in human life according to that narrative, and not simply in direct response to faith. The Spirit teaches that in our time of dying, human beings are the same as animals. It is tragically sad that animals are tortured and exterminated. But is there any higher degree of tragedy, in God's sight, in the suffering of unenlightened men? Because the Reubenites cried to God in faith, "there fell down many slain (of the Hagarites), because the war was of God" (<a href='B:130 5:22'>1Ch 5:22</a>). And consider how millions live and die or die in the womb, with God's full knowledge and allowance, never to have the invitation of the Gospel. Short of believing in a universal 'second chance', we just have to accept that human death does not mean to God what it does to us as men.</p>


text:
<p>The children of the half-tribe of Manasseh lived in the land: they increased from Bashan to Baal Hermon, Senir and Mount Hermon- </p><p>"The land" is presumably that taken from the Ishmaelites of :19, east of Jordan. Yet as discussed on :19-22, the blessing of increase was not necessarily in response to their spirituality; for they turned away from Yahweh (:25). We recall how Isaac was greatly blessed with increased flocks immediately after he had lied about his wife and behaved shamefully. Blessing and cursing do not necessarily come immediately in response to faith or unbelief.</p>


text:
<p>These were the heads of their fathers’ houses: even Epher, Ishi, Eliel, Azriel, Jeremiah, Hodaviah and Jahdiel, mighty men of valour, famous men, heads of their fathers’ houses- </p><p>They had names reflective of a belief in Yahweh, but worshipped other gods (:25). This was Israel's constant weakness, as it can be ours; to claim to worship God through worshipping the flesh, to mix flesh and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>They trespassed against the God of their fathers, and played the prostitute after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed before them- </p><p>These particular peoples of the land would refer to the land of :23, presumably that taken from the Ishmaelites of :19, east of Jordan. Covenant relationship with Yahweh is as marriage to Him; unfaithfulness to Him is as adultery. And they were not only adulterers, but as Hosea shows, they acted as prostitutes, as if sexually addicted to going after as many other gods as they could. And gods whom they had seen defeated before Yahweh when they took their land in the first place. This is the utter idiocy of idolatry, and yet human nature is not at all logical when it comes to faithfulness to God.</p>


text:
<p>The God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tiglath Pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor and Hara, and to the river of Gozan, to this day- </p><p>God worked by stirring up the spirit of Gentile kings. He can work directly on the human mind, placing thoughts and inserting motivations, in order to achieve His will. And this is the work of the Holy Spirit in our minds, if we are open to it. "Stirred up" is s:w. "open the eyes". Our eyes / hearts can be opened, as Lydia's was, through the sovereign and direct operation of God on the human heart. "To this day" suggests these genealogies were rewritten at the time of the exile.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath and Merari- </p><p>Chronicles pays special attention to the Levites and temple services. These genealogies were produced at the time of the restoration because of the need to show who was a genuine Levite. The temple records may have been destroyed at the destruction of the temple, and so this new list was vitally important. Joshua son of Jehozadak was appointed High Priest at the restoration, and the intention of these lists is to demonstrate his legitimacy. This is why the lists are incomplete and jump many generations. The generations listed would make the period from Moses to the captivity about 440 years, when it was more like 700. This explains why some known High Priests are omitted from the list: Eli, Ahimelech (son of Ahitub), Abiathar, Azariah (of Uzziah)'s time, Urijah (at the time of Ahaz), and Azariah (<a href='B:140 31:10'>2Ch 31:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel- </p><p>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn [he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn]. This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses and Miriam. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar- </p><p>We note the lack of emphasis upon the children of Moses and Miriam, the great wilderness leaders of Israel. There was to be no cult of personality nor nepotism, no riding on the name of a forefather in order to be a leader of God's people. Spiritual leadership in the Bible was intended to be based upon spiritual qualification.</p>


text:
<p>Eleazar became the father of Phinehas, Phinehas became the father of Abishua- </p><p>Eleazar's two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, died without recorded children (<a href='B:40 3:4'>Num 3:4</a>). So as noted on :2, it is the younger son who takes the precedence in God's purpose and not the older sons. To use the weak and marginal has ever been His style.</p>


text:
<p>Abishua became the father of Bukki, Bukki became the father of Uzzi- </p><p>Eli [high priest in Samuel's time] is omitted here. See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>Uzzi became the father of Zerahiah, Zerahiah became the father of Meraioth- </p><p>"Meraioth", 'rebellious', as surely not the name given to the child at birth. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Meraioth became the father of Amariah, Amariah became the father of Ahitub-</p><p>I suggested on :6 that "Meraioth" was indeed "rebellious" as his name means. But if he had been slain as required by the law as the rebellious child (s:w. <a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a>), then the line would not have continued as it did. We see how God works through grace and failure.</p>


text:
<p>Ahitub became the father of Zadok, Zadok became the father of Ahimaaz- </p><p>Zadok and Abiathar appear to have been joint high priests in David's time, but the line is developed through Zadok (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:100 15:29'>2Sa 15:29</a>; <a href='B:100 20:25'>2Sa 20:25</a>). Probably because Abiathar supported Adonijah's rebellion and was removed from office because of it (<a href='B:110 2:27'>1Ki 2:27</a>; <a href='B:110 2:35'>1Ki 2:35</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ahimaaz became the father of Azariah, Azariah became the father of Johanan- </p><p>Just as Meraioth was apparently spiritually weak (see on :6,7), so "Ahimaaz" means "brother of anger". It was through the man with an anger problem that the line of high priests was to be continued.</p>


text:
<p>Johanan became the father of Azariah (he it is who executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem)- </p><p>Psalms 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon&nbsp; built the temple (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>; <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:10'>1Ki 9:10</a>; <a href='B:110 9:25'>1Ki 9:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:4'>1Ki 10:4</a>; <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:130 6:32'>1Ch 6:32</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 8:12'>2Ch 8:12</a>; <a href='B:140 9:3'>2Ch 9:3</a>; <a href='B:510 7:47'>Act 7:47</a>); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David's Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah became the father of Amariah, Amariah became the father of Ahitub- </p><p>Azariah's job would have become most difficult. For Solomon himself quit Yahweh worship, and built temples near to His temple where he could worship the gods of his wives. Amariah was in the time of Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:140 19:11'>2Ch 19:11</a>) so there are several generations missed here. See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>Ahitub became the father of Zadok, Zadok became the father of Shallum- </p><p>Shallum can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. It would continue the theme of spiritual weaknesses in the Chronicles genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum became the father of Hilkiah, Hilkiah became the father of Azariah- </p><p>Hilkiah is well attested as the one who found the lost book of the law (<a href='B:120 22:8'>2Ki 22:8</a>), helped in Josiah's reforms (<a href='B:120 22:14-20'>2Ki 22:14-20</a>) and arranged the great Passover observance of <a href='B:140 35:1-19'>2Ch 35:1-19</a>. But Hilkiah did all this despite being the son of a High Priest called Shallum (<a href='B:130 6:12-13'>1Ch 6:12-13</a>), whose name can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. But his son / descendant rose above that bad background, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah became the father of Seraiah, Seraiah became the father of Jehozadak- </p><p>Seraiah was the last active high priest, and was sent into captivity by the Babylonians (<a href='B:120 25:18'>2Ki 25:18</a>; <a href='B:120 25:21'>2Ki 25:21</a>; <a href='B:300 52:24-27'>Jer 52:24-27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehozadak went into captivity when Yahweh carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar- </p><p>His son was Jeshua / Joshua, the high priest appointed for the restoration. Compare <a href='B:160 12:10'>Neh 12:10</a> "Jeshua became the father of Joiakim, and Joiakim became the father of Eliashib, and Eliashib became the father of Joiada". Then in Nehemiah 12 we have a brief genealogy of the high priest. The list follows right on from this list of high priests in <a href='B:130 6:3-15'>1Ch 6:3-15</a> which concluded with Jehozadak father of Jeshua / Joshua, who "went into captivity when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar".</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of the sons of Gershom: Libni and Shimei-</p><p>We note that both Moses and Aaron had sons called Gershom (<a href='B:20 2:22'>Exo 2:22</a>). Such repetition of names within families and in the same generation was quite common, and is one thing which makes the study of the genealogies difficult in places.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel- </p><p>A repeat of :2, see note there.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to their fathers’ households- </p><p>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively:&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Of Gershom: Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son- </p><p>This list of seven sons of Gershom appears to be part of the longer list of 13 sons of Gershom in :39-43. There are so many similarities, and the differences may be accounted for on the basis of people having more than one name, as explained on :19.</p>


text:
<p>Joah his son, Iddo his son, Zerah his son, Jeatherai his son- </p><p>Apart from Joah, these three generations have names which are completely secular and not at all spiritual; not as we would expect for the high priests.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Kohath: Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son- </p><p>Korah was the rebel of <a href='B:40 16:1'>Num 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son and Assir his son- </p><p>The repetition of "Assir" (:22) shows how similar names were used within families, which explains some otherwise puzzling parts of the genealogies. We can too quickly assume that the occurrence of the same name means the same person. We recall that there was a time when Israel and Judah both had a king called Jehoram (<a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Tahath his son, Uriel his son, Uzziah his son and Shaul his son- </p><p>The lists here must be connected with those of :33-37, but clearly some people had more than one name, or variations in the spelling. This it would have read: Tahath, Uriel, Zephaniah, Uzziah (also known as Azariah), Shaul (a:k:a Joel), Elkanah, Amasai, Ahimoth (a:k:a. Mahath), Elkanah Zophai (a:k:a. Zuph), Nahath (a:k:a. Toah, Tohu, <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a>), Eliab (a:k:a. Eliel, Elihu, <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a>), Jeroham, Elkanah, Samuel (a:k:a:&nbsp; Shemuel), Joel (<a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As for Elkanah, the sons of Elkanah: Zophai his son, and Nahath his son- </p><p>The children of Elkanah and Hannah don't have very spiritual names, apart from Samuel. I suggested on 1 Samuel 2 that after the birth of Samuel, Hannah became very bitter and arrogant, and this was perhaps reflected in the naming of her sons. Spiritually she may have been better off remaining barren, as Hezekiah would have been better off dying when God intended him to, rather than living another 15 years in which he apparently fell away from God.</p>


text:
<p>Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son- </p><p>We wonder whether Elkanah, "obtained of God", may have been the name by which he was subsequently known after Hannah 'obtained' Samuel by her prayers. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Samuel: the firstborn Joel and the second Abijah- </p><p>This gives the name of the firstborn as Vashni, meaning "weak", rather than Joel as in <a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>, meaning "Jehovah is God". But this could be a scribal error. If we stick with "Vashni", we have an example of how character and personal history became reflected in the names by which men were remembered by, whereas his birth name was Joel, reflecting parental hope rather than actual reality.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: Mahli, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzzah his son- </p><p>"Mahli" means "sickly", but we see how from the weak and sickly there came a line of priests who all had spiritual names. Again we see how God works through the weak and not the strong.</p>


text:
<p>Shimea his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son-</p><p>"Haggiah", feast of Yahweh, may have been born on a feast day. This would be an example of where some names are actual birth names, whereas others were names acquired later in response to life experience and character development.</p>


text:
<p>These are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of Yahweh, after that the ark had rest- </p><p>This doesn't conclude the previous section, but begins a new section; these persons are now going to be listed.</p>


text:
<p>They ministered with song before the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, until Solomon had built the house of Yahweh in Jerusalem; and they served in their office according to their order- </p><p>This could suggest that Solomon's temple meant a change in personnel and organization of the worship. For these served "until Solomon had built the house...".</p>


text:
<p>These are those who waited, and their sons. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman the singer, the son of Joel, son of Samuel- </p><p>It should be noted that Samuel's son was reckoned as a Kohathite, although Samuel's parents were from Ephraim (<a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a>). Perhaps this means that Samuel married a Kohathite. Or that there had been earlier inter tribal intermarriage, meaning that Samuel was both from Ephraim and Levi.</p>


text:
<p>son of Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Eliel, son of Toah- </p><p>Elkanah is introduced in <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a> as a man of Ephraim. Yet here he is presented as a Levite. Clearly there was intermarriage between the tribes, although this was not God's ideal intention.</p>


text:
<p>son of Zuph, son of Elkanah, son of Mahath, son of Amasai- </p><p>The lists here must be connected with those of :24-27, but clearly some people had more than one name, or variations in the spelling. And the order appears to be reversed. This it would have read: Tahath, Uriel, Zephaniah, Uzziah (also known as Azariah), Shaul (a:k:a Joel), Elkanah, Amasai, Ahimoth (a:k:a. Mahath), Elkanah Zophai (a:k:a. Zuph), Nahath (a:k:a. Toah, Tohu, <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a>), Eliab (a:k:a. Eliel, Elihu, <a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a>), Jeroham, Elkanah, Samuel (a:k:a:&nbsp; Shemuel), Joel (<a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>son of Elkanah, son of Joel, son of Azariah, son of Zephaniah- </p><p>If this is the Joel of :28, son of Samuel [although the order of the genealogy is the other way around at this point], then we note that there the name&nbsp; is given as Vashni, meaning "weak", rather than Joel as here and in <a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>, meaning "Jehovah is God". If we stick with "Vashni", we have an example of how character and personal history became reflected in the names by which men were remembered by, whereas his birth name was Joel, reflecting parental hope rather than actual reality.</p>


text:
<p>son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, the son of Israel- </p><p>"Izhar" means literally 'the anointing oil'. An absolutely appropriate name for a Levite.</p>


text:
<p>His brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, even Asaph the son of Berechiah, son of Shimea- </p><p>Asaph was his brother in the sense only of a relative. Asaph himself composed songs, under the influence of Divine inspiration as a prophet (<a href='B:140 29:30'>2Ch 29:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>son of Michael, son of Baaseiah, son of Malchijah- </p><p>Malchijah, "Yah is king", would be an abiding recognition that the system of human kingship was far less than idea, and for the faithful, Yahweh remained the king of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>son of Ethni, son of Zerah, son of Adaiah- </p><p>"Adaiah", adorned by Yah, would be an appropriate name for any Levite who wore the robes.</p>


text:
<p>son of Ethan, son of Zimmah, son of Shimei- </p><p>"Zimmah", wicked / wicked planner, would be a most unlikely birth name for a Levite. This is an example, as discussed on :19, of where subsequent character and life experience gave rise to the name by which a person was known. Indeed this is the whole Hebrew idea of 'naming', and we see it in the idea of the Yahweh Name, which is all about His history, personality and actions according to that character.</p>


text:
<p>son of Jahath, son of Gershom, the son of Levi- </p><p>This list of seven sons of Gershom in :20,21 appears to be part of this longer list of 13 sons of Gershom in :39-43. There are so many similarities, and the differences may be accounted for on the basis of people having more than one name, as explained on :19.</p>


text:
<p>On the left hand were their brothers the sons of Merari: Ethan the son of Kishi, son of Abdi, son of Malluch- </p><p>Ethan is called Jeduthun in <a href='B:140 35:15'>2Ch 35:15</a>. We wonder if the division of singers into groups on the right and left was to reflect the structure of the court of Heaven, where the Angels were thus arranged in <a href='B:110 22:19'>1Ki 22:19</a>. For the sanctuary on earth was to be a pattern of the things in heaven (<a href='B:650 8:5'>Heb 8:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>son of Hashabiah, son of Amaziah, son of Hilkiah- </p><p>Hilkiah was an appropriate name for a Levite, 'Yah is my portion', or 'Portion of Yah'. For they had no portion or inheritance, just as Israel were Yahweh's "portion" (<a href='B:50 32:9'>Deu 32:9</a>). We are to catch that spirit, as a kingdom of priests (<a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>) whose portion or inheritance is the honour of doing God's work for His people, rather than building up any material inheritance in this world.</p>


text:
<p>son of Amzi, son of Bani, son of Shemer-</p><p>Here we have three generations without the name of God or anything spiritual in their names, whereas in :45 we had three generations who all had the name of Yahweh in their names. But having a Godly name was no guarantee that these people were spiritual (cp. <a href='B:730 3:1'>Rev 3:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>son of Mahli, son of Mushi, son of Merari, the son of Levi- </p><p>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively:&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Their brothers the Levites were appointed for all the service of the tabernacle of God’s house- </p><p>Heb. "all the kinds of service...". We can see the various kinds of service in passages like <a href='B:130 15:18-24'>1Ch 15:18-24</a>; <a href='B:130 16:37-42'>1Ch 16:37-42</a>; <a href='B:130 23:2-32'>1Ch 23:2-32</a>; <a href='B:130 25:1-8'>1Ch 25:1-8</a>; <a href='B:130 26:1-26'>1Ch 26:1-26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But Aaron and his sons offered on the altar of burnt offering, and on the altar of incense, for all the work of the most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded- </p><p>This language of Aaron making atonement for all Israel raises the question as to whether sin is forgiven purely on the basis of individual repentance and approach to God for forgiveness; or whether there is some dimension whereby the prayers and efforts of another can bring that forgiveness. We seem to have examples of that in <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>; <a href='B:660 5:15'>Jas 5:15</a>. But there are invisible limits to it; for no sinner who doesn't want forgiveness nor salvation will have it forced upon them. But for those who do, then there appears to be a component in their salvation, indeed that of all of us, which can depend upon others.</p>


text:
<p>These are the sons of Aaron: Eleazar- </p><p>Eleazar's mother was Elisheba daughter of Amminadab, a&nbsp; descendant of Judah through Pharez. Here the priestly and kingly lines met.</p><p>Phinehas his son, Abishua his son- </p><p>The genealogy of the sons of Korah, the gatekeepers of the temple, is recorded in <a href='B:130 9:17-19'>1Ch 9:17-19</a>. It can be shown from the genealogies that they were brought up by their second cousin, Phinehas. They obeyed the command to leave the tents of their father Korah when he was consumed in the earthquake. <a href='B:40 16:27'>Num 16:27</a> mentions Dathan and Abiram's children standing outside their tents at this time, but there is the pointed omission of Korah's children; they had left the tents. We can therefore build up a picture of Phinehas as a zealot for the purity of God's Truth (Numbers 25), yet mixed with compassion, as shown by the way he took those children of Korah under his wing, and brought them up soundly in the Truth, with the result that wrote at least 11 of the Psalms and protected the purity of temple worship.</p>


text:
<p>Bukki his son, Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son- </p><p>The list here of :49-53 seems to repeat that in :3-8; perhaps because that earlier list was produced at the time of the exile (:15), whereas this one concluding with Ahimaaz (:53) was written at the time of David or Solomon, for Ahimaaz was contemporary with the final part of David's life (<a href='B:100 15:27'>2Sa 15:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Meraioth his son, Amariah his son, Ahitub his son- </p><p>"Meraioth", 'rebellious', as surely not the name given to the child at birth. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok his son, Ahimaaz his son- </p><p>I suggested on :52 that "Meraioth" was indeed "rebellious" as his name means. But if he had been slain as required by the law as the rebellious child (s:w. <a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a>), then the line would not have continued as it did through Zadok. We see how God works through grace and failure.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are their dwelling places according to their encampments in their borders: to the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites (for theirs was the first lot)- </p><p>With various differences of spelling, this is the same list as in Joshua 21.</p>


text:
<p>to them they gave Hebron in the land of Judah, and its suburbs around it- </p><p>In the Hebrew text of <a href='B:130 6:55-60'>1Ch 6:55-60</a> we have eleven names, but thirteen towns are stated in :60. Juttah and Gibeon were promised (<a href='B:60 21:16-17'>Jos 21:16-17</a>), but were not possessed. But as also experienced in :81, and as often happens with God's people, they do not take all the blessing that God promised and intended for them.</p>


text:
<p>but the fields of the city, and its villages, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh- </p><p>As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself. See on <a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>.</p>


text:
<p>To the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of refuge: Hebron; Libnah also with its suburbs, Jattir, Eshtemoa with its suburbs- </p><p>The cities of refuge represented salvation in the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>). But most of them were situation in remote or mountainous areas, Hebron being an exception. The idea was that those wishing for salvation from sin they had unintentionally committed must make quite some conscious effort and choice to get there, as is true today. And more such cities were promised, but Israel didn't take up that offer. This would have made salvation more easily accessible, as it were, had they done so:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>and out of the tribe of Benjamin, Geba with its suburbs; Allemeth with its suburbs and Anathoth with its suburbs. All their cities throughout their families were thirteen cities- </p><p>Allemeth is Almon in Joshua 21. See on :55.</p>


text:
<p>To the rest of the sons of Kohath were given by lot, out of the family of the tribe, out of the half-tribe, the half of Manasseh, ten cities- </p><p>The parable of the pounds describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities (<a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a>). This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a>; <a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a>; <a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and " five cities" in <a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a>) and preparation of reward (<a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a>; <a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a> Heb:; 23:20; <a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a> Heb:) . We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is only eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p>


text:
<p>To the sons of Gershom, according to their families, out of the tribe of Issachar, out of the tribe of Asher, out of the tribe of Naphtali and out of the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, thirteen cities- </p><p>This refers to the half tribe of Manasseh on the east of Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>To the sons of Merari were given by lot, according to their families, out of the tribe of Reuben, out of the tribe of Gad and out of the tribe of Zebulun, twelve cities- </p><p>Four cities from each of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Zebulun (<a href='B:60 21:7'>Jos 21:7</a>; <a href='B:60 21:34-40'>Jos 21:34-40</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel gave to the Levites the cities with their suburbs- </p><p>The total of 48 cities (<a href='B:40 35:7'>Num 35:7</a>; <a href='B:60 21:41'>Jos 21:41</a>) is reflected in the summaries here (13 in :60, 10 in :61, 13 in :62 an 12 in :63). But whether those cities were given wholeheartedly and completely is open to question.</p>


text:
<p>They gave by lot out of the tribe of the children of Judah, out of the tribe of the children of Simeon and out of the tribe of the children of Benjamin, these cities which are mentioned by name- </p><p>The "lot" was presumably in that the tribes selected some kind of representation of their various cities, and lots were taken as to which cities should be given to the Levites. But this was not exactly how things had been envisaged when the Levitical cities were first defined.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the families of the sons of Kohath had cities of their borders out of the tribe of Ephraim- </p><p>The idea could be that Ephraim had cities on the very border of the territory of Ephraim, perhaps land which Ephraim had not settled and therefore the gift of those cities to the Levites was less costly or significant for them. Which raises the question as to how fairly the "lots" of :65 were arranged.</p>


text:
<p>They gave to them the cities of refuge: Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim with its suburbs; Gezer also with its suburbs- </p><p>I noted on :57 that the cities of refuge represented salvation in the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>). But most of them were situation in remote or mountainous areas, Hebron being an exception. The idea was that those wishing for salvation from sin they had unintentionally committed must make quite some conscious effort and choice to get there, as is true today.</p>


text:
<p>Jokmeam with its suburbs; Beth Horon with its suburbs- </p><p>Beth Horon was in the mountains (<a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>), called Beth Horon "the upper" (<a href='B:60 16:5'>Jos 16:5</a>). See on :67.</p>


text:
<p>Aijalon with its suburbs and Gath Rimmon with its suburbs- </p><p>These cities were in Dan (<a href='B:60 21:23-24'>Jos 21:23-24</a>), but were given by Ephraim to the Levites (<a href='B:130 6:66'>1Ch 6:66</a>; <a href='B:130 6:69'>1Ch 6:69</a>). This continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and out of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Aner with its suburbs and Bileam with its suburbs, for the rest of the family of the sons of Kohath- </p><p>"Bileam" means 'not of the people', called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>To the sons of Gershom were given, out of the family of the half-tribe of Manasseh: Golan in Bashan with its suburbs, and Ashtaroth with its suburbs- </p><p>Golan was one of the cities of refuge on the east of Jordan. Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number, thereby making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no evidence Israel availed themselves of this. Ashtaroth is Beeshterah in <a href='B:60 21:27'>Jos 21:27</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and out of the tribe of Issachar: Kedesh with its suburbs; Daberath with its suburbs- </p><p>This Kedesh is that of <a href='B:60 13:22'>Jos 13:22</a> called Kishon in <a href='B:60 21:28'>Jos 21:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ramoth with its suburbs; Anem with its suburbs- </p><p>Ramoth in <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is called Jarmuth in <a href='B:60 21:28-29'>Jos 21:28-29</a>, and perhaps Remeth in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>. Anem of <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is&nbsp; En-gannim in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>; <a href='B:60 21:29'>Jos 21:29</a>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>and out of the tribe of Asher: Mashal with its suburbs; Abdon with its suburbs- </p><p>Mashal, Hukok, Hammon and Kiriathaim, are the Mishal, Helkath, Hammoth-dor and Kartan of <a href='B:60 19:35'>Jos 19:35</a>; <a href='B:60 21:30-32'>Jos 21:30-32</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and out of the tribe of Naphtali: Kedesh in Galilee with its suburbs; Hammon with its suburbs and Kiriathaim with its suburbs- </p><p>See on :74.</p>


text:
<p>To the rest of the Levites, the sons of Merari, were given, out of the tribe of Zebulun: Rimmono with its suburbs; Tabor with its suburbs- </p><p>Rimmono and Tabor in <a href='B:130 6:77'>1Ch 6:77</a> are in <a href='B:60 21:35'>Jos 21:35</a> as Dimnah and Nahalai.</p>


text:
<p>and beyond the Jordan at Jericho, on the east side of the Jordan, were given them, out of the tribe of Reuben: Bezer in the wilderness with its suburbs; Jahzah with its suburbs- </p><p>Again, Bezer "in the wilderness" suggests it was an isolated outpost which was not of great value. It continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites. See on :70.</p>


text:
<p>Kedemoth with its suburbs and Mephaath with its suburbs- </p><p>Kedemoth was "in the wilderness" (<a href='B:50 2:26'>Deu 2:26</a>). Nearly all these cities gifted to the Levites weren't in good locations. See on :70.</p>


text:
<p>and out of the tribe of Gad: Ramoth in Gilead with its suburbs; Mahanaim with its suburbs- </p><p>To give Ramoth Gilead to the Levites was hardly much of a gift, because this town is recorded as so often falling into the hands of Israel's enemies. See on :70.</p>


text:
<p>Heshbon with its suburbs and Jazer with its suburbs-</p><p>This list was perhaps how things worked out in practice, because Jokneam and Kartah were also promised (<a href='B:60 21:34'>Jos 21:34</a>). But as often happens with God's people, they do not take all the blessing that God promised and intended for them.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Issachar: Tola, Puah, Jashub and Shimron, four- </p><p>Not all of the tribes have their genealogies given, and the detail is far less than for Judah and Levi. The details also varies between the tribes, with Dan getting no mention and Naphtali only one verse. This is because the purpose of these genealogies was for the exiles of Judah at the time of the restoration. But the call was for the ten tribes to return at the same time, and there were some of the ten tribes who remained in the land after the mass deportation to Assyria. These would have joined with the people of Judah in going into captivity in Babylon. Perhaps just the information relevant to them is recorded.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Tola: Uzzi, Rephaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam and Shemuel, heads of their fathers’ houses, of Tola; mighty men of valour in their generations. Their number in the days of David was twenty-two thousand six hundred- </p><p>This may refer to the census taken by David which resulted in wrath upon Israel (<a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>). That census was incomplete because not all Israel wanted to pay the temple tax associated with a census. And so here we just have the number of fighting men [which was what David had wanted to know] of the clan of Tola.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Uzzi: Izrahiah. The sons of Izrahiah: Michael, Obadiah, Joel and Isshiah, five; all of them chief men- </p><p>These are all Godly names. Maybe that corroborates the suggestion on :2 that these were those numbered at the time of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> who paid the temple tax associated with a census. Those who didn't pay it weren't numbered. And it was the more Godly who would have paid it.</p>


text:
<p>With them, by their generations, after their fathers’ houses, were bands of the army for war, thirty-six thousand; for they had many wives and sons- </p><p>The mention of many wives continues the theme of these genealogies- the moral weakness of the people, especially in terms of marital relationships, is constantly noted.</p>


text:
<p>Their brothers among all the families of Issachar, mighty men of valour, reckoned in all by genealogy, were eighty-seven thousand- </p><p><a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of the Chronicles genealogies (<a href='B:130 4:33'>1Ch 4:33</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 5:7'>1Ch 5:7</a>; <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a>; <a href='B:130 7:5'>1Ch 7:5</a>; <a href='B:130 7:7'>1Ch 7:7</a>; <a href='B:130 7:9'>1Ch 7:9</a>; <a href='B:130 7:40'>1Ch 7:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Ch 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a>). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher and Jediael, three- </p><p>Jediael (“Known to God”) is substituted for the pagan Ashbel (“Man of Baal” in <a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a>, following the principle that the name of Baal should be removed from the mouths of God's people (<a href='B:350 2:17'>Hos 2:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Bela: Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth and Iri, five; heads of fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour. They were reckoned by genealogy twenty-two thousand and thirty-four- </p><p>The apparent difference with the list in <a href='B:130 8:3-5'>1Ch 8:3-5</a> is that we are here reading the numbers of fighting men taken at the time of the census in <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>. At the time of a census, the temple tax had to be paid, or else plague would come. Plague was chosen by God as the punishment for Israel at this time, because many refused to be counted as they didn't want to pay the temple tax. Hence David took false guilt in feeling personally guilty for the plague. But it seems that some paid the tax for others, and so "sons" are counted to them who may not have been their literal sons. See on :11 for an example:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Becher: Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth, Abijah, Anathoth and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Becher- </p><p>Some of these are names of places (<a href='B:130 6:60'>1Ch 6:60</a>; <a href='B:300 1:1'>Jer 1:1</a>), and it seems in all the genealogies there is a confusion between people and places. The settlements around a city are therefore often called the sons or daughters of that city.</p>


text:
<p>They were reckoned by genealogy, after their generations, heads of their fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour, twenty thousand two hundred- </p><p>The purpose of the census in David's time was to find out how many soldiers there were. But it seems that whilst numbering them, there was also in some cases a note made of their genealogies.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Jediael: Bilhan. The sons of Bilhan: Jeush, Benjamin, Ehud, Chenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish and Ahishahar- </p><p>Jediael had only one son, but the sons of his son were counted to him. I suggest this was because he paid the temple tax for them at the time of the census when they were numbered; see on :11.</p>


text:
<p>All these were sons of Jediael, according to the heads of their fathers’ households, mighty men of valour, seventeen thousand and two hundred, who were able to go forth in the army for war- </p><p>The particular detail given about the men of Jediael reflects how he was willing to pay the temple tax at the time of the census (see on :2). And I suggested on :6 that he had broken free of his weak spiritual background and changed his name to a more Godly name.</p>


text:
<p>Shuppim also, and Huppim, the sons of Ir, Hushim, the sons of Aher-</p><p>The addition of others, as if connected with Jediael but not his direct relatives ["Shuppim also..."] could be explained by the suggestion on :2,6, and :11 that Jediael paid the temple tax for these people. Therefore they were numbered under his name, but were not his relatives.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Naphtali: Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and Shallum, the sons of Bilhah-</p><p>Naphtali gets only one verse. I suggested on :1 some reasons for this. There would have been few from the far north of Israel, where Naphtali was, amongst the exiles from Judah.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Manasseh: Asriel, whom his concubine the Aramitess bore. She bore Machir the father of Gilead- </p><p>These records seem to stress the weakness and occasional strength of these children of God. This is one of the major lessons from Chronicles. Every now and then, the list of names is interrupted by a piece of information which indicates God's awareness of their spirituality. For example, the fact some men had more than one wife or a wife from a nation other than Israel is often recorded (<a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:26'>1Ch 2:26</a>; <a href='B:130 2:35'>1Ch 2:35</a>; <a href='B:130 2:48'>1Ch 2:48</a>; <a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:130 8:8'>1Ch 8:8</a>). The way these interruptions occur in the lists of names stands out. This is surely to indicate two things: that many faithful men (e.g. Abraham and Caleb, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:46'>1Ch 2:46</a>) made mistakes in this area of life, and secondly that all down the centuries God has not forgotten that they married out of the faith, or that they allowed the pressures of their surrounding world to influence them to break away from the ideal one man: one woman standard of Eden. These two facts provide us with both warning and comfort, in that although God is sensitive to failure, He is still able to justify men, to count them as if they are righteous for the sake of their covenant relationship with Him, even though (e.g.) their married life was not completely in order.</p><p><a href='B:130 2:21'>1Ch 2:21</a> adds: "Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he took as wife when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub". We again have the theme of marital and sexual weakness in the family of Israel. Machir was Manasseh’s oldest son by a Syrian, Gentile woman. It was the Divine intention that marriage should be within the tribes of Israel so as to keep the inheritance which God intended. But here we have Manasseh and Judah intermarrying.</p>


text:
<p>Machir took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister’s name was Maacah; and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters- </p><p>The fact God allows His children to live His truth on different levels needs to be grasped firmly by us, lest we become discouraged that others live on an apparently lower level than we do in some aspects of life. Being surrounded by ‘lower levels’ ought to inspire us to the higher levels. Zelophehad had only daughters; usually, in his context, a man would have taken concubines in order to produce sons. The record of his only having daughters is presented in the context of genealogies which show that many Israelite men had more than one wife (<a href='B:130 7:15'>1Ch 7:15</a>). But Zelophehad wasn’t dragged down by this; God inspired him to maintain the higher level which he had chosen to live by. He didn't use the principle of Jephthah's vow. And his daughters likewise refused to be limited by their status as females, but obtained an inheritance amongst their brethren (<a href='B:40 27:1-7'>Num 27:1-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Maacah the wife of Machir bore a son, and she named him Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem- </p><p>"Peresh" means 'dung' (s:w. <a href='B:20 29:14'>Exo 29:14</a>; <a href='B:30 4:11'>Lev 4:11</a>). Here we have an example of how some names were birth names; and others, like this, were names which reflected life experience and character, and were what others called the person. Which is why people had multiple names.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Ulam: Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh- </p><p>This Bedan is perhaps the judge mentioned in <a href='B:90 12:11'>1Sa 12:11</a> about whom we do not read in the book of Judges.</p>


text:
<p>His sister Hammolecheth bore Ishhod, and Abiezer, and Mahlah- </p><p>We note the prominence given to this woman. Her name means 'Queen of Molech', the god to whom children were sacrificed. Her infamy is therefore noted, continuing the theme of the genealogies noting the widespread spiritual weakness of the people. But from her came Abiezer, from whom Gideon was descended. So we are again taught that a man can overcome bad background by response to God's word and His love.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shemida were Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam-</p><p>Shemida appears out of context here, but <a href='B:60 17:2'>Jos 17:2</a> says he was also one of the male descendants of Manasseh. Seeing no other pedigree is given, perhaps Shemida was adopted into the tribe, maybe having been a Gentile.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, Bered his son, Tahath his son, Eleadah his son, Tahath his son- </p><p>Called Shuthelah, Becher, Tahan and Eran in <a href='B:40 26:35-36'>Num 26:35-36</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Zabad his son, Shuthelah his son, and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath who were born in the land killed, because they came down to take away their livestock- </p><p>The men of Gath are recorded as slaying some of the men of Ephraim the largest tribe (<a href='B:130 7:21'>1Ch 7:21</a>), whereas the men of Benjamin, the smallest tribe, slew the men of Gath (<a href='B:130 8:13'>1Ch 8:13</a>). It is God's way of showing how He works through the small and confounds the things which appear mighty.</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him- </p><p>It is unclear when this skirmish with the men of Gath occurred (:21). It could have been whilst Israel were living in Goshen. For their father Ephraim, the patriarch, was still alive, and his brothers. This means that the Israelites in Goshen were still not converted by their experience of Joseph's grace, and the great beneficence of Pharaoh towards them. They still hankered for more cattle, and raided southern Palestine in order to steal.</p>


text:
<p>He went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and he named him Beriah, because it went evil with his house- </p><p>Ephraim would have been very old by this point. Having a child in old age after the death of adult children... is absolutely psychologically credible. The inspired record is indeed credible at every point.</p>


text:
<p>His daughter was Sheerah, who built Beth Horon the lower and the upper, and Uzzen Sheerah- </p><p>The context of :23 suggests Sheerah was either the daughter or granddaughter of Ephraim the patriarch. This would confirm the suggestion on :22 that Israel in Egypt had more contact with Canaan than we might imagine. She apparently build settlements there.</p>


text:
<p>Rephah was his son, and Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son- </p><p>The "he" is either Ephraim himself or Beriah (:23). Rephah and Resheph are names with pagan god associations. But from this background was to come faithful Joshua (:27).</p>


text:
<p>Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son- </p><p>Unusually for the genealogies, we have here probably a complete genealogy from Ephraim who entered Egypt with Jacob, to Joshua who came out of Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Nun his son, Joshua his son- </p><p>"Nun" means "to sprout", so Joshua is presented as the shoot; which is a Messianic term in Zechariah. Joshua, with the same meaning as 'Jesus', could potentially have been a Messiah figure, but he failed to live up to the full potential.</p>


text:
<p>Their possessions and habitations were Bethel and its towns, and eastward Naaran, and westward Gezer, with its towns; Shechem also and its towns, to Azzah and its towns- </p><p>Gezer is not the more well known Gaza, which was in Judah not Ephraim.</p>


text:
<p>and by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth Shean and its towns, Taanach and its towns, Megiddo and its towns, Dor and its towns. In these lived the children of Joseph the son of Israel-</p><p>But Beth Shean was in Issachar (<a href='B:60 17:11-13'>Jos 17:11-13</a>; <a href='B:110 4:11-12'>1Ki 4:11-12</a>). Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and Serah their sister- </p><p>The mention of women in this list is unusual. The names are of those who became heads of family clans within the tribes. So the mention of Serah would mean that she became a head of family; although rare or unknown in the world around them, this was not totally unheard of in the Jacob family and we see in this the respect of women amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel, who was the father of Birzaith- </p><p>"Birzaith" is female, and may refer to a place name ["well of olives"]. "Father of" is used about founding cities in <a href='B:130 2:51-52'>1Ch 2:51-52</a>; <a href='B:130 4:4-5'>1Ch 4:4-5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Heber became the father of Japhlet, Shomer, Hotham and Shua their sister- </p><p>Shomer and Hotham of :32 are Shamer and Helem of :34,35.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Japhlet: Pasach, Bimhal and Ashvath. These are the children of Japhlet- </p><p>The apparently needless repetition of Japhlet as the father may be because as noted on :2,7,11, these names were produced at the time of David's census of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>, and that meant that those numbered had to pay the temple tax or else plague would come. Japhlet perhaps paid the tax for the three sons, and this is stressed. Plague was chosen by God as the punishment for Israel at this time, because many refused to be counted as they didn't want to pay the temple tax. Hence David took false guilt in feeling personally guilty for the plague. But it seems that some paid the tax for others, and so "sons" are counted to them who may not have been their literal sons. See on :11 for an example.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shemer: Ahi, Rohgah, Jehubbah and Aram- </p><p>Jehubbah ['hidden place'] and Aram ['upland'] appear more appropriate as place names than personal names.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Helem his brother: Zophah, Imna, Shelesh and Amal- </p><p>Shomer and Hotham of :32 are Shamer and Helem of :34,35.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Zophah: Suah, Harnepher, Shual, Beri, Imrah- </p><p>This list of 11 sons of Zophah may also include his grandchildren.</p>


text:
<p>Bezer, Hod, Shamma, Shilshah, Ithran and Beera- </p><p>Several of the names of the 11 "sons of Zophah" (:36) are known place names, or sound as if they are; e.g. "Bezer" means 'inaccessible place', more appropriate to a place than a person.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jether: Jephunneh, Pispa and Ara- </p><p>Here and in :39 we appear to have the mention of people (Jether and Ulla) of whom we have no background information. Perhaps they are also "sons of Zophah" of :36.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ulla: Arah, Hanniel and Rizia- </p><p>Ulla is a female name. Yet she was a household head and mighty soldier (:40). The genealogies are noted for their mention of significant women.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the children of Asher, heads of the fathers’ houses, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. The number of them reckoned by genealogy for service in war was twenty-six thousand men- </p><p>In <a href='B:130 12:36'>1Ch 12:36</a> Asher's troops were 40,000, and even more in <a href='B:40 1:41'>Num 1:41</a>; <a href='B:40 26:47'>Num 26:47</a>. The smaller number here is because as explained on :33, this list was compiled at the time of the census of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a>. Those numbered had to pay the temple tax or else plague would come. Plague was chosen by God as the punishment for Israel at this time, because many refused to be counted as they didn't want to pay the temple ta.<X/p>


text:
<p>Benjamin became the father of Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third- </p><p>Although the Chronicles genealogies and record tends to focus upon the Levites, the genealogy of Benjamin is perhaps stressed here because it is to provide a backdrop to Saul, whom we will begin reading about when the narrative begins in 1 Chronicles 10. But that genealogy will begin specifically at :29. Here we are reading of the Benjamites who lived in Jerusalem (:28). Benjamin was originally in Benjamite territory.</p>


text:
<p>Nohah the fourth and Rapha the fifth- </p><p><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a> says that Benjamin had ten sons when the Jacob family moved into Egypt, but here seven of them are in fact his grandsons. Benjamin was hardly a child when the brothers came to buy corn. He was in his 20s, and according to the Hebrew text he had ten sons already, and presumably some daughters; perhaps suggesting that his father's favouritism and obsession with him had not been helpful morally, and had resulted in him having multiple relationships from a young age. However, the LXX lists only three sons, and makes the rest of the list the sons of Bela. And yet Benjamin would not have been old enough to have been a grandfather. So it could be that he had married a woman who had children of her own who became Benjamin's, or that he somehow adopted these children. There would have been a very large extended family around Jacob, and maybe these children were simply under the care of Benjamin. However, the genealogy in <a href='B:40 26:40'>Num 26:40</a> appears to support the LXX text here, with Ard and Naaman given as grandsons of Benjamin and not sons. We must remember that genealogies, numbers and dates are not used in Semitic languages in the strictly literalistic way in which they are in European languages. <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a> can therefore argue that Melchizedek blessed Levi because he blessed Abraham, and Levi was a descendant of Abraham, "yet in the loins of his father". And this establishes Melchizedek as greater than Levi, and in turn, the priests descended from him. That argument may appear very stretched and even technically inaccurate to European ears. But it had absolute validity in Hebrew thought. And so the grandchildren of Benjamin, yet unborn, could be listed as being in existence when Benjamin went into Egypt, and even be numbered amongst the group at that time. This is why the grandchildren of the maids are counted as if they are the direct children of the maids; see on <a href='B:10 46:9'>Gen 46:9</a>; <a href='B:10 46:18'>Gen 46:18</a>. We likewise read that Jacob brought his twelve sons out of Mesopotamia, including Benjamin (<a href='B:10 35:24'>Gen 35:24</a>; <a href='B:10 35:26'>Gen 35:26</a>). But Benjamin was born later, in Canaan. But on this basis of being counted as "in the loins of" an ancestor, Benjamin could also be presented as having come out of Mesopotamia. If this kind of thing were better appreciated by Bible readers, it would be better understood that there was no personal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus in actuality, although He is spoken of as existing prior to His birth.</p>


text:
<p>Bela had sons: Addar, Gera, Abihud- </p><p>The simple truth is that Benjamin, the "little one" (<a href='B:10 44:20'>Gen 44:20</a>), has more descendants listed to his name than any of the brothers. <a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a> clearly alludes to this- "a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation". It is the theme of the patriarchal family; the firstborns are deposed, the elder serves the younger, the weak become strong, the little one becomes mighty.</p>


text:
<p>Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah- </p><p>These names of Benjamin's sons / grandsons recur in :7. Perhaps the sons of Ehud were named after those of Benjamin / Bela, as a sign of loyalty to the founding fathers of the tribe. There seems another example of this noted on :16. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Gera, Shephuphan and Huram- </p><p>See on :4. These names, meaning "grain", "serpent like" and "white", hardly reflect much spirituality. Indeed the true Israel of God had very shaky beginnings, and their founding fathers were nothing at all to be proud of in spiritual terms. They were to be God's people by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p>These are the sons of Ehud, who are the heads of fathers’ households of the inhabitants of Geba, and they carried them captive to Manahath- </p><p>This Ehud appears rather abruptly, and may be the same as "Abihud" of :3. But the judge of Israel, Ehud, was a Benjamite who was son of Gera (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>), and he sounds like the same person. So these men listed as "sons of Ehud" may&nbsp; actually simply be 'relatives of' Ehud, for "sons of" is a very vague phrase in Hebrew. In this case we would be learning that Ehud's family were carried captive to Manahath, a place in Moab. And this would explain his motivation in fighting to free Israel from Moabite domination:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Naaman, Ahijah and Gera. He carried them captive, and he became the father of Uzza and Ahihud- </p><p>See on :4. The idea may be that Ehud had two sons after his relatives had been taken captive to Moab. Their names, "strong" and "riddle", may refer to Ehud's being left-handed, and his slaying of Eglon by that strength. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Shaharaim divorced his two wives, Hushim and Baara. Later, when he lived in the country of Moab, he married Hodesh- </p><p>These records seem to stress the weakness and occasional strength of these children of God. This is one of the major lessons from Chronicles. Every now and then, the list of names is interrupted by a piece of information which indicates God's awareness of their spirituality. For example, the fact some men had more than one wife or a wife from a nation other than Israel is often recorded (<a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:3'>1Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:130 2:26'>1Ch 2:26</a>; <a href='B:130 2:35'>1Ch 2:35</a>; <a href='B:130 2:48'>1Ch 2:48</a>; <a href='B:130 4:18'>1Ch 4:18</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:130 8:8'>1Ch 8:8</a>). The way these interruptions occur in the lists of names stands out. This is surely to indicate two things: that many faithful men (e.g. Abraham and Caleb, <a href='B:130 1:32'>1Ch 1:32</a>; <a href='B:130 2:46'>1Ch 2:46</a>) made mistakes in this area of life, and secondly that all down the centuries God has not forgotten that they married out of the faith, or that they allowed the pressures of their surrounding world to influence them to break away from the ideal one man: one woman standard of Eden. These two facts provide us with both warning and comfort, in that although God is sensitive to failure, He is still able to justify men, to count them as if they are righteous for the sake of their covenant relationship with Him, even though (e.g.) their married life was not completely in order.</p><p>But the translation of this verse is very difficult and I suggest we may be intended to understand that Shaharaim ['double dawn'] went into captivity in Moab, and there he had many children. This would then connect with how when Ehud's relatives went into captivity in Moab, he had two sons and vowed to liberate Israel from Moab (:7)- which he did.</p>


text:
<p>his wife and had seven sons: Jobab, Zibia, Mesha, Malcam- </p><p>These children of his second marriage were a new beginning for Shaharaim, perhaps that is the sense of his name, 'double dawn'. But their names include the god Malcam of Ammon [which was likely also worshipped in Moab where they had been in captivity], which doesn't give the impression of much spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Jeuz, Shachia and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of fathers’ households- </p><p>As noted on :9, these names all tend to have idol or apostate associations. Jeuz = 'departure / apostacy', Shachia = 'captivation', Mirmah = 'deceit'.</p>


text:
<p>By Hushim he became the father of Abitub and Elpaal- </p><p>But in :8 we read he had divorced Hushim. Perhaps he remarried her, an abomination under the law. Maybe that is also the reference of his name, 'double dawn'. The theme of spiritual weakness is again continued.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Elpaal: Eber, Misham and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod with its towns- </p><p>The Chronicles genealogies were rewritten for the exiles, to enable them to better locate themselves within Israel's history. These cities featured in the restoration (<a href='B:150 2:33'>Ezr 2:33</a>; <a href='B:160 7:37'>Neh 7:37</a>; <a href='B:160 11:35'>Neh 11:35</a>). The Targum adds “Which the children of Israel ravaged and burnt with fire, when they made war on the tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah”.</p>


text:
<p>and Beriah and Shema, who were heads of fathers’ households of the inhabitants of Aijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath- </p><p>This appears in purposeful contrast to how the men of Gath are recorded as slaying some of the men of Ephraim the largest tribe (<a href='B:130 7:21'>1Ch 7:21</a>), whereas the men of Benjamin, the smallest tribe, slew the men of Gath (<a href='B:130 8:13'>1Ch 8:13</a>). It is God's way of showing how He works through the small and confounds the things which appear mighty.</p>


text:
<p>and Ahio, Shashak, Jeremoth- </p><p>From :13,14 we appear to have a new list of Benjamite heads of families. The names from :14 - :27 are divided into five groups: the sons of Beriah (:16), Elpaal (:18), Shimei (:21), Shashak (:25) and Jeroham (:27).</p>


text:
<p>Zebadiah, Arad, Eder- </p><p>Arad, "fugitive / exile", is one of several examples of names which sound appropriate to the exiles; see on :18. The message of the genealogies was and is that God's people had been in defeat, exile and captivity before, but had survived:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Michael, Ishpah and Joha, the sons of Beriah- </p><p>I suggested on :14 that this is a new list of Benjamite heads of families, separate to that which precedes it. But the names Beriah and Shashak repeat (:16,25) what is in :13,14. It could be the names simply repeat, as we saw on :4, where the sons of Ehud were named after those of Benjamin / Bela, as a sign of loyalty to the founding fathers of the tribe. Perhaps this was a tradition of the Benjamites. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>and Zebadiah, Meshullam, Hizki, Heber- </p><p>We wonder whether these are sons of the same Elpaal of :12. But as suggested on :16, to recycle personal names appears to have been a Benjamite tradition, as it has been in many tribes worldwide.</p>


text:
<p>Ishmerai, Izliah and Jobab, the sons of Elpaal- </p><p>These names again, as noted on :15, are examples of names which sound appropriate to the exiles. Ishmerai ("He who will be preserved"), Izliah ("Yah will draw out") and Jobab ("weeper", as the exiles wept by the rivers of Babylon). The message of the genealogies was and is that God's people had been in defeat, exile and captivity before, but had survived.</p>


text:
<p>and Jakim, Zichri, Zabdi- </p><p>Names again pertinent to the exile; respectively, "He will raise up / He will remember / He will give".</p>


text:
<p>Elienai, Zillethai, Eliel- </p><p>Elienai is “My eyes look towards Jehovah", which was the feeling of the faithful captives in <a href='B:230 123:2'>Psa 123:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Adaiah, Beraiah and Shimrath, the sons of Shimei- </p><p>"Yah has adorned" (Adaiah) and "Yah has created" (Beraiah) state the parents' faith that what God had promised, to create (<a href='B:290 65:17'>Isa 65:17</a>) and adorn (<a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>) a restored Israel, He had as good as done. For this is the essence of faith- to feel and believe that what is not yet fulfilled has in fact happened, so certain is God to come through with His purpose (<a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and Ishpan, Eber, Eliel- </p><p>Again we see the repetition of the name Eliel (:20). This confirms the suggestion on :4,16,17 that this chapter is not in fact hopelessly jumbled by various editors, but simply reflects a common tribal tradition of repeating names. We recall how Israel and Judah both had a king called Jehoram at the same time (<a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Abdon, Zichri, Hanan- </p><p>As noted on :22, many of these names repeat; another Zichri is in :19.</p>


text:
<p>Hananiah, Elam, Anthothijah- </p><p>Perhaps meaning a person from Anathoth, which was in Benjamin and was a priestly town, where Jeremiah was from (<a href='B:300 1:1'>Jer 1:1</a>). But the form in which it is here means 'Yah answers'.</p>


text:
<p>Iphdeiah, and Penuel the sons of Shashak- </p><p>I suggested on :14 that this is a new list of Benjamite heads of families, separate to that which precedes it. But the names Beriah and Shashak repeat (:16,25) what is in :13,14. It could be the names simply repeat, as we saw on :4, where the sons of Ehud were named after those of Benjamin / Bela, as a sign of loyalty to the founding fathers of the tribe. Perhaps this was a tradition of the Benjamites. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>and Shamsherai, Shehariah, Athaliah- </p><p>"Shehariah", "Yah has sought", has relevance to God's seeking of His lost sheep at the restoration, as prophesied in Ezekiel 34 and often. But they had to seek Him (<a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a> uses the same word for "sought"); and the meeting of the searching God with the man searching for Him can be electric, the Father meeting the prodigal.</p>


text:
<p>Jaareshiah, Elijah and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham- </p><p>There is also a Zichri in :19,23; see on :22. "Elijah", 'Yahweh is the God', would be a challenge to Israel's common idea that they could serve Yahweh through serving the other gods. But their one and only God was to be Yahweh, and that left no space for worshipping any other god.</p>


text:
<p>These were heads of fathers’ households throughout their generations, chief men: these lived in Jerusalem- </p><p>This appears to begin the summary of the Jerusalem Levites and their division of labour which finishes in <a href='B:130 9:34'>1Ch 9:34</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In Gibeon there lived the father of Gibeon, whose wife’s name was Maacah- </p><p>The following genealogical information on Saul is to provide background for the historical narrative which will begin with the death of Saul in 1 Chronicles 10. And it begins with the point that Saul was grandson of the founder of Gibeon, or Gibeah of Saul. When he made out to Samuel that he was from an insignificant family, he was [like us when facing God's call] making desperately untrue excuses.</p>


text:
<p>and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, Kish, Baal, Nadab- </p><p>When a passage is repeated twice, surely God wishes us to perceive something. <a href='B:130 8:30-34'>1Ch 8:30-34</a> is repeated in 9:36-40. The reason seems to be that the name 'Baal' was used by the leaders of Israel. Gibeon's children included Kish and Baal, Kish's son was king Saul, Saul had a son called Eshbaal&nbsp; as well as Jonathan, David's beloved friend; and Jonathan had a son called Meribbaal. These are not the names as recorded elsewhere; evidently the Chronicles record is highlighting the fact that there was a strand of weakness for idols in the family of Saul, including in Jonathan- who was a type of us in his friendship of David / Jesus. Surely this helps us to better relate to him; his love of David, his appreciation of David's righteousness, his belief that David would have the future Kingdom, struggled against the fact that the worldly influence of his father and great-grandfather still rubbed off upon him.</p>


text:
<p>Gedor, Ahio and Zecher- </p><p>We note that none of the names of the sons of Kish feature the 'Yah' prefix or suffix. Saul didn't come from a spiritual background, and yet the Spirit of God was strong enough to change him and give him "another heart". Just as it can transform secular, irreligious man today.</p>


text:
<p>Mikloth became the father of Shimeah. They also lived with their brothers in Jerusalem, over against their brothers- </p><p>The idea is that some of the family lived in Jerusalem, 'opposite', as it were, the family who remained in Gibeah. Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin's territory. Mikloth may refer to another brother of Saul. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Ner became the father of Kish; and Kish became the father of Saul; and Saul became the father of Jonathan, Malchishua, Abinadab and Eshbaal- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 16:8'>1Sa 16:8</a>. <a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>; <a href='B:130 10:2'>1Ch 10:2</a> read "Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua", whereas <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a> has "Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua". "Ishvi" may be another name for Abinadab; or we may note that the word means "and the second...", which would make sense in <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a>. The genealogies of <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a> also mention Esh-Baal or Ishbosheth; perhaps his name mentioning the "Baal" compound was the reason for its exclusion. Having such a name reflects upon Saul's lack of total devotion to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Jonathan was Merib Baal; and Merib Baal became the father of Micah- </p><p>Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>) could mean 'the shame of Baal', but there is evidence that Saul's daughter Michal had an idol and it is likely that even Jonathan was not free of idolatry. Idolatry has always been a besetting weakness amongst even the best of God's people. He is called "Mephibosheth" in <a href='B:100 9:6'>2Sa 9:6</a>, which is apparently a name which would have arisen from changing his original name, Meribbaal 'man of Baal' (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>), to something which means 'the dispeller of shame'. i:e. Baal. The suffix 'baal' could suggest that even Jonathan was closer to idolatry than we would like, and at least he didn't use the 'Yah' suffix in the name of his children. But Mephibosheth had perhaps repented of this, renouncing Baal as shameful, and yet still struggled to believe in the extent of Yahweh's grace to him through David.</p><p>Tragically, we so often read of Yahweh's people carrying the names of Baal or other gods within their own names- e.g. Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>); Ishbaal (<a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a>); Baal-yada (<a href='B:130 14:7'>1Ch 14:7</a>); and perhaps worst of all, Baal-Yah (<a href='B:130 12:5'>1Ch 12:5</a>). Is our 'name' or personality before God the same tragic mixture of flesh and spirit?</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Tarea, and Ahaz- </p><p>Micah may refer to another brother or son of Saul, or possibly to a child of Jonathan. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul. "Melech", "king", may refer to the son or relative whom Saul favoured to succeed him, as kings often didn't choose their firstborn sons to succeed them. In this case, it reflects his refusal to believe the reality of the fact that David was to succeed him. Men are all the time in denial of God's word and all the evidence that it is going to come true, and act and plan as if sleepwalking or in amnesia, as if it will not.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz became the father of Jehoaddah; and Jehoaddah became the father of Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri; and Zimri became the father of Moza- </p><p>Jehoaddah is called Jarah in <a href='B:130 9:42'>1Ch 9:42</a>. "Jarah" is the very same word for "honeycomb" used in the record of how Jonathan ate of a honeycomb after his great victory over the Philistines, and his father Saul sought to kill him for it (<a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a>). We are reading here of the relatives of Saul, so it may well be that this child was named in favour of and respect for Jonathan rather than Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Moza became the father of Binea; Raphah was his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son- </p><p>We may wonder this particular line of Saul's family is recorded. We note that unlike the names of Saul's brothers, the names of this branch generally speak of God or spiritual things. Perhaps the names carried significance to those for whom these genealogies were first prepared. Or maybe the idea is that those who are spiritually minded are the ones whose name is preserved.</p>


text:
<p>Azel had six sons, whose names are these: Azrikam, Bocheru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel- </p><p>As noted on :37, these are all generally Godly or spiritual names. The fact they are all such names is surely a signpost to the fact that Azel was a spiritual person. And yet Saul's branch of the family didn't have such names. This may be to point up the way that God it seems willfully chose a person from an unspiritual background, when there were more spiritually qualified people even within his own wider family. Because He wished to declare His power of transformation in that man, through the work of the Spirit on his heart; even though Saul was to later refuse to cooperate. But this, it seems, was God's potential plan for him.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Eshek his brother: Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second, and Eliphelet the third- </p><p>Ulam is twelfth from Saul, although generations are often skipped in these genealogies. So seeing that Hezekiah was thirteenth from David, we can conclude that it was Isaiah or Hezekiah who may have first ordered these genealogies to be drawn up, although they were rewritten at the times of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers, and had many sons, and sons’ sons, one hundred and fifty. All these were of the sons of Benjamin- </p><p>Saul is likewise described as a "mighty man of valour" (<a href='B:90 9:1'>1Sa 9:1</a>). The impression is given that he was from a family which included many such people. And yet this would mean that Saul was making excuses when he attempts to turn down Samuel's call of him to kingship; for he therefore wrongly claimed that he was from a small and insignificant, unqualified family in Benjamin. We too can make all manner of dumb excuses and paint a quite wrong self image- in order to avoid God's call.</p>


text:
<p>So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies - they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their disobedience- </p><p><a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of the Chronicles genealogies (<a href='B:130 4:33'>1Ch 4:33</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 5:7'>1Ch 5:7</a>; <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a>; <a href='B:130 7:5'>1Ch 7:5</a>; <a href='B:130 7:7'>1Ch 7:7</a>; <a href='B:130 7:9'>1Ch 7:9</a>; <a href='B:130 7:40'>1Ch 7:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Ch 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a>). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come.</p>


text:
<p>Now the first inhabitants who lived in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites and the Nethinim- </p><p>"First" here refers to importance rather than first chronologically. The sense is as in <a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a> "Now those who first returned from Babylon to dwell in Judaea, again, dwelt [not in Jerusalem, but] in their own cities; this did they all whether they were laymen, priests, Levites; or Nethinim". We note that the common "Israelites" are placed first rather than last. The Levites were themselves but servants, and we see here the importance God attaches to the rank and file.</p>


text:
<p>In Jerusalem lived of the children of Judah, of the children of Benjamin and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh- </p><p>The fact some of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh also lived there is omitted by Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 11:4'>Neh 11:4</a>). Perhaps Nehemiah recognized in his edited version that the prophetic intention of Israel and Judah reuniting in Zion hadn't come about as intended. There had been no repentance, and most of them preferred to remain in exile. So he didn't even want to give the impression that the intended restoration had happened in this respect.</p>


text:
<p>Uthai the son of Ammihud, son of Omri, son of Imri, son of Bani, of the children of Perez son of Judah- </p><p>From :4-6 we see (as in <a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a>) the threefold division of the tribe of Judah (into the children of Perez, Shelah and Zerah).</p>


text:
<p>Of the Shilonites: Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons- </p><p>Related not to the town of Shiloh, but to the descendants of Shelah in the line of Judah (<a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a>). Shelah had a very shady beginning and might have seemed doomed to spiritual failure (<a href='B:10 38:5'>Gen 38:5</a>; <a href='B:10 38:11'>Gen 38:11</a>; <a href='B:10 38:14'>Gen 38:14</a>); he was half Canaanite. But from shaky spiritual beginnings, some do make good. And now we are reading of his descendants as those living in Jerusalem as the vanguard of the restoration of God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Zerah: Jeuel, and their brothers, six hundred and ninety- </p><p><a href='B:160 11:6'>Neh 11:6</a> &nbsp;says that "All the sons of Perez who lived in Jerusalem were four hundred and sixty-eight valiant men". At this point the list in 1 Chronicles 9 gives the number of the sons of Zerah as 690. It is clear therefore that neither list is complete. But that is no contradiction.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Benjamin: Sallu the son of Meshullam, son of Hodaviah, son of Hassenuah- </p><p>Better “and Hodaviah the son of Hasenuah”, the same person as “Judah the son of Has-senuah” in <a href='B:160 11:9'>Neh 11:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and Ibneiah son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, son of Reuel, son of Ibnijah- </p><p><a href='B:160 11:8'>Neh 11:8</a> adds: "After him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred and twenty-eight". These are not mentioned here in the parallel <a href='B:130 9:8'>1Ch 9:8</a> where the chiefs of Benjamin inferior to Sallu are Ibneiah, Elah and Meshullam. There is no contradiction; it's simply that neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, according to their generations, nine hundred and fifty-six. All these men were heads of fathers’ households by their fathers’ houses- </p><p>"Brothers" is a vague term in Hebrew, and this would account for the slight difference in numbers with <a href='B:160 11:8'>Neh 11:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Of the priests: Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, Jachin- </p><p>Those three are names of the priestly orders in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>. In Ezra 7, 15 names are listed between Ezra and Aaron- covering about 1000 years. Clearly many generations were omitted. We note there are 26 names listed between Zerubbabel (a generation or two before Ezra) and Nashon a contemporary of Aaron, in <a href='B:130 2:10-15'>1Ch 2:10-15</a>; <a href='B:130 3:1-19'>1Ch 3:1-19</a>. Some details of the omitted generations are found in <a href='B:130 9:10-11'>1Ch 9:10-11</a>; <a href='B:160 11:11'>Neh 11:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and Azariah son of Hilkiah, son of Meshullam, son of Zadok, son of Meraioth, son of Ahitub, the ruler of God’s house- </p><p>This might (<a href='B:140 31:10'>2Ch 31:10</a>; <a href='B:140 31:13'>2Ch 31:13</a>) or might not (<a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a>) refer to the High Priest.</p>


text:
<p>and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, son of Pashhur, son of Malchijah, and Maasai son of Adiel, son of Jahzerah, son of Meshullam, son of Meshillemith, son of Immer- </p><p>Compare this with <a href='B:160 11:13'>Neh 11:13</a>: "And his brothers, chiefs of fathers’ households, two hundred and forty-two; and Amashsai the son of Azarel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer". AV: "Amashai (R:V. Amashsai) the son of Azareel (R:V. Azarel), the son of Ahasai (R:V. Ahzai), the son of Meshillemoth]". Compare the parallel in <a href='B:130 9:12'>1Ch 9:12</a>,&nbsp; "Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith". The same person is in view. Comparing the names we see how the Biblical genealogies omit some names and generations, and also how the same name is rendered slightly differently. This is partly because of the difficulty of transliterating letters from non-Latin languages, especially ancient ones. But there are also substantive differences. Names in non-literate societies were pronounced differently and spelt differently in different contexts.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, heads of their fathers’ houses, one thousand seven hundred and sixty; very able men for the work of the service of God’s house- </p><p><a href='B:160 11:14'>Neh 11:14</a> "mighty men of valour". Their "valour" was in their ability to serve. For this is the true bravery.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites: Shemaiah son of Hasshub, son of Azrikam, son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari- </p><p>Hashabiah is called "the son of Bunni" in Nehemiah 11, but a man could be the descendant of more than one person, understanding "son of" as 'descendant' rather than literally.</p>


text:
<p>and Bakbakkar, Heresh, Galal, and Mattaniah son of Mica, son of Zichri, son of Asaph- </p><p>The Hebrew words can be read differently, either as proper nouns with meanings, or words; hence <a href='B:160 11:17'>Neh 11:17</a> "Bakbukiah the second among his brethren".</p>


text:
<p>and Obadiah son of Shemaiah, son of Galal, son of Jeduthun, and Berechiah son of Asa, son of Elkanah, who lived in the villages of the Netophathites- </p><p>These villages were hamlets around Bethlehem (<a href='B:130 2:54'>1Ch 2:54</a>; <a href='B:160 7:26'>Neh 7:26</a>). Perhaps because of the long term influence of David, who was from there, this area became a source of faithful people (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:130 27:13'>1Ch 27:13</a>; <a href='B:130 27:15'>1Ch 27:15</a>; <a href='B:160 12:28'>Neh 12:28</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The porters: Shallum, Akkub, Talmon and Ahiman, and their brothers (Shallum was the chief)- </p><p>The genealogy of the sons of Korah, the gatekeepers of the temple, is recorded in 9:17-19. It can be shown from the genealogies that they were brought up by their second cousin, Phinehas. They obeyed the command to leave the tents of their father Korah when he was consumed in the earthquake. <a href='B:40 16:27'>Num 16:27</a> mentions Dathan and Abiram's children standing outside their tents at this time, but there is the pointed omission of Korah's children; they had left the tents. We can therefore build up a picture of Phinehas as a zealot for the purity of God's Truth (Numbers 25), yet mixed with compassion, as shown by the way he took those children of Korah under his wing, and brought them up soundly in the Truth, with the result that wrote at least 11 of the Psalms and protected the purity of temple worship. It should be noted that Samuel was a Korahite (6:33-38).</p>


text:
<p>who previously served in the king’s gate eastward: they were the porters for the camp of the children of Levi- </p><p>This was the gate specially built in the temple by which the king entered (<a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a>; <a href='B:330 46:1-2'>Eze 46:1-2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brothers, of his father’s house, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the thresholds of the tent. Their fathers had been over the camp of Yahweh, keepers of the entry- </p><p>When Israel walked with God, “The hosts of the children of Levi” were actually called “the host / camp of Yahweh” (<a href='B:130 9:18-19'>1Ch 9:18-19</a> Heb:). If we each have a guardian Angel, it makes sense that the hosts of God’s people on earth are represented by Angelic hosts in the Heavens.</p>


text:
<p>Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them in time past, and Yahweh was with him- </p><p>The allusion may be to how it was at the door of the tabernacle / tent of the congregation that Phinehas stopped the apostasy of Israel. It seems from <a href='B:40 25:6-8'>Num 25:6-8</a> that the Midianite woman and the Israelite were having sex within "the tent", the tabernacle. Phinehas was remembered for this by his descendants directing the guards at the door of the tent (<a href='B:130 9:19'>1Ch 9:19</a>). The actions of the couple were therefore intended to turn the holy place into a place where Yahweh was supposedly worshipped through sex with prostitutes, exactly the way of pagan religions, and which was a problem in the churches at Corinth and Ephesus.</p>


text:
<p>Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the Tent of Meeting- </p><p>The "porters and singers" at the restoration were Levites (<a href='B:160 7:1'>Neh 7:1</a>). The use of Levites to guard the gates was a conscious attempt to restore the situation in Solomon's temple (<a href='B:130 9:17-22'>1Ch 9:17-22</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12-19'>1Ch 26:12-19</a>). We should also remember that the Levites and priests accounted for about half the population of Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:6-19'>Neh 11:6-19</a> cp. <a href='B:130 9:9-22'>1Ch 9:9-22</a>). According to <a href='B:330 44:11-14'>Eze 44:11-14</a>, the repentant Levites were to be the gatekeepers in the restored temple. But there is no evidence they did repent, indeed the record in Nehemiah shows they were on the side of the Samaritan opposition, intermarrying with them; and so the Kingdom situation possible at the restoration was precluded.</p>


text:
<p>All these who were chosen to be porters in the thresholds were two hundred and twelve- </p><p>Compare <a href='B:160 11:19'>Neh 11:19</a> "Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brothers, who kept watch at the gates, were one hundred and seventy-two". <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a> gives 212. It depends exactly what time 1 Chronicles 9 refers to. And guards of the gates may have included others who were not in this particular list of "porters", for as noted several times, neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p><p>These were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the prophet ordained- </p><p>This gives us an insight into David’s mind when he was fleeing from Saul:&nbsp; The last time that Samuel and David are seen together is when David fled for his life from his own house – before Saul was dead and David on the throne.</p><p>In their office of trust- </p><p>As any employer soon learns, delegation is a risk. We have been “entrusted with the Gospel” (<a href='B:630 1:3'>Tit 1:3</a> RV); and therefore the world God so wants to love, the world God is appealing to, may never see Him; for He makes His appeal through us, as Paul told the Corinthians. Those who did God’s work in the Old Testament temple were similarly given a “trust”, they were entrusted with God’s work.</p>


text:
<p>So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of Yahweh, even the house of the tent, as guards- </p><p>This could imply that the holy and / or most holy place was still beneath a tent; or that it was still called this in recognition of the fact God didn't really want a house at all, but preferred to dwell in a tent.</p>


text:
<p>On the four sides were the porters, toward the east, west, north, and south- </p><p>Further details are in <a href='B:130 26:14-18'>1Ch 26:14-18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Their brothers, in their villages, were to come in every seven days from time to time to be with them- </p><p>Perhaps it is the villages of the Netophathites which are in view (:16; <a href='B:160 12:28'>Neh 12:28</a>). These were in Bethlehem, not so far from the temple.</p>


text:
<p>for the four chief porters, who were Levites, were in an office of trust, and were over the rooms and over the treasuries in God’s house- </p><p>See on :22. These chambers around the temple court were where the holy vessels and tithes were stored (<a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>; <a href='B:140 31:5'>2Ch 31:5</a>; <a href='B:140 31:11-12'>2Ch 31:11-12</a>; <a href='B:160 13:4-9'>Neh 13:4-9</a>). It could be to these rooms which the Lord Jesus alludes when He says that in God's house / temple, there are many such rooms and He will go to die on the cross to prepare them for our use (<a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>). As :33 shows, the Levites at times slept in them. He clearly has in view the temple as a spiritual house, comprised of people not bricks. The idea is that His death achieved for us not only salvation, but eternal service as priests within God's "house", being about God's work and business for the sake of others' salvation and implementing their relationship with God. This is what eternity will be about. And it is in this life which we develop our desire to do these things, so that the Kingdom will be a time when all the frustrations and barriers to such service are removed.</p>


text:
<p>They lodged around God’s house, because that duty was theirs. To them pertained its opening morning by morning- </p><p>"They" are the four chief porters of :26. We recall how Samuel as a non-Levite was charged with this work.</p>


text:
<p>Certain of them were in charge of the vessels of service; for by count were these brought in and by count were these taken out- </p><p>This could imply that things were at such a low ebb spiritually that there was the possibility of them being stolen, as they would have been made of precious metals.</p>


text:
<p>Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, the wine, the oil, the frankincense and the spices- </p><p>These were specifically the things required for the daily sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the sons of the priests prepared the mix of the spices- </p><p>This was forbidden to any others on pain of death (<a href='B:20 30:33'>Exo 30:33</a>; <a href='B:20 30:35'>Exo 30:35</a>). This refers to the careful preparation of the incense (<a href='B:20 37:29'>Exo 37:29</a>), which represents how the Lord Jesus fuses together so many different factors in our prayers (<a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a>). For "we know not how to pray as we ought" (<a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>), and He is the only priest who can put together all the surrounding dimensions which are what God sees as 'prayer'. For prayer before God is far more than the words we think or say.</p>


text:
<p>Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of Shallum the Korahite, had the office of trust over the things that were baked in pans- </p><p>Zechariah is the firstborn of Shallum in <a href='B:130 26:2'>1Ch 26:2</a>. These may be the same person, as people often had more than one name. Or "Shallum" may refer not to an individual but to a family.</p>


text:
<p>Some of their brothers, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the show bread, to prepare it every Sabbath- </p><p>Literally, "the pile"; the cakes were piled in two rows on the table of shewbread (<a href='B:30 24:5-8'>Lev 24:5-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>These are the singers, heads of fathers’ households of the Levites, who lived in the rooms and were free from other service; for they were employed in their work day and night- </p><p>These rooms were storerooms but were lived in by the Levites when on duty. As explained on :26, they were understood by the Lord Jesus to symbolize our eternal place in God's purpose. We will therefore be eternally as Levites on duty, "day and night". It is in this life that we attain a taste for that work and a desire to be always about it. If we approach the Lord's service from a minimalist perspective, then such service being done eternally will not be something we really want.</p>


text:
<p>These were heads of fathers’ households of the Levites, throughout their generations, chief men. They lived at Jerusalem-</p><p>This appears to draw to a conclusion the summary of the Jerusalem Levites and their division of labour which began in <a href='B:130 8:28'>1Ch 8:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In Gibeon there lived the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose wife’s name was Maacah- </p><p>This genealogical information on Saul is to provide background for the historical narrative which will begin with the death of Saul in 1 Chronicles 10.</p>


text:
<p>His firstborn son Abdon, then Zur, Kish, Baal, Ner, Nadab- </p><p>When a passage is repeated twice, surely God wishes us to perceive something. <a href='B:130 8:30-34'>1Ch 8:30-34</a> is repeated in 9:36-40. The reason seems to be that the name 'Baal' was used by the leaders of Israel. Gibeon's children included Kish and Baal, Kish's son was king Saul, Saul had a son called Eshbaal&nbsp; as well as Jonathan, David's beloved friend; and Jonathan had a son called Meribbaal. These are not the names as recorded elsewhere; evidently the Chronicles record is highlighting the fact that there was a strand of weakness for idols in the family of Saul, including in Jonathan- who was a type of us in his friendship of David / Jesus. Surely this helps us to better relate to him; his love of David, his appreciation of David's righteousness, his belief that David would have the future Kingdom, struggled against the fact that the worldly influence of his father and great-grandfather still rubbed off upon him.</p>


text:
<p>Gedor, Ahio, Zechariah and Mikloth- </p><p>We note that none of the names of the sons of Kish feature the 'Yah' prefix or suffix. Saul didn't come from a spiritual background, and yet the Spirit of God was strong enough to change him and give him "another heart". Just as it can transform secular, irreligious man today.</p>


text:
<p>Mikloth became the father of Shimeam. They also lived with their brothers in Jerusalem, over against their brothers- </p><p>The idea is that some of the family lived in Jerusalem, 'opposite', as it were, the family who remained in Gibeah. Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin's territory. Mikloth may refer to another brother of Saul. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Ner became the father of Kish; and Kish became the father of Saul; and Saul became the father of Jonathan, Malchishua, Abinadab and Eshbaal- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>; <a href='B:130 10:2'>1Ch 10:2</a> read "Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua", whereas <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a> has "Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua". "Ishvi" may be another name for Abinadab; or we may note that the word means "and the second...", which would make sense in <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a>. The genealogies of <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a> also mention Esh-Baal or Ishbosheth; perhaps his name mentioning the "Baal" compound was the reason for its exclusion. Having such a name reflects upon Saul's lack of total devotion to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The son of Jonathan was Merib Baal; and Merib Baal became the father of Micah- </p><p>Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>) could mean 'the shame of Baal', but there is evidence that Saul's daughter Michal had an idol and it is likely that even Jonathan was not free of idolatry. Idolatry has always been a besetting weakness amongst even the best of God's people.</p><p>Tragically, we so often read of Yahweh's people carrying the names of Baal or other gods within their own names- e.g. Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 8:34'>1Ch 8:34</a>; <a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>); Ishbaal (<a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a>); Baal-yada (<a href='B:130 14:7'>1Ch 14:7</a>); and perhaps worst of all, Baal-Yah (<a href='B:130 12:5'>1Ch 12:5</a>). Is our 'name' or personality before God the same tragic mixture of flesh and spirit?</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Tahrea and Ahaz- </p><p>Micah may refer to another brother or son of Saul. For the purpose of this genealogy is to introduce us to Saul. "Melech", "king", may refer to the son or relative whom Saul favoured to succeed him, as kings often didn't choose their firstborn sons to succeed them. In this case, it reflects his refusal to believe the reality of the fact that David was to succeed him. Men are all the time in denial of God's word and all the evidence that it is going to come true, and act and plan as if sleepwalking or in amnesia, as if it will not.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz became the father of Jarah; and Jarah became the father of Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri; and Zimri became the father of Moza- </p><p>"Jarah" is the very same word for "honeycomb" used in the record of how Jonathan ate of a honeycomb after his great victory over the Philistines, and his father Saul sought to kill him for it (<a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a>). We are reading here of the relatives of Saul, so it may well be that this child was named in favour of and respect for Jonathan rather than Saul.</p>


text:
<p>and Moza became the father of Binea, and Rephaiah his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son- </p><p>We may wonder this particular line of Saul's family is recorded. We note that unlike the names of Saul's brothers, the names of this branch generally speak of God or spiritual things. Perhaps the names carried significance to those for whom these genealogies were first prepared. Or maybe the idea is that those who are spiritually minded are the ones whose name is preserved.</p>


text:
<p>Azel had six sons, whose names are: Azrikam, Bocheru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah and Hanan. These were the sons of Azel- </p><p><a href='B:130 8:38-39'>1Ch 8:38-39</a> says that Azel had a nephew called Ulam. Ulam is twelfth from Saul, although generations are often skipped in these genealogies. So seeing that Hezekiah was thirteenth from David, we can conclude that it was Isaiah or Hezekiah who may have first ordered these genealogies to be drawn up, although they were rewritten at the times of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain on Mount Gilboa- </p><p>It is really stressed that Saul and Jonathan "fell" on Gilboa (<a href='B:90 31:1'>1Sa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:90 31:8'>1Sa 31:8</a>; <a href='B:100 1:10'>2Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:100 1:12'>2Sa 1:12</a>; <a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:25'>2Sa 1:25</a>; <a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), using a Hebrew word which is often associated with spiritual falling. The fact that "the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons" (<a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>) gives the impression of them fleeing from the Philistine soldiers. This sends the mind back to the Law's warning that an apostate Israel would flee before their enemies (<a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a>). Saul and Jonathan are described in terms representative of apostate Israel; see <a href='B:370 2:14-15'>Amo 2:14-15</a>; Micah 1, 2 and expositions there. But the fall of Israel was due to the fall of Saul (see on <a href='B:90 28:19'>1Sa 28:19</a>); instead of being the king who led to victory as Israel had hoped and as God had enabled, he led to shame and defeat.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines followed hard after Saul and after his sons; and the Philistines killed Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>; <a href='B:130 10:2'>1Ch 10:2</a> read "Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua", whereas <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a> has "Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua". "Ishvi" may be another name for Abinadab; or we may note that the word means "and the second...", which would make sense in <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a>. The genealogies of <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a> also mention Esh-Baal or Ishbosheth; perhaps his name mentioning the "Baal" compound was the reason for its exclusion. Having such a name reflects upon Saul's lack of total devotion to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The battle went hard against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was badly wounded by the archers- </p><p>This was all such a reversal of fortunes. When the Philistines stopped the Israelites from having metal weapons, they honed their skills as slingers and archers. But now it was Philistine archers who wounded Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to his armour bearer, Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me- </p><p>"Lest [they]... mock / abuse me" were to be the very words of Zedekiah (<a href='B:300 38:19'>Jer 38:19</a>). The message for the exiles was that their leadership had indeed acted and been judged as Saul, but there was hope for restoration in a revived David figure.</p><p>But his armour bearer would not; for he was terrified. Therefore Saul took his sword and fell on it- </p><p>We need to realize that we have more influence upon others than we may think. It can be that an illiterate sister in a male dominated society can think that her attendance at ecclesial meetings cannot encourage anyone. It can be that the Christian stockbroker feels that it is impossible for him to influence those he works with. But we do have influence. Saul’s armour bearer would not kill him when he was mortally wounded. Although he was one of Saul’s men, in the anti-David camp, yet David’s example of not killing Saul must have deeply influenced him. We do make a difference. We have become so humiliated by a shame based society that we can underestimate the value and power of our own personhood.</p>


text:
<p>When his armour bearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell on his sword and died- </p><p>Fair attention is given to this man. As noted on :4, he was like Jonathan and many, in that his loyalties were divided. He was personally loyal to Saul, feeling that Saul's death was his death; and yet also loyal to the spirit of David, in that he would not slay Yahweh's anointed, and respected him as that right up to Saul's hopeless end. We may well meet him in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>So Saul died, and his three sons; and all his family died together-</p><p>To all die on the same day was tragic; and recalls the deaths of Eli and his sons at the hands of the Philistines. They died in fulfilment of prophecies that they must be replaced by a faithful priest, of whom Samuel was a potential fulfilment. The situation with the deaths of Saul and his sons was so similar. We see the same Divine hand at work.</p><p>"Many of the people" (<a href='B:100 1:4'>2Sa 1:4</a>) is no contradiction with this or <a href='B:90 31:6'>1Sa 31:6</a>, where “all his men” refers to Saul’s immediate body-guard.</p>


text:
<p>When all the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that they fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their cities and fled; and the Philistines came and lived in them- </p><p>The valley of Jezreel is in view in the parallel <a href='B:90 31:7'>1Sa 31:7</a>; it was the most fertile part of Israel. The translation may be better "on the side of the valley". The forsaken cities appear to apply only to that valley. "Beyond the Jordan" may mean 'on the river banks'. There is little archaeological evidence that the Philistines possessed the territory east of Jordan for very long. Soon after this, Abner proclaimed Ishbosheth as king at Mahanaim, about twenty miles east of the Jordan (<a href='B:100 2:8'>2Sa 2:8</a>). So these gains of the Philistines were short-lived, and they lacked the numbers of population to really settle all this territory. But the impression is given of a total Philistine victory in the north of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened on the next day, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his sons fallen on Mount Gilboa- </p><p>The fact this was done the next day suggests the battle continued into the late evening, with Saul fighting literally to the end.</p>


text:
<p>They stripped him, and took his head, and his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines all around, to carry the news to their idols, and to the people- </p><p>This may well have been to allude to what David had done to Goliath many years before, placing his armour in the tabernacle; the sting of which remained with them. But the record mocks how they had to take the news to their idols; unlike Yahweh who sees and knows all things, and even before they happen.</p>


text:
<p>They put his armour in the house of their gods, and fastened his head in the house of Dagon- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:10'>1Sa 31:10</a> adds: "They put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth Shan". <a href='B:130 10:12'>1Ch 10:12</a> adds the detail that the bodies of his sons were likewise fastened to the wall. Herodotus writes of a great temple to Venus in Ashkelon.</p>


text:
<p>When all Jabesh Gilead heard all that the Philistines had done to Saul- </p><p>They had been saved by Saul in 1 Samuel 11, maybe 40 years before (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>). They had total loyalty to Saul even now at the end, when surely it was clear that David was the king of God's choice and Saul had sinned and failed. Perhaps they set a good example of appreciating the good a man once did or taught, even if in later life he turned away from God. As explained on <a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>, this was how David treated Saul.</p>


text:
<p>all the valiant men arose and took away the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons, and brought them to Jabesh, and buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:12'>1Sa 31:12</a> adds: "All the valiant men arose and travelled all night and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth Shan, and they went to Jabesh and burnt them there". Cremation was not common amongst the Israelites, but perhaps they did this lest his body be abused further, seeing that they were under Philistine domination. We recall how it was beneath a tamarisk tree that Saul had ordered the massacre of the priests of Nob (<a href='B:90 22:6'>1Sa 22:6</a>). Now it is his bones which are beneath such a tree.</p>


text:
<p>So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against Yahweh, against the word of Yahweh, which he didn’t keep; and also because he asked counsel of one who had a familiar spirit, to inquire- </p><p>AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or [ESV, GNB] "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a>; <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God's final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p><p>&nbsp;David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God's ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn't obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p>


