# comment

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:
<e>1 Chronicles: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</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>


text:
<p>and didn’t inquire of Yahweh. Therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse- </p><p>Just before his final fight with the Philistines, "Saul enquired of the Lord (but) the Lord answered him not" (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>), and therefore he went to a witch. But in God's final analysis of Saul, Yahweh says that He smote Saul because Saul sinned against God's word by not enquiring of God, but of a witch (<a href='B:130 10:13-14'>1Ch 10:13-14</a>). But Saul did enquire of God (see <a href='B:90 14:37'>1Sa 14:37</a> s:w. <a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>), but God didn't answer him (note how often in the records it is stated that David enquired successfully of Yahweh). The point is that although Saul prayed to God and enquired of His word on the surface, in his heart, he did nothing of the sort; and therefore his prayer and enquiry was reckoned never to have happened. And we must ask how much of our prayer and Bible study is seen by God as being only spoken and read on a surface level. This was exactly the problem of natural Israel. "They have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled (in prayer) upon their beds" (<a href='B:350 7:14'>Hos 7:14</a>). "Though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him" (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>). We have here a powerful challenge to our prayer life. For we can enquire of God on a surface level, as a kind of formality, to soothe the religious conscience which is somewhere in every man. But this is not to really enquire of Him.</p>


text:
<p>Then all Israel gathered themselves to David to Hebron saying- </p><p>This was to enter the covenant which Abner had persuade them to make (see on <a href='B:100 3:21'>2Sa 3:21</a>).</p><p>Behold, we are your bone and your flesh- </p><p><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a> alludes here and makes the amazing statement that even now, "We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones". In a very detailed study of this language, Henricus Renckens concluded: "In Israel, in order to say that someone was a blood relation, one said: "He is my flesh and my bones" (<a href='B:10 29:14'>Gen 29:14</a>; <a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>; cp. <a href='B:10 37:27'>Gen 37:27</a>; <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>; <a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a> ff:; <a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a>)". This is how close we are to the Lord Jesus- blood relatives. This language could in no way be justified if Jesus were God Himself in person.</p>


text:
<p>In times past, even when Saul was king, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. Yahweh your God said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of My people Israel, and you shall be prince over My people Israel’- </p><p>The mutuality between God and David is often brought out. Yahweh was his shepherd (<a href='B:230 23:1'>Psa 23:1</a>), and he was to shepherd Israel). All Israel recognized that David had always been Israel's saviour, and Saul generally had failed to experience the Divine potential for him to be this.</p>


text:
<p>So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before Yahweh; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of Yahweh by Samuel-</p><p>This is the covenant which Abner had engineered in <a href='B:100 3:21'>2Sa 3:21</a>, aimed at providing total amnesty and assurance to all those who had once supported Saul. David had already been anointed by Samuel, but this was stating that all Israel approved of that and wanted to work with God's plan rather than against it.</p>


text:
<p>David and all Israel went to Jerusalem (the same is Jebus). The Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, were there- </p><p>Defining the Jebusites as "the inhabitants of the land" may be another mark left by the inspired editing of these records for the exiles. Such explanatory notes would have been unnecessary for the primary readership. The encouragement to them was that restoration of Israel's fortunes was indeed possible, under a new David.</p>


text:
<p>The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, You shall not come in here- </p><p><a href='B:100 5:6'>2Sa 5:6</a> gives more detail: "The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David saying, Unless you take away the blind and the lame, you shall not come in here; thinking, David can’t come in here". A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a>), nor come within the holy city (after <a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace.</p><p>Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion. The same is the city of David- </p><p>The contrast is with how Saul's tribe of Benjamin had failed to drive out the Jebusites (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). Jerusalem was originally in Benjamin, but David's capture of the city made it "the city of David" and therefore in Judah. We see here how different potential futures could have worked out. If Benjamin had taken and inherited their possession and Saul had 'worked out' as he could have done, then Jerusalem would have been in Benjamin. We see here how God's plans are flexible, reflective of His great respect of human freewill and initiative.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Whoever strikes the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief- </p><p>If David was indeed Jonathan's armourbearer in 1 Samuel 14, he would have seen how God had punished the pride of the Philistines when they thought likewise. For Jonathan had shinned by an almost vertical cliff, with the Philistines mocking him- and slew them. This inspired David with the possibility that someone of similar faith and bravery could climb up the sewer line into Zion and do the same. Jonathan's example, from some decades earlier, inspired faith in this later situation. And so will all Godly examples. The fact it was Joab who rose up to this example means that he must surely have had some faith as well as bravery, despite his rather unspiritual ways.</p><p>But the Hebrew of David's words in the parallel in 2 Samuel 5 reads like a kind of song, which could be translated:</p><p>Whosoever smites the Jebusite,</p><p>let him hurl down the precipice</p><p>both the lame and the blind,</p><p>hated of David’s soul.</p><p>We sense here a bitterness and lack of respect of the human person, which maybe resulted in his not being allowed to build the temple later. To murder the handicapped was unethical, but David's bitterness and desire for power led him to command it. Hence LXX "Whosoever smiteth the Jebusite, let him slay with the sword both the lame and the blind who hate David’s soul".</p><p>There are echoes of Saul's offer at the time of the fight with Goliath. Chronicles records: "Whosoever smites the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain". And thus Joab was restored to being chief of the army.</p>


text:
<p>David lived in the stronghold; therefore they called it the city of David- </p><p>Jerusalem was particularly loved by David. He thereby moved the city into Judah's possession from Benjamin's; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p>He built the city all around, from Millo and all around; and Joab repaired the rest of the city- </p><p>Literally “the Millo” or "filling up”, referring to the defences of the citadel. Perhaps it refers to a place where armour was kept or a tower. "Repaired the rest" can be translated "spared / kept alive" (cp. <a href='B:20 1:17'>Exo 1:17</a>). Maybe the reference is to the Benjamites who lived there, as well as the remaining Jebusites (cp. <a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David grew greater and greater; for Yahweh of Armies was with him-</p><p>Yahweh's hosts of Angelic armies were with David's armies on earth. This is the same phrase as used in David's protestation of humility in <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>: "Nor do I concern myself with great matters, or things too wonderful for me". 'To go' ["concern myself"] with 'great things' is the phrase used of David in the parallel <a href='B:100 5:10'>2Sa 5:10</a>; he "went on [s:w. "concern myself"] and grew great" [s:w. "with great matters"]. So the idea of <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a> may be that David didn't pay attention to these things so as not to become proud. And yet this humility was mixed with the bitterness noted on :6. We are all strange mixtures of spiritual strength and weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the chief of the mighty men whom David had, who showed themselves strong with him in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of Yahweh concerning Israel- </p><p>Here we have an equivalent list to the "thirty" mighty men or "captains" of David in 2 Samuel 23. But there are more than 30 listed here. "Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in <a href='B:100 23:23'>2Sa 23:23</a>, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men" in 2 Samuel 23, not 30. And there are more here in the parallel record in Chronicles.</p>


text:
<p>This is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them at one time- </p><p>As noted on :10, "the thirty" is not a literal number. Likewise "hundred" need not be taken literally as 100, rather like the term "legion", and can refer to a military group.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men- </p><p>He "defied" the Philistines (<a href='B:100 23:9'>2Sa 23:9</a>). "Defied" is the word used of how Goliath had defied Israel (<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>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us.</p>


text:
<p>He was with David at Pasdammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where there was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines- </p><p>It seems from <a href='B:130 11:13-14'>1Ch 11:13-14</a> that soon after the fight with Goliath, there was another skirmish with the Philistines at Pas-Dammim [RVmg. ‘Ephes-Dammim’- the same place where David fought Goliath]. Again, the men of Israel fled, but those who held fast were given a “great deliverance” [“salvation”, RVmg:], just as David is described as achieving. Those men who stayed and fought were doubtless inspired by David; just as we should be, time and again, by the matchless victory of our Lord on Golgotha. &nbsp;See on <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>. "Plot of ground" is the same phrase used in <a href='B:80 2:3'>Rth 2:3</a>, and again, it was full of Barley. And Ruth and Boaz were the ancestors of David.</p>


text:
<p>They stood in the midst of the plot, and defended it, and killed the Philistines; and Yahweh saved them by a great victory- </p><p>David’s men ‘delivered’ God’s land, and He delivered them (s:w:). There is a mutuality between God and man. Defended" or "delivered" is the word used for David's victories (<a href='B:90 17:37'>1Sa 17:37</a>; <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:18'>1Sa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>) which were clearly so inspirational to his men, as the Lord's victory should be to us. The record continually gives the glory to Yahweh for working through His willing workers. They did not achieve these victories in their own strength alone. The very phrase is used in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> describing how Yahweh gave David the great victory over Goliath. This was clearly inspirational to David's men in their own battles, just as the Lord's victory on the cross should not be seen simply as a historical achievement for us, but an abiding inspiration to us to in essence do likewise.</p><p>Joab apparently murdered because his field of barley was burnt down, showing the value of the field. To lose it would mean starvation.</p>


text:
<p>Three of the thirty chief men went down to the rock to David, into the cave of Adullam; and the army of the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim-</p><p>Not literally thirty; see on :10. The giants of the Philistines were in the valley of the giants. And they even had a garrison in David's home town (:16). They appeared insuperable. This refers to an incident during the campaign of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David was then in the stronghold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem- </p><p>The hideout of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>. The rock or hill of Adullam was surrounded by valleys fully viewable from the top of the hill, making it a strong position. Yet despite the obvious tactical advantages of the place, David's Psalms repeatedly describe Yahweh as his rock, stronghold and fortress.</p>


text:
<p>David was thirsty and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!-</p><p>This has absolute psychological credibility. A leader of partisans sitting with his men in a cave, bitterly reflecting that the enemy have placed a garrison in his home village::. would indeed make such a passing, under his breath comment like this.</p>


text:
<p>The three broke through the army of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David. David would not drink of it, but poured it out to Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the intense personal loyalty to David which is a theme throughout the record. It looks forward to that which there is to be between the Lord Jesus and we who follow Him in these outlaw days of our generation.</p>


text:
<p>and said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of these men who have put their lives in jeopardy? For they risked their lives to bring it. Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things- </p><p>Despite the intense personal loyalty which David inspired, he is to be commended for not allowing this to turn into a mere personality cult. He poured out that water to Yahweh, feeling unworthy to drink it. We note that water represented blood. This is a warning against being too literalistic in requirements concerning the elements of the breaking of bread service. David perceived the spirit of the law about drink offerings, and "poured [water] out to Yahweh" (:18) in a cave, not being a Levitical priest, and far from the sanctuary.</p>


text:
<p>Abishai, the brother of Joab, he was chief of the three; for he lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them, and had a name among the three- </p><p>"Hundred", like "legion", need not be read literally; it could refer to a group or military subdivision. Again the idea of singularly attaining victory against a multitude is a replication in spirit of David's victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Of the three, he was more honourable than the two, and was made their captain: however he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>This apparently means that he was demoted. This happened several times, as David considered that military valour was not the prime qualification for the post of army general, but rather perceiving grace and not shedding the blood of war in peace. Because Joab clearly failed to understand grace, David replaced him with Amasa- whom Joab later murdered out of jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, had done mighty deeds- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David's senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e. of a group of David's mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David's army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. And this, along with the hints in the names of the mighty men that some were Levites, is significant in that the Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>). But these chose to do it. See on <a href='B:100 24:5'>2Sa 24:5</a>.</p><p>He killed two lion-like men of Moab. He went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow- </p><p>Benaiah killed a lion in order to prepare him for killing two lionlike men. For other examples of repetition in Biblical narratives see <a href='B:120 7:9'>2Ki 7:9</a>; <a href='B:120 7:11'>2Ki 7:11</a>; <a href='B:120 7:16'>2Ki 7:16</a>; <a href='B:130 7:22'>1Ch 7:22</a> [cp. Jacob being comforted by his sons over the loss of Joseph]; Benaiah killed a lion in order to prepare him for killing two lionlike men (<a href='B:130 11:22'>1Ch 11:22</a>); Peter, James and John were asleep at the transfiguration, but became “fully awake” and therefore beheld the Lord’s glory (<a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a>)- they feel asleep in Gethsemane, and didn’t learn from the transfiguration experience.</p><p><a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> has: "He killed the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow". Perhaps this incident occurred at this time of the campaign in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. Although that campaign was not David and his men at their spiritual best; see note there. We see him following the path of David, whose victory over a literal lion gave him courage to fight Goliath. So Benaiah was inspired by David personally to kill a lion, and then kill two lion like men (AV) of Moab. The lion would have been driven by the cold from the forests, and was preyed upon people. Benaiah therefore risked his life for the sake of his people, and slew the lion. See on :46.</p>


text:
<p>He killed an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear- </p><p>Again this is a repeat of the spirit of David's victory over Goliath, coming to Goliath with a staff and sling, and slaying him with his own weaponry. The point is repeatedly made that like the Lord's victory on the cross, David's over Goliath was programmatic for the inspiration of his followers to be like him.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada did these things, and had a name among the three mighty men- </p><p>As noted on :21, there seems to be the idea that some of these men were demoted. Thus Benaiah was both amongst the three, but didn't attain / remain amongst them (:25). "The three" is likely not to be read too literally, but may be a technical term for a group office, like "the thirty"; see on :10,11.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, he was more honourable than the thirty, but he didn’t attain to the three; and David set him over his guard- </p><p>The numbers "three" and "thirty" are not necessarily to be taken literally. A form of the word for "thirty" is used of the "captains", see on :10,11, and of Pharaoh's captains (<a href='B:20 14:7'>Exo 14:7</a>; <a href='B:20 15:4'>Exo 15:4</a>); in any case, in 2 Sam. 23, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30.</p><p>Heb. 'David appointed him to his audience', he was a member of David's inner circle of advisers on the basis of his faith shown in personal life, and not because of any possession of only theoretical wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Also the mighty men of the armies: Asahel the brother of Joab, Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem- </p><p>Elhanan had also replicated David's victory over Goliath; see on <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sa 21:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Shammoth the Harorite, Helez the Pelonite- </p><p>This Shammoth was "Shammuth the Izrahite" of <a href='B:130 27:8'>1Ch 27:8</a>. "Izrahite" there could be "the Zarhite" a man descended from Zerah the son of Judah. But he was from Harod, near mount Gilboa in the north. Perhaps he was given this name because he had done something valiant for Saul in the last fateful battle he fought in that area against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Anathothite- </p><p>We get the impression that many of these men were living outside the territory of their native tribes. That could have been for various reasons, but perhaps we are to conclude that the men who supported David were [as with us and our loyalty to Jesus] those who had had non standard personal lives which left them isolated from their home areas. Anathoth was a priestly town in Benjamin. Perhaps he too was a priest; see on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Sibbecai the Hushathite- </p><p>Mebunnai of <a href='B:100 23:27'>2Sa 23:27</a>. He was a descendant of Zerah of Judah (see also on :27) (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>; <a href='B:130 27:11'>1Ch 27:11</a>).</p><p>Ilai the Ahohite- </p><p>Zalmon the Ahohite of <a href='B:100 23:28'>2Sa 23:28</a>. There is only one Hebrew letter different. This would be an example of slight errors in copying which are found in the Hebrew text, although overall it is Divinely inspired.</p>


text:
<p>Maharai the Netophathite, Heled the son of Baanah the Netophathite- </p><p>This was near Jerusalem and the Levitical singers lived there after the exile (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>); so he too may have been a Levite living in Judah. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Ithai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin- </p><p>He was from Saul's birthplace, and so would have rejected Saul for David, although David was not from his tribe. He did what was counter instinctive and countercultural, as all David's followers did. And as do the followers of his greater Son.</p><p>Benaiah the Pirathonite- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>Hurai of the brooks of Gaash, Abiel the Arbathite- </p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David's cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today.</p>


text:
<p>Azmaveth the Baharumite- </p><p>Coming from Bahurim, he would have been aware of David's shameful behaviour there (see on <a href='B:100 3:16'>2Sa 3:16</a>) and yet he still followed David. He would have seen David's actions to Michael and Paltiel as out of character with David generally, and didn't allow his loyalty to be fazed by them.</p><p>Eliahba the Shaalbonite- </p><p>Eliahba was from Shaalabbin in Dan in the far north, very far from David's origins (<a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a>; <a href='B:60 19:42'>Jos 19:42</a>). But somehow he encountered David, and loyally followed him. We marvel at the extent of those who followed David; they were from all over Israel. In those days of limited communication, we wonder how he came to know David well enough to give his life to his cause. But it is the same marvel as we reflect how people are called to the Lord Jesus today.</p>


text:
<p>the sons of Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shagee the Hararite- </p><p>As explained on :35, "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite".</p>


text:
<p>Ahiam the son of Sacar the Hararite, Eliphal the son of Ur- </p><p>Compare with <a href='B:100 23:33'>2Sa 23:33</a> "Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam the son of Sharar the Ararite". To reconcile this with the record in Chronicles, we may need to read Shammah as one of the sons of Jonathan of the preceding verse. We could then read this verse along with the last part of <a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a> as "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite".</p>


text:
<p>Hepher the Mecherathite, Ahijah the Pelonite- </p><p>"The Maacathite" (<a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a>). Beth-Maachah was a town in Naphtali (<a href='B:100 20:14'>2Sa 20:14</a>), confirming the impression that David's closest supporters were not just local family friends, but men providentially drawn to him from all over Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Hezro the Carmelite, Naarai the son of Ezbai- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:35'>2Sa 23:35</a>: "Hezro the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite". </p><p>Arab is in Judah whereas Carmel is in northern Israel. The juxtaposition of the two confirms the impression that David's supporters were from all over Israel. The way they were all united together around this man from Bethlehem is amazing, and points forward to the gathering of the disparate followers of the Lord Jesus around Him today."</p>


text:
<p>Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar the son of Hagri- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:36'>2Sa 23:36</a> has "Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah". Chronicles has "Joel the brother of Nathan" but Igal and Joel in Hebrew are very similar. Igal would have been a Syrian from Zobah, perhaps one of the soldiers who fought against David (<a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a>) and then converted to him. The Gittites who followed David were likewise Philistines from Gath who were once his enemies but converted to his God, and devoted themselves zealously to Him. This is an incredible witness to the power of Yahweh to convert, because such willing defections of individuals to the people and God of their enemies, and being zealously committed to Him, was unheard of in their society.</p>


text:
<p>Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Berothite, the armour-bearer of Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>As noted on :38, the one time enemies of David such as Zelek the Ammonite became his most committed followers. Or perhaps his conversion was a result of the one time friendship between David and Ammon, and the support for David by Shobi (<a href='B:100 17:27'>2Sa 17:27</a>). Likewise Naharai was from Beeroth, which although counted to Benjamin (<a href='B:100 4:2'>2Sa 4:2</a>) was inhabited by Gentile Gibeonites, whom Saul had persecuted.</p>


text:
<p>Uriah the Hittite, Zabad the son of Ahlai- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a> adds "Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite". </p><p>Eliam was the father of Bathsheba, making Ahithophel her grandfather. We can more readily understand why he turned against David after his shameful behaviour with his granddaughter.</p>


text:
<p>Adina the son of Shiza the Reubenite, a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him- </p><p>This confirms the suggestion on :10,11 that "thirty" is not to be read as a literal number, but as a group of captains or some other military division.</p>


text:
<p>Hanan the son of Maacah, and Joshaphat the Mithnite- </p><p>The names in :43-47 don't occur in the list of mighty men of 2 Samuel 23. I suggest that many of them were Gentiles who converted to the cause of David and remained faithful to him; see on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Uzzia the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the Aroerite- </p><p>This is not the Aroer on the river Arnon, but some smaller settlement in southern Israel, the one listed in <a href='B:90 30:28'>1Sa 30:28</a> as having supported David during his wilderness years. “Shama and Jehiel the sons of Hothan the Aroerite” were amongst David’s mighty men; we conclude that David hid in the area whilst on the run from Saul, and these two men went off with him. It has been observed that Ashterathite and Aroerite are Gentile nouns, Aroer being far east of Jordan (<a href='B:60 13:16'>Jos 13:16</a>; <a href='B:60 13:25'>Jos 13:25</a>), as if here we have more examples of Gentiles converting to David's cause and remaining faithful, as suggested on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joha his brother, the Tizite- </p><p>The location of Tiza or Tits is unknown, but I suggested on :43 that these were Gentiles who converted to the cause of David and remained faithful to him; see on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai, and Joshaviah, the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite- </p><p>This Moabite would have been another case of former enemies converting to David's cause (see on :38,39), impressed by the power of Yahweh. We note that one of David's mighty men had killed Moabites (:22), so we have here in Ithmah a man who totally reoriented himself from his natural background towards that of God's people. As all must do who are true converts to the Israel of God and the hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasiel the Mezobaite- </p><p>"Metsobajah", 'found of Yah', might confirm the above suggestions that this final group of names are of Gentiles who converted to the cause of David and remained faithful to him; see on :38,39.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are those who came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself in secret because of Saul the son of Kish; and they were among the mighty men, his helpers in war- </p><p>David was given Ziklag to live in by the Philistines, and he was there 16 months, hemmed in by Saul's men on the Israelite side of the border. The theme developed now is that in that apparently hopeless situation, living with his one time enemies the Philistines for fear of Saul- all manner of people came forward to identify with him. We can understand David at this time as in the position of the Lord Jesus now, before the establishment of His Kingdom. And we are the men who come out to Him, when His cause appears hopeless in a secular sense. He was hemmed in by Saul, but we will now read in :2 that Saul's own family came to support David.</p>


text:
<p>They were armed with bows, and could use both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and in shooting arrows from the bow. They were of Saul’s brothers of Benjamin-</p><p>This continues the theme developed on <a href='B:130 11:38-39'>1Ch 11:38-39</a>, that there was something in David and his cause which attracted his enemies to come over to his side. And so it is with the cause of the Lord Jesus in our age. The Philistine monopoly on iron and metalwork meant the Israelites had to become skilled in archery and slinging, just as David had. So there was an immediate sympathy between these men and David, who was known surely as the greatest Israelite slinger of all time, after his victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>The chief was Ahiezer; then Joash, the sons of Shemaah the Gibeathite, and Jeziel, and Pelet, the sons of Azmaveth, and Beracah, and Jehu the Anathothite- </p><p>These are the men of Saul (:2) who came over to David; some were from "Gibeah of Saul", the home town of Saul. But they were joined by men from the priestly town of Anathoth, and so develops the theme that David's supporters were from widely different backgrounds, as are the Lord's followers, but cemented together around him and his cause of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>and Ishmaiah the Gibeonite, a mighty man among the thirty, and over the thirty, and Jeremiah, and Jahaziel, and Johanan, and Jozabad the Gederathite- </p><p>"The thirty" is not a literal number, as "captains" and "thirty" are similar words. "The thirty" of 1 Chronicles 11 and 2 Samuel 23 are not literally 30; there are more than 30 listed in 1 Chronicles 11. "Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in <a href='B:100 23:23'>2Sa 23:23</a>, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "thirty::. mighty men" in 2 Samuel 23, not 30.</p>


text:
<p>Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Haruphite- </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 ("Bealiah", <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>Elkanah, and Isshiah, and Azarel, and Joezer, and Jashobeam, the Korahites- </p><p>These "Korahites" are not the Levitical ones, but rather the descendants of Caleb through a man called Korah (<a href='B:130 2:43'>1Ch 2:43</a>), and they would therefore have been men of&nbsp; Judah.</p>


text:
<p>and Joelah, and Zebadiah, the sons of Jeroham of Gedor- </p><p>Jeroham was a Benjamite (<a href='B:130 8:27'>1Ch 8:27</a>) living in Gedor of Judah (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>), perhaps because of his disagreement with the ways and cult of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Gadites there separated themselves to David to the stronghold in the wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained for war, that could handle shield and spear; whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes on the mountains- </p><p>David's ecclesia in the wilderness had faces "like the faces of lions" (Angel-cherubim language?), being "a great host, like the host of God"- David's host became increasingly in line with God's Heavenly Hosts of Angels, the four living creatures. We are to reflect the court of Heaven on earth. The Gadites were marauders (<a href='B:10 49:19'>Gen 49:19</a>; <a href='B:130 5:19-22'>1Ch 5:19-22</a>), and exemplify the kind of rough people who came to David with their own agenda, and yet were transformed by him into men of the Kingdom; pointing forward to the work of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>This verse explains how the situation of :1 came about. These men were firstly with David in the wilderness, and then came to him in Ziklag. Coming to David, as with coming to Jesus, meant they had to "separate themselves". They left their tribal homeland east of the Jordan, and had come to "the stronghold", perhaps the cave of Adullam, or the place of <a href='B:90 23:14'>1Sa 23:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ezer the chief, Obadiah the second, Eliab the third- </p><p>These names all have trust in God as part of their meaning. So the rough, marrauding types of Gad became known for their spirituality as a result of being with David.</p>


text:
<p>Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth- </p><p>Mishmannah, 'one who became fat', stands out from the others as not having a very spiritual name (s:w. <a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>; <a href='B:160 9:25'>Neh 9:25</a>; <a href='B:300 5:28'>Jer 5:28</a>). It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these lists of names we read the birth names, at other times, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Attai the sixth, Eliel the seventh- </p><p>"Eliel", 'God is God', could have come to this conclusion from experience with David; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Johanan the eighth, Elzabad the ninth- </p><p>These names surely reflect their experience with David; "Yahweh's grace" and "Yahweh has bestowed".</p>


text:
<p>Jeremiah the tenth, Machbannai the eleventh- </p><p>"Yahweh will raise up" (Jeremiah) shows faith in the future elevation of David and those who had taken his side in these outlaw years.</p>


text:
<p>These of the sons of Gad were captains of the army: he who was least was equal to one hundred, and the greatest to one thousand- </p><p>The similarity in language to <a href='B:30 26:8'>Lev 26:8</a>; <a href='B:290 30:17'>Isa 30:17</a> could suggest that they were in covenant relationship with God and therefore one of them chased a much larger group.</p>


text:
<p>These are those who went over the Jordan in the first month, when it had overflowed all its banks; and they put to flight all them of the valleys, both toward the east, and toward the west- </p><p>This was the month of the snow melt (cp. <a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a>). They had crossed from Gad, east of Jordan, to be with David in Ziklag. Those in the valleys who were loyal to Saul may have tried to stop their passage on the east to west route they were taking, but they put them to flight.</p>


text:
<p>There came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the stronghold to David- </p><p>David was naturally fearful that his ranks would be infiltrated by Saul's Benjamite supporters.</p>


text:
<p>David went out to meet them and responded to them: If you have come peaceably to me to help me, my heart shall be knit to you; but if you have come to betray me to my adversaries, since there is no wrong in my hands, may the God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it- </p><p>We sense David's great mental unity with those who sincerely followed him. They would experience his heart, which was after God's own heart, knit with theirs. And that is the promise of the spirit of Jesus to those who likewise sincerely come out to Him in this life. But he warns of the fearful consequences of conscious betrayal of him, after the pattern of Judas to the Lord Jesus. If we are not in that category, then we have the assurance of the gift of the spirit / heart of Jesus united with us.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Spirit came on Amasai, who was chief of the thirty, and he said, We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Jesse. Peace, peace be to you, and peace be to your helpers; for your God helps you. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band- </p><p>This Amasai is likely “Amasa” (<a href='B:100 17:25'>2Sa 17:25</a>; <a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a>). They had observed that God was really with David, having witnessed or heard of David's amazing escapes from Saul, and how God was clearly preserving David for a purpose. Perhaps this protestation of sincerity was supported by some activity of the Spirit, so that David would no longer be sceptical of their professions of loyalty to him (see on :17).</p>


text:
<p>Of Manasseh also there fell away some to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle; but they didn’t help them- </p><p>To go and fight God's people, specifically with Saul, Yahweh's anointed, was exactly against David's previous principles. But because he had lied about fighting and killing Israelites, he was now told to go and do it. He was being taught that boasting about things you haven't done is still counted as if you have done them. And he was now being forced to a position where he has to quit his sinful situation.</p><p>For the lords of the Philistines sent him away after consultation, saying, He will fall away to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads- </p><p>The Philistines recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p><p>This was the grace of Divine intervention. As discussed above, David got into it by his own weakness of faith. But God saved him from it now at the last minute by an unforeseen situation. The Philistines refused to have David and his men anywhere near the battle.</p><p><a href='B:90 29:5'>1Sa 29:5</a> adds: "Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands?’". If indeed Saul reigned literally 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), this celebration would have been quite some time previously. But the memory of that great humiliation was still very much alive amongst the rank and file of the Philistines. Achish seems so out of touch with these feelings that we wonder if he was himself actually a Philistine, or some non-Philistine who had taken power.</p>


text:
<p>As he went to Ziklag, there joined him of Manasseh, Adnah, Jozabad, Jediael, Michael, Jozabad, Elihu and Zillethai, captains of thousands who were of Manasseh- </p><p>These names generally have God's name within them. It was the more spiritually minded who came over to David.</p>


text:
<p>They helped David against the band of rovers; for they were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the army- </p><p>These "rovers" are the Amalekites who attacked Ziklag in 1 Saam. 30. "Band" is the same word used there in <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>. "Were captains" is better "became captains". They were promoted for their valour at the time of the battle with the Amalekites. Even though at the time, the men had spoken of stoning David.</p>


text:
<p>For from day to day men came to David to help him, until there was a great army, like the army of God-</p><p>David’s host increased, until it became “a great host”, “like the host of God” (<a href='B:130 12:22'>1Ch 12:22</a> AV)- the parallel between David’s men and the Angelic hosts is clear. Significantly, the Angelic armies that destroyed the Syrians are called ‘a great host’ in <a href='B:120 7:6'>2Ki 7:6</a>. Asa and his army defeated the Ethiopians- and it’s described as them being “destroyed before Yahweh and before His host” (<a href='B:140 14:13'>2Ch 14:13</a>). Again, the hosts of Israel become the hosts of God. We too are the manifestation of God's heavenly system upon earth.</p>


text:
<p>These are the numbers of the heads of those who were armed for war, who came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of Yahweh- </p><p>The word of Yahweh was that David would become king. The men who came to David to support him in this were therefore doing God's will and word, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were acceptable with Him. For even wicked men can be used to fulfil God's word.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Judah who bore shield and spear were six thousand eight hundred, armed for war- </p><p>This seems a relatively small number for Judah, who were David's tribe. Perhaps initially it was a case of a prophet not being without honour, except amongst his own people. We note that the numbers of soldiers who came to David from the tribes in the north, and especially those from the tribes east of Jordan, are very high. The southern tribes, Judah, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin, total 25,200. But the men from Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan and Asher total 155,600. But later in David's reign, an incomplete census of soldiers gave 800,000 "men who drew sword" (<a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sa 24:9</a>). David's support base was perhaps driven at this stage by those who had been marginalized by Saul, who seemed to what to concentrate power with his tribe of Benjamin. And perhaps these more peripheral peoples had suffered economically from Saul's abusive reign. So as with those who come to Christ today, the push factors are sometimes initially greater than the pull factors and the 'matter of principle' issues.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of valour in war, seven thousand one hundred- </p><p>The tribes are listed as from South to North.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Levi four thousand six hundred- </p><p>The Levites had soldiers and were not simply absorbed with religious matters.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada was the leader of the household of Aaron; and with him were three thousand seven hundred- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David's senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e of a group of David's mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David's army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. Jehoiada was not high priest, but "leader" of the Levitical soldiers; the same word is used in <a href='B:130 9:11'>1Ch 9:11</a> of the “captain” of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>and Zadok, a young man mighty of valour, and of his father’s house twenty-two captains- </p><p>In :17 he appears to have the function of Jehoiada in :27. Perhaps he was his successor.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Benjamin, the brothers of Saul, three thousand; for hitherto the majority of them had kept their allegiance to the house of Saul- </p><p>AV "kept the ward of the house of Saul". The number of Benjamites is understandably small, as they still hoped to remain the kingly tribe even after Saul's demise.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Ephraim twenty thousand eight hundred, mighty men of valour, famous men in their fathers’ houses- </p><p>This is a very small number compared to the northern tribes, seeing Ephraim were likely the largest tribe at the time. Clearly support for David followed factors other than supporters per head of population. Support was highly localized.</p>


text:
<p>Of the half-tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, who were mentioned by name, came and made David king- </p><p>This appears to refer to the half of Manasseh on the west side of the Jordan river.</p>


text:
<p>Of the children of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, their heads were two hundred; and all their brothers were under their command- </p><p>This is a small number, but they are defined as men who understood life, spiritually wise men (<a href='B:190 1:13'>Est 1:13</a>; <a href='B:130 29:30'>1Ch 29:30</a>; <a href='B:230 31:15'>Psa 31:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of Zebulun, such as were able to go out in the army, who could set the battle in array, with all kinds of instruments of war, fifty thousand, who could command and were not of double heart- </p><p>The idea seems to be, men old enough to handle weapons, rather than boys. But this is a rather sad contrast with the faith of David when fighting Goliath, who was considered too young to fight, and who apparently couldn't manipulate the armour and weaponry he was offered by Saul- but instead fought Goliath in faith. To not be "of double heart" meant to be "of one heart", for God and David in faith (<a href='B:140 30:12'>2Ch 30:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of Naphtali one thousand captains, and with them with shield and spear thirty-seven thousand- </p><p>This could suggest that they had "shield and spear", weaponry in abundance compared to the other tribes.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Danites who could set the battle in array, twenty-eight thousand six hundred- </p><p>Each tribe has a slightly different description for the nature of their soldiers. The idea here may be as in GNB "trained men", soldiers who had undergone military training.</p>


text:
<p>Of Asher, such as were able to go out in the army, who could set the battle in array, forty thousand- </p><p>GNB "ready for battle". Each group of soldiers is described differently.</p>


text:
<p>On the other side of the Jordan, of the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and of the half-tribe of Manasseh, with all kinds of instruments of war for the battle, one hundred and twenty thousand- </p><p>This appears to be a rough number, assuming 40,000 to each tribe, as 40,000 came from Asher (:36). Sometimes the Bible is very vague. 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>); 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>). And here <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”. Surely this is to show that God is God, not man, and as such He’s not on the back foot, writing under the fear of criticism. His word is not contradictory, but on the other hand, God has more spiritual culture than to sink down to the level of a man who wanted to foresee all criticism in writing something which could stand all petty criticism. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is the answer to many of the petty objections about ‘Bible contradictions’ which are raised by critics.</p>


text:
<p>All these being men of war, who could order the battle array, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel. All the rest of Israel were also of one heart to make David king- </p><p>The state of their hearts is twice emphasized, and this has always been of critical importance in the Divine record of men. It was David's heart which is described with the term "a perfect heart" (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a> s:w:). The idea is that they were of one mind and spirit with David. And as noted on :17, David's spirit was eager to be united with their spirit. It all speaks of the spiritual relationship between the Lord Jesus and His people. See on <a href='B:130 13:4'>1Ch 13:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They were there with David three days, eating and drinking; for their brothers had made preparation for them- </p><p>This was the kind of religious meal which ratified a covenant, as in <a href='B:10 31:46'>Gen 31:46</a>; <a href='B:10 31:54'>Gen 31:54</a>. It looks ahead to the breaking of bread meeting as a confirmation of the covenant between the Lord Jesus and those who have come out of this world to support His cause and Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover those who were near to them, as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on donkeys, and on camels, mules and oxen, food of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine and oil, and cattle and sheep in abundance; for there was joy in Israel- </p><p>The religious meal of :39 was supported in spirit by those even in the far north, who sent food to be consumed at this feast. The provision of clusters of raisins [a form of wine] along with bread confirm the religious nature of the meal, and the way [as noted on :39] it looks ahead to the breaking of bread. The same was to be seen in <a href='B:90 25:18'>1Sa 25:18</a>; 1 Samuel 30; 1 Samuel 12; <a href='B:100 16:1'>2Sa 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David consulted with the captains of thousands and of hundreds, even with every leader- </p><p><a href='B:100 6:1'>2Sa 6:1</a> says thirty thousand attended. "Thousand" may refer to families or squadrons. They were "chosen" or 'shown as tested / approved'. It was a reunion gathering of all those who had been faithful to David over the years. This was a huge number of people to gather together, given the problem of providing food and lodging for them. This was why battles were fought swiftly in those days, for the men were needed on their farms, and the supply of food was difficult to arrange over longer periods. So this huge effort reflects the importance David attached to bringing up the ark.</p>


text:
<p>David said to all the assembly of Israel, If it seems good to you, and if it is of Yahweh our God, let us send abroad everywhere to our brothers who are left in all the land of Israel, with whom the priests and Levites are in their cities that have suburbs, that they may gather themselves to us- </p><p>It seems the invitation was particularly to the Levites and priests wherever they were. We note that there had been obedience to the idea of the Levites not having inheritance but living in allotments from the other tribes. This was really an appeal for all the priests and Levites to assemble.</p>


text:
<p>Let us bring again the ark of our God to us; for we didn’t seek it in the days of Saul- </p><p>This was hardly David's fault, as he had spent the majority of the "days of Saul" on the run from in exile. But he graciously speaks of "we" being at fault. We wonder at the unspirituality of the priesthood in Saul's time, and wonder why Samuel had not emphasized the need to have the ark in worship. Perhaps it had been kept somewhere out of sight, at Saul's command. It may even have become badly thought of, or feared.</p>


text:
<p>All the assembly said that they would do so; for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people-</p><p>We sense as discussed on <a href='B:130 12:38'>1Ch 12:38</a> that the people were of one mind with David, sharing his spirit and he theirs.</p>


text:
<p>So David assembled all Israel together, from Shihor the brook of Egypt even to the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath Jearim- </p><p>This widespread support continues the impression we get from <a href='B:130 12:39-40'>1Ch 12:39-40</a>, where people from even the far north sent large numbers of men and much food to be consumed at the feast which celebrated a declaration of loyalty to David. The entering in of Hamath is a technical term for the Orontes river. The definition of the land between two rivers would be an appeal to the promises to Abraham, of a land with rivers as boundaries.</p>


text:
<p>David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath Jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of Yahweh God who dwells between the cherubim, that is called by the Name- </p><p>Baalah, or Kirjath-Baal, "the city of Baal" was the old Canaanite name of Kirjath-jearim (<a href='B:60 15:9'>Jos 15:9</a>; <a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>). David's bringing up / going up / ascending of the ark (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) recalls how the ark did not go up into Canaan in <a href='B:40 14:44'>Num 14:44</a> (s:w:); for the land was not to be given to Israel. But when the time came, the ark was brought up into Canaan (<a href='B:60 4:16'>Jos 4:16</a>; <a href='B:60 4:18'>Jos 4:18</a> s:w:). And so now, the land was being given to them again. David felt as if he was as Joshua reconquering Canaan in fulfilment of the promises. This may explain why Paul in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> parallels the 40 years wandering of Israel with the 40 year reign of Saul; and he may speak of Saul reigning 40 years because of this, even if it was not literally true. It creates big chronological problems if we read that 40 year reign of Saul literally. Solomon imitated David's bringing up of the ark to Zion in <a href='B:110 8:1'>1Ki 8:1</a>; <a href='B:110 8:4'>1Ki 8:4</a>. He lived out his father's faith and devotion, but only on an external level. He in due course was to turn away from Yahweh to idols, and descend into the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.</p><p>"David went up… &nbsp;to bring thence the ark of God the LORD that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it" (AV). The unusual phrase 'God the LORD' may imply 'the Angel the Yahweh', as if recognizing that the Angel had God's Name, as we know the Angel which lead Israel was given by God. Thus in this context David goes on to say about the ark of the Lord "whose Name is called on it". When Uzzah died it is stated "there he died before God" (:10), as if he died in the presence of an Angel- i. e. the Angel present inside the ark which he touched. See on <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></p>


text:
<p>They carried the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart- </p><p>There were very specific laws about the transportation of the ark. It was to be carried on poles on the shoulders of not just Levites but specifically the sons of Kohath (<a href='B:40 4:15'>Num 4:15</a>); and Abinadab's family were not the right people to carry it. David claims in Psalms 119 to have studied God's law all the day whilst on the run from Saul, reciting it to himself. Perhaps he forgot these details. But I suggest because he came to see that God wanted the spirit and not letter of the law to be followed, he came to totally place himself above Divine law. We face the same temptation. And it was this which led David into his sin with Bathsheba. Shaving off bits and pieces of God's laws and principles, on the basis that we are above His law, leads to the final catastrophe of David's sin with Bathsheba. Instead of following God's laws about the transportation of the ark, it seems David instead followed the pattern of the Philistines, who also transported the captured ark on a cart (s:w. <a href='B:90 6:10-11'>1Sa 6:10-11</a>). And considered that having built a new cart, never used before, he was in his own way showing respect to it. Uzzah walked at the side, whilst Ahio went before the oxen to guide them. The Divine cameraman is zoomed in close upon the scene.</p>


text:
<p>David and all Israel played before God with all their might, even with songs, harps, stringed instruments, tambourines, cymbals and trumpets- </p><p>The actual fact of making music and praise to God doesn't necessarily mean our acceptability before Him; the very experience of music and its effect can lead us to think that our participation means our acceptability before God. But all this praise was made whilst God was extremely angry with them for how they were treating the ark.</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the threshing floor of Chidon- </p><p><a href='B:130 13:9'>1Ch 13:9</a> has "the threshing floor of Chidon" and <a href='B:100 6:6'>2Sa 6:6</a> has "of Nacon". I suggest Nacon was the name of the owner, and Chidon was the location. A threshing floor has associations with Divine judgment, and this is what happened.</p><p>Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark- </p><p>We wonder if Paul has this in mind when he praises the Lord Jesus for not trying to grasp hold of equality with God (Php_2:6). In this case, Uzzah is being accused of playing God by what he did. And yet this appears to be a very harsh reading of motives into a quite simple and natural, well meaning reaction. But this is the point; we cannot judge or know human motivations or thoughts. Who knows what was really in Uzzah's mind. For all we know he was cussing the ark as it wobbled on the cart. Only God knows, and we should respect His judgment and our own inability to judge. The other possible issue which arises from this is that we are to accept that there are huge implications to our apparently harmless, surface level sins. Only God can judge them. But He does extrapolate the implications of human thoughts and actions. The whole incident is a test of our humility before God, a test David initially failed.</p><p>For the oxen stumbled- </p><p>"Stumbled" is s:w. "threw down" (<a href='B:120 9:33'>2Ki 9:33</a>; <a href='B:230 141:6'>Psa 141:6</a>). It seems the ark itself was thrown down onto the ground, despite Uzzah trying to stop it.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Uzza, and He struck him, because he put forth his hand to the ark; and there he died before God- </p><p>Yahweh had likewise struck down (s:w:) those who had earlier failed to respect the ark (<a href='B:90 5:6'>1Sa 5:6</a>; <a href='B:90 5:9'>1Sa 5:9</a>; <a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a>). And they had imitated the transport of the ark upon a cart. The failure of man to learn from Biblical history is one of the greatest tragedies. We may consider this incident as parallel with the sin of Adam and Eve in Eden, whereby an apparently small failure lead to huge consequences. But these incidents are placed in Biblical history to help us humble ourselves before God, and not to fall into the assumption that God is not serious about His principles. Yahweh's anger being kindled is a phrase used multiple times about His anger with Israel for breaking the covenant. The sin of Uzzah personified all that was wrong with Israel. They had assumed that they could serve Yahweh on their terms and not His, and that this was just a mere surface level failure which He should overlook. All this is so challenging for us, who are tempted to think in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>David was displeased, because Yahweh had broken forth on Uzza; and he called that place Perez Uzza, to this day- </p><p>David was “displeased” with God because He had slain a man who was trying to assist David’s pet project of bringing the ark to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:8-9'>2Sa 6:8-9</a>). Do we not again see the anger and irrational emotion of David flaring up? For the Hebrew for "displeased" really means "anger", and is the same word used of Yahweh's anger in :7. God was fiercely angry, and David was likewise fiercely angry with God for being angry. Whilst on one level this is a terrible example of human pride, David's response could be argued to reflect a closeness with God which enabled him to feel like this. The exiles were warned that all who are "incensed" against God must be humbled and ashamed before the ark could, as it were, come to Zion and Israel be restored (s:w. <a href='B:290 41:11'>Isa 41:11</a>; <a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a>). The exiles, who were also angry with God for His anger with them, were to go through the humbling process David went through over the next three months.</p><p>The Old Testament body of Christ was based around Israel, and thus when the Lord made a breach upon Uzzah, David could say that the Lord “made a breach upon us” (<a href='B:130 13:11'>1Ch 13:11</a>; <a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a>). Just as Saul's persecution of the body of Christ was persecuting the Lord Jesus personally.</p>


text:
<p>David was afraid of God that day saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?- </p><p>There is a similarity, surely intentional, with the situation in <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a>: "The men of Beth Shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?". These were now David's feelings when Uzzah was slain for also not being respectful to the ark. Circumstances repeated, and David failed to learn the lesson. We wonder if indeed David consciously repeated the words of the men of Beth Shemesh. I suspect he didn't, but rather his words are recorded in a similar way, to show to us readers the similarity. We are intended to learn from history, even though so few do. This is why so much of the Bible is history.</p>


text:
<p>So David didn’t move the ark to him into the city of David, but carried it aside into the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite- </p><p>This was a huge showdown, for David had assembled a huge number of people to this ceremony; see on :1-5. And now he was revealed as a man who had not paid due attention to the requirements of the God whom he had invited all Israel to come to worship. It was very humbling for him. We note he "carried it aside", having it carried on poles as the law required and not on a cart.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of God remained with the family of Obed-Edom in his house three months; and Yahweh blessed the house of Obed-Edom, and all that he had- </p><p>It took David three months to humble himself before God, and to perceive that His blessing is related to obedience and respect of Him, and not assuming we can serve Him on our terms and ride roughshod over His principles. David and his house had also been promised blessings, but he was being taught that these blessings were related to obedience and respect of God. And the fact a Philistine from Gath, perhaps an Edomite, indeed an Edomite servant [for so his name means] received these blessings::. was to teach him that his pedigree counted for nothing compared to humble respect of Israel's God.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and masons, and carpenters, to build him a house- </p><p>The way Solomon also used him, or probably another Hiram, for the same trees reflects again how Solomon sought to live out his father. But he had no real spirituality, and over time he revealed that he had no personal faith, turning away to idols in his old age and coming to the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.</p><p>Psalms 30 was written at the dedication of a house by David, and we assume it was this house. But that Psalm reveals David had been very ill. He seems not to have had robust health although he was physically strong and lived a long life. There is ample evidence for a breakdown of his health after the sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>David perceived that Yahweh had established him king over Israel; for his kingdom was exalted on high, for His people Israel’s sake- </p><p>He realized that the promises of Samuel so long ago had finally come true, despite all the times when it had seemed they could not come true (see on <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>). But this sense of fulfilment led him to take yet more wives (:3), which is surely to be read negatively in spiritual terms. Yet he realized that his establishment was located in a wider context than just for himself; it was for the sake of His people Israel.</p>


text:
<p>David took more wives at Jerusalem; and David became the father of more sons and daughters- </p><p>See on :2. This is hard to read in a positive light spiritually; for Israel's king was not to multiply wives (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). He seemed to feel the need to prove himself established by having more wives and children, but this was itself a failure to appreciate that Yahweh had established him (:2). He did perceive this, but only on one level.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of the children whom he had in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon- </p><p>These were the sons of Bathsheba. We note that they had a son called Nathan, perhaps in respect of the prophet of that name who had rebuked David for his sin with Bathsheba. And it was through him that the Lord Jesus was descended back to David (<a href='B:490 3:31'>Luk 3:31</a>).</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>Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet- </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> also mention two more sons, Eliphalet or Elpelet 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>Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia- </p><p>We know nothing of these sons, nor indeed or most of David's children. This would indicate perhaps that David was not a very good spiritual father to his children.</p>


text:
<p>Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphelet-</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? We wonder whether the naming of Baal-yada ("Beeliada") was done by one of David's wives who worshipped Baal; we know that Michal his wife also had pagan images in their home.</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over all Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David. David heard of it, and went out against them- </p><p>They must have felt bitterly betrayed by David. He had lived with them in Ziklag and Gath for some time and claimed he was on their side against Judah. His lack of integrity would have deeply riled them, and was a poor advertisement for the God of Israel.</p><p><a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a> says that David "went down to the stronghold". The stronghold in view may have been the cave of Adullam (<a href='B:100 23:13-14'>2Sa 23:13-14</a>), where God had previously delivered David from Saul. Perhaps he went there to pray. It was at this time that he wished to drink of the water from the well in Bethlehem, and his men broke risked their lives to get it for him. We see the extent of their dominance, in that they had overrun Bethlehem, David's home village, and placed a garrison in it (<a href='B:100 23:14'>2Sa 23:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines had come and made a raid in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The record of David's battle with the Philistines here has certain similarities with the exploits of <a href='B:90 14:8-11'>1Sa 14:8-11</a>; as if, years later, David replicated Jonathan's early adventure of faith. This would be understandable if he had been Jonathan's armourbearer in that incident. Situations repeat in our lives; what we learn in youth becomes tested later on in life.</p><p>They perhaps chose the valley of the giants as the battleground because they still recalled his victory over Goliath, and wanted to reverse it.</p>


text:
<p>David inquired of God saying, Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will You deliver them into my hand? Yahweh said to him, Go up; for I will deliver them into your hand- </p><p>This recalls how he asked Yahweh when Saul died whether he should go into Judah, and to which city there. A man of lesser humility and closeness to God would have just gone ahead with assumptions he was right. His questions also recall the questions he asked [and answers received] about the situation in Keilah (<a href='B:90 23:11-12'>1Sa 23:11-12</a>). He retained this desire for guidance, and showed he had learned from his previous experiences.</p>


text:
<p>So they came up to Baal Perazim, and David struck them there; and David said, God has broken my enemies by my hand, like the breach of waters. Therefore they called the name of that place Baal Perazim- </p><p>This means the place of breaches. What happened has been explained as follows: "It was the rocky height on the north of the valley of Rephaim. David must, therefore, have stolen round the army of the Philistines, creeping, probably by night, up to this ridge of Ben-Hinnom, and thence at the dawn of day have rushed down upon the camp. And his onset was sudden and irresistible, like the rush of the waters of some mountain lake when, swollen with rains, it bursts through the opposing dam, and carries hasty destruction to everything that lies in its way". This means that just like the second attack, David circled around and came at the Philistines from behind (:14). But this is exactly how a dog attacks. David in his low moments had felt himself as a desert dog (<a href='B:90 17:44'>1Sa 17:44</a> LXX; 24:14). When we are weak, then we are strong. Perhaps God played along with David's low feelings by saying that if he indeed felt as a dog, then He would use him to achieve victory as a dog does. This is not to justify David's view of himself, but to show rather how God interacts with man in a mutual way.</p>


text:
<p>They left their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire- </p><p><a href='B:100 5:21'>2Sa 5:21</a> adds: "They left their images there; and David and his men took them away". Chronicles seem to present a far more positive take on the history, omitting all reference to the Bathsheba incident. They should have destroyed them immediately, according to the law of Moses which David professed such love for in Psalms 119. Perhaps they justified it by saying they were doing to the Philistines as they had done to the ark; for the Philistines took the ark as a sign they had triumphed over Israel's God. But Yahweh clearly punished them for that, and David's men might have boasted that the Philistine gods didn't do that to them. Such is the quasi spiritual reasoning of our flesh. <a href='B:130 14:12'>1Ch 14:12</a> however explains that finally, they were burnt.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines yet again made a raid in the valley- </p><p>This was soon afterwards, implying David's men hadn't slain that many of the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>David inquired again of God; and God said to him, You shall not go up after them. Turn away from them, and come on them opposite the mulberry trees- </p><p>The Father and Son are constantly seeking to lead us in “newness of life”. David didn’t get victory by the mulberry trees the same way each time. God changed the method. But as noted on :11, David was still to circle around and attack from behind, like a dog. "Mulberry" is Hebrew baca, and could refer to the valley of Baca, or weeping, of <a href='B:230 84:6'>Psa 84:6</a>. Hence RV "valley of weeping". Perhaps David was in depression at this time, and was being comforted that his weeping was to be his strength. For God loves to use the weak to achieve His victories.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then you shall go out to battle- </p><p>This sound was the marching of the Angels. They are called Yahweh's hosts or armies, and the idea was that David's army was a reflection on earth of the heavenly armies above him. This was necessary to teach that Israel were not winning these victories in their own strength, but by following the Angelic hosts above them.</p><p>"When thou (David) shalt hear a sound of going (like the noise of the Angel cherubim in Ezekiel 1?) in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then shalt thou go out to battle; for God (the Angels) is gone forth before thee to smite the host of the Philistines" (AV). So once the Angels had physically moved forward and David had heard them doing this, he too could move ahead in doing the human part in bringing God's purpose about. David alludes to this as a regular experience when he speaks of God ‘going out’ with the hosts / armies of Israel (<a href='B:230 60:10'>Psa 60:10</a> RV). His hosts were as the hosts of God (<a href='B:130 11:22'>1Ch 11:22</a>)- he walked in step with the Angel Cherubim above him, as Ezekiel was to do later. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>.</p><p>For God has gone out before you to strike the army of the Philistines- </p><p>The people wanted a king to "go out before us and fight our battles" (<a href='B:90 8:20'>1Sa 8:20</a>), but they were disappointed in Saul ultimately. For it was effectively David who went out before the people to fight their battles (s:w. <a href='B:90 18:13'>1Sa 18:13</a>; <a href='B:90 18:16'>1Sa 18:16</a>). And David was only successful because he recognized that it was Yahweh who 'went out before' to fight his battles (s:w. "gone out"), rather than any human king or leader.</p>


text:
<p>David did as God commanded him; and they struck the army of the Philistines from Gibeon even to Gezer- </p><p>Gibeon is directly on the road from the valley of Rephaim to Gaza. The continual consistency of the geographical references in the record is yet another reflection of the utter credibility of it as Divinely inspired. Any group of human writers would have made mistakes in this area, given the lack of detailed maps and geographical knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>The fame of David went out into all lands; and Yahweh brought the fear of him on all nations- </p><p>"Fame" is the word for "name". Names were reflective of achievement, life experience and developed character, with the Name of Yahweh being the parade example. They were developed, as God's Name is, both over human history and within the experience of individuals.</p>


text:
<p>David made himself houses in the city of David; and he prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched a tent for it- </p><p>This uncomfortable parallel between building his own house, and simply pitching a tent for the dwelling of God::. remained with David. And surely the thought began even at this stage to build a "house" for the ark, i:e. a temple. But that thought was not motivated so much by any sense of God's glory, but rather guilt at his own extravagance in building a house for himself which became effectively an entire citadel, "the city of David". And this wrong motivation led to God's disagreement with his suggestion.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said, No one ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites; for Yahweh has chosen them to carry the ark of God- </p><p>David had been "displeased" with God's judgment of Uzzah for steadying the ark, and according to 2 Samuel, it took him quite some time to come to want to deal again with the ark. He finally accepts that he had been wrong to allow the ark to be carried as he thought best, rather than as instructed in God's law.</p><p>And to minister to Him forever- </p><p>Perhaps David correctly reasoned that the Levitical priesthood had to end, and he liked to think that that time had already come, and therefore he could dispense with the commandments about the Levites carrying the ark. But now he accepts he had gone too far away from God's stated word, in seeking to justify doing things as he wished and effectively creation a religion on his own terms rather than God's.</p>


text:
<p>David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of Yahweh to its place, which he had prepared for it- </p><p>David had done this before, and it had ended up as a showdown because Uzzah had been slain and God was clearly displeased rather than pleased. It had taken David a long time to live this down.</p>


text:
<p>David gathered together the sons of Aaron and the Levites-</p><p>The assembly of "all Israel" (:3) may have been in that the sons of Aaron represented "all Israel".</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Kohath, Uriel the chief, and his brothers one hundred and twenty-</p><p>The differing numbers for each branch of the tribe may have been reflective of how responsive the families were to David's invitation.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Merari, Asaiah the chief, and his brothers two hundred and twenty- </p><p>We note how most of these numbers are to the nearest ten. 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>); 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>). And here <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”. Surely this is to show that God is God, not man, and as such He’s not on the back foot, writing under the fear of criticism. His word is not contradictory, but on the other hand, God has more spiritual culture than to sink down to the level of a man who wanted to foresee all criticism in writing something which could stand all petty criticism. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is the answer to many of the petty objections about ‘Bible contradictions’ which are raised by critics. .</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Gershom, Joel the chief, and his brothers one hundred and thirty- </p><p>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn. He is mentioned first in some lists as if he was the firstborn, but in terms of the priestly work Kohath is usually mentioned before him. This replacement of the firstborn is a big theme in scripture.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Elizaphan, Shemaiah the chief, and his brothers two hundred- </p><p>Elizaphan was son of Uzziel (:10; <a href='B:20 6:22'>Exo 6:22</a>) and yet is mentioned before him. It seems that this list is somehow graded in terms of importance, with Kohath mentioned first as the priestly division of the sons of Levi.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Hebron, Eliel the chief, and his brothers eighty-</p><p>Hebron and Uzziel (:10) were sons of Kohath, but are mentioned independently because of the importance attached to the priesthood. Therefore Kohath, although not the firstborn, is mentioned first in this list.</p>


text:
<p>of the sons of Uzziel, Amminadab the chief, and his brothers one hundred and twelve- </p><p>See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>David called for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and for the Levites, for Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel and Amminadab- </p><p>Zadok and Abiathar appear to have both been high priests at the same time, though Zadok and is always mentioned first and Abiathar was deposed by Solomon (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:100 15:29'>2Sa 15:29</a>; <a href='B:100 15:35'>2Sa 15:35</a>; <a href='B:100 19:11'>2Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:100 20:25'>2Sa 20:25</a>). To have more than one high priest was not in keeping with the spirit of the law of Moses but was not explicitly forbidden, and the dual priesthood shows how the law was open to a wide range of interpretation in practice.</p>


text:
<p>and said to them, You are the heads of the fathers’ households of the Levites. Sanctify yourselves, both you and your brothers, that you may bring up the ark of Yahweh, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it- </p><p>David’s bringing the ark to the place which he had prepared&nbsp; is the basis of the Lord’s words in <a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>. Clearly the Lord saw David as Himself, and us as the ark. The ‘bringing up’ or ‘lifting up’ of the ark (<a href='B:130 15:12'>1Ch 15:12</a>; <a href='B:130 15:22'>1Ch 15:22</a> RVmg:) to a perpetual dwelling place has evident reference to the resurrection. And when the ark was finally brought or lifted up to Zion, David / Jesus dealt bread and wine to the people (<a href='B:130 16:3'>1Ch 16:3</a>). One practical encouragement from this typology is that the memorial feast is a celebration that in fact we, the ark, have in prospect already been brought or lifted up into the eternal place prepared for us in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>For because you didn’t carry it at first, Yahweh our God broke out against us, because we didn’t seek Him according to the ordinance- </p><p>Because David omitted to enforce the Law's requirements concerning the transport of the tabernacle, a man died. His commission of good didn't outweigh his omission here (<a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a>). To omit to hate evil is the same as to commit it (<a href='B:230 36:4'>Psa 36:4</a>). The Jews were condemned by the Lord for building the sepulchres of the prophets without erecting a placard stating that their fathers had killed them.</p><p>The Old Testament body of Christ was based around Israel, and thus when the Lord made a breach upon Uzzah, David could say that the Lord “made a breach upon us” (<a href='B:130 13:11'>1Ch 13:11</a>; <a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a>). Just as Saul's persecution of the body of Christ was persecuting the Lord Jesus personally.</p>


text:
<p>So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>The sanctification would have been in terms of sacrifices and abstaining from contact with things which could have made them unclean.</p>


text:
<p>The children of the Levites bore the ark of God with its poles on their shoulders, as Moses commanded according to the word of Yahweh-</p><p>There were very specific laws about the transportation of the ark. It was to be carried on poles on the shoulders of not just Levites but specifically the sons of Kohath (<a href='B:40 4:15'>Num 4:15</a>); and Abinadab's family were not the right people to carry it. David claims in Psalms 119 to have studied God's law all the day whilst on the run from Saul, reciting it to himself. Perhaps he forgot these details. But I suggest because he came to see that God wanted the spirit and not letter of the law to be followed, he came to totally place himself above Divine law. We face the same temptation. And it was this which led David into his sin with Bathsheba. Shaving off bits and pieces of God's laws and principles, on the basis that we are above His law, leads to the final catastrophe of David's sin with Bathsheba. Instead of following God's laws about the transportation of the ark, it seems David instead followed the pattern of the Philistines, who also transported the captured ark on a cart (s:w. <a href='B:90 6:10-11'>1Sa 6:10-11</a>). And considered that having built a new cart, never used before, he was in his own way showing respect to it.</p>


text:
<p>David spoke to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brothers the singers, with instruments of music, stringed instruments and harps and cymbals, sounding aloud and lifting up the voice with joy- </p><p>Several of the Psalms (Psalms 96, 105, 106) and the text we have in 1 Chronicles 16 would have been sung at this time. Those texts recount the failures of Israel and triumph in God's abiding presence and forgiveness. The "joy" was therefore the joy at forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>So the Levites appointed Heman the son of Joel; and of his brothers, Asaph the son of Berechiah; and of the sons of Merari their brothers, Ethan the son of Kushaiah- </p><p>These played some undefined role in the musical presentation of :16. The next verses define roles in more detail, so we assume that these names were those who led the service and procession, as the next in the list are "of the second degree" (:18).</p>


text:
<p>and with them their brothers of the second degree- </p><p>This could imply that the names of :17 were of a 'first degree' status, but "second" can also mean that they were a mirror image of those of :17, they may have been a 'double' of them.</p><p>Zechariah, Ben, Jaaziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel, the doorkeepers- </p><p>Literally, the openers or dividers of the gates. The word is also translated "porters". The idea is that the ark was considered to represent an enthroned person. And that invisible person was Israel's God Yahweh. This was in stark contrast to the processions of other nations, who carried the idols representing their gods, enthroned on great decorated thrones. But Yahweh had just a throne, the humble small box known as the ark, which was carried. He Himself was to be imagined, by faith. This was the scene of <a href='B:230 24:7'>Psa 24:7</a> "Lift up your heads, O gates [gatekeepers]::. you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in". But that King of glory was invisible and His glory only perceived in the minds of thoughtful believers, just as today.</p>


text:
<p>So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were given cymbals of brass to sound aloud- </p><p>Ethan and Heman are mentioned together in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as men whom Solomon's wisdom exceeded; and in <a href='B:130 15:19'>1Ch 15:19</a> they are both singers whom David appointed. We can assume that they were famed for their wisdom; but Solomon's wisdom exceeded theirs. And their wisdom was here expressed in their music.</p>


text:
<p>and Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah and Benaiah, with stringed instruments set to Alamoth- </p><p>Alamoth is the music title of Psalms 46. It means literally "the girls", and may refer to soprano parts.</p>


text:
<p>and Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-Edom, Jeiel and Azaziah, with harps tuned to the eight-stringed lyre, to lead- </p><p>Or "on the sheminith" (as AV), which may have been a musical term as "alamoth" in :20.</p>


text:
<p>Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was over the song: he instructed about the song, because he was skilful- </p><p>"Instructed" implies to teach by repeated repetition. All this would have been rehearsed many times, and he led the rehearsals.</p>


text:
<p>Berechiah and Elkanah were doorkeepers for the ark- </p><p>"Doorkeepers" can also mean "porters", so perhaps these were those who carried the ark, and those of :18 opened the gates for the ark. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Shebaniah, and Joshaphat, and Nethanel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, blew the trumpets before the ark of God. Obed-Edom and Jehiah were doorkeepers for the ark- </p><p>See on :18,23. They may have been either the porters of the ark, or those who opened the gates.</p>


text:
<p>So David, and the elders of Israel, and the captains over thousands, went to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the house of Obed-Edom with joy- </p><p>True joy can only come from repentance and humbling ourselves before God. A prouder man would have just given up with this apparently over sensitive, hard to please God of Israel. But Yahweh is not really like that; but He rightly requires our humility to Him and His principles. It was the Edomite servant, Obed Edom, who taught David this. Several of the Psalms (Psalms 96, 105, 106) and the text we have in 1 Chronicles 16 would have been sung at this time. Those texts recount the failures of Israel and triumph in God's abiding presence and forgiveness. The "joy" was therefore the joy at forgiveness:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when God helped the Levites who bore the ark of the covenant of Yahweh- </p><p>GNB "They sacrificed seven bulls and seven sheep, to make sure that God would help the Levites who were carrying the Covenant Box".</p><p>That they sacrificed seven bulls and seven rams- </p><p>If sacrifices were offered every six paces from the house of Obed Edom to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a>), the road to Zion would have been a stream of sacrificial blood, looking ahead to the way to Golgotha. I suggest on <a href='B:100 6:17'>2Sa 6:17</a> that these were sin offerings. It demonstrated the deep sense of sin and need for atonement which David felt. It was this true repentance which was the basis for his ecstatic joy. <a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a> LXX "And seven choruses accompanied him, bearing the ark, and a calf and lambs as a sacrifice".</p>


text:
<p>David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites who bore the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers; and David wore an ephod of linen- </p><p>I suggested on <a href='B:90 2:18-19'>1Sa 2:18-19</a> that the child Samuel, a non Levite from Ephraim, was doing the priestly work because Eli's family refused to do it, or perhaps just told him to do it. The Hebrew words for "robe" and "ephod" in there only occur together in the descriptions of the "robe of the ephod" worn by none other than the High Priest (<a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a>; <a href='B:20 28:31'>Exo 28:31</a>; <a href='B:20 29:5'>Exo 29:5</a>; <a href='B:20 39:22'>Exo 39:22</a>). The young Samuel apparently did the work of the High Priest. His example and spiritual ambition inspired David, who he was to anoint, to likewise wear such a robe and ephod (s:w:).</p><p>As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched the animal burn (<a href='B:230 43:4'>Psa 43:4</a> Heb:)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from which he could take comfort (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>). David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and still be a man after God's own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter, he airily waived the Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness (consider the implications of <a href='B:100 14:4-11'>2Sa 14:4-11</a>), and the need to stone rapists (<a href='B:100 13:21'>2Sa 13:21</a>). When others tried to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (<a href='B:90 13:10-13'>1Sa 13:10-13</a>); and Uzziah likewise (<a href='B:140 26:16-19'>2Ch 26:16-19</a>). When the woman of Tekoah basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger of blood be repealed, David seems to have agreed. When Amnon seeks to rape his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry- and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba. Right afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double, David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.</p>


text:
<p>Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, sounding aloud with stringed instruments and harps- </p><p>David is portrayed as in religious ecstasy before the God whom three months before he had been furiously angry with (see on <a href='B:100 6:8'>2Sa 6:8</a>). This indeed reflects the almost bi-polar nature of David. But it also shows the power of true repentance and seeking to put things right with God (see on <a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a>), and the joy of good conscience resulting from that.</p>


text:
<p>As the ark of the covenant of Yahweh came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out at the window, and saw king David dancing and playing; and she despised him in her heart- </p><p>As Goliath despised David (<a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a>), so did Michal. The same word is used here. God reads the heart and what He finds there is so significant to Him. That woman's silent thoughts have been recorded for millennia in the record, and they are still in God's memory. We have a parade example here of the huge significance God attaches to our thoughts. Despising others for their spirituality is especially abhorrent to Him. We recall that Michal had an idol in her home soon after her marriage to David, and we wonder if it was Yahweh whom she also despised. And all this made her no better than Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>They brought in the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God- </p><p>The usual pattern for the offerings was sin offering, burnt offering [dedication to God on the basis of being reconciled from sin] and then peace offerings, celebrating the resultant peace with God. I suggested on <a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a> that the mass of animals sacrificed on the road to Zion were sin offerings.</p>


text:
<p>When David had made an end of offering the burnt offering and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of Yahweh- </p><p>As noted and discussed on <a href='B:130 15:27'>1Ch 15:27</a>, this was again David acting as high priest, blessing the people in Yahweh's Name.</p>


text:
<p>He dealt to each one of Israel, both man and woman, to every one a loaf of bread, a portion of meat and a cake of raisins- </p><p>See on <a href='B:130 15:12'>1Ch 15:12</a>. <a href='B:130 16:8-22'>1Ch 16:8-22</a> is the Psalm written by David when the ark was brought to Zion, but it reappears within <a href='B:230 105:1-15'>Psa 105:1-15</a>, which is clearly an appeal for the exiles to repent so that God's salvation history might continue with them. So we see how David's original Psalms were reworked and reapplied in later contexts, under Divine inspiration. By the time of the exiles in Babylon, it seems the ark had been lost. But such external religious symbolism was unimportant; the essence was that the people of God were to come to Zion, just as the ark had done.</p><p>We see here an ancient anticipation of the bread and wine [raisins] of the breaking of bread meeting. That meeting is essentially a peace offering, a celebration of the peace with God achieved through the Lord's sin offering, our promise of dedication to Him in the burnt offering, and then the celebration of the resultant peace with God. See on :1.</p><p>Israel’s mixture of Yahweh worship with Baal worship is demonstrated by the reference to their being “lovers of raisin cakes” (<a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a>). According to this passage, these cakes appear to have been part of the legitimate worship of Yahweh- and yet in <a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a> they are referred to as an aphrodisiac. There was a heady mix of Yahweh worship with participation in the sexual rituals of the Baal cult. It was this mixture which was so abhorrent to God- and time and again, in essence, we likewise mix flesh and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>He appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of Yahweh, and to celebrate and to thank and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>The sense of the Hebrew behind "celebrate" is "to call to mind" or remember (<a href='B:130 16:12'>1Ch 16:12</a>). David wanted this occasion to be recorded. The production of psalms to be sung for perpetuity afterwards would be the equivalent of our taking photographs or video recordings of such an incident.</p>


text:
<p>Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, then Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel, with stringed instruments and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud- </p><p>Asaph is particularly noted, although he was just one many recorded musicians in the company (<a href='B:130 15:19'>1Ch 15:19</a>). Perhaps special note is made of him because he was the author of some of the Psalms which the exiles were to sing at the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually, before the ark of the covenant of God- </p><p>Jahaziel is Eliezer of <a href='B:130 15:24'>1Ch 15:24</a>. People had more than one name. Perhaps one of these was his birth name, and the other that by which he became known. Benaiah was also one of David's "mighty men". They would have had one trumpet each.</p>


text:
<p>Then on that day David led the giving of thanks to Yahweh, by the hand of Asaph and his brothers-</p><p>The idea is that David gave the following hymn into the hands of Asaph and his brothers to sing. Hence Adam Clarke: "David delivered first this psalm::.".</p>


text:
<p>Oh give thanks to Yahweh! Call on His name. Make His deeds known among the peoples- </p><p>The Truth of the Gospel of the cross is the only way to come to salvation. All other religions apart from true Christianity will not give salvation nor a relationship with God. Realizing this, David pleads with his people to be a missionary nation: "Give thanks unto Yahweh, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people::. for great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols; but Yahweh made the heavens" (<a href='B:130 16:8'>1Ch 16:8</a>; <a href='B:130 16:25-26'>1Ch 16:25-26</a>). The more we realize the pathetic fallacy of human religion, indeed the whole and utter vanity of life under this sun, the more we will preach Yahweh's Truth to a tragically wandering, aimless world.</p><p>This is an appeal to the Gentile "peoples" to hear about God's work and praise Him; and to praise a deity in those days meant to accept that deity. Not because they were forced to by military conquest, but because they had considered God's work which had now been told to them. <a href='B:130 16:8-22'>1Ch 16:8-22</a> is the Psalm written by David when the ark was brought to Zion, but it reappears within <a href='B:230 105:1-15'>Psa 105:1-15</a>, which is clearly an appeal for the exiles to repent so that God's salvation history might continue with them. So we see how David's original Psalms were reworked and reapplied in later contexts, under Divine inspiration. By the time of the exiles in Babylon, it seems the ark had been lost. But such external religious symbolism was unimportant; the essence was that the people of God were to come to Zion, just as the ark had done.</p>


text:
<p>Sing to Him, sing praises to Him. Tell of all His marvellous works- </p><p>Heb. 'His wonders'. Wonder leads to worship, to that flame of praise which is the worship "in spirit and in truth" which the Father seeks. But wonder adds awe and reverence to that worship. And we have to ask how much of that there is in much popular worship today, be it in starchy hymns or rock music. <a href='B:130 16:9'>1Ch 16:9</a> makes the connection between wonder and worship quite plain: "Sing unto him, sing praises unto him; talk of all his wonders". Likewise <a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>: "I will praise you O Lord; I will show forth all your wonders".</p><p>David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And yet this can also be read as an appeal to the Gentile peoples of :1 to hear of Yahweh's works, believe them, accept Him as their God, and then in turn tell others of "His marvellous works".</p>


text:
<p>Glory in His holy name. Let the heart of those who seek Yahweh rejoice- </p><p>The Bible continually stresses the critical importance of the heart, the mind. Our minds should glory in God's Name which is His characteristics, as articulated in His "works" (:9) in history. And this leads us to "seek" Him and His face, which I suggest on :11 refers to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Seek Yahweh and His strength. Seek His face for evermore- </p><p>To seek Yahweh's face is an idiom for repentance (<a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a>), and is specifically used by Daniel in the context of the exiles (<a href='B:140 7:14'>2Ch 7:14</a>; <a href='B:340 9:3'>Dan 9:3</a>). This is therefore an appeal for the exiles to repent, so that God may continue to lavish His saving grace upon them, as He had upon their forefathers.</p>


text:
<p>Remember His marvellous works that He has done, His wonders, and the judgments of His mouth- </p><p>The Hebrew idea of 'remembering' is not necessarily related to 'remembering' as opposed to 'forgetting'; rather does it have the flavour of celebrating, and thus being aware of in gratitude and praise. As God was "mindful" of David and thereby all men in Israel through the victory granted over Goliath, so David urged that in response, they should be "mindful" of God (<a href='B:230 8:4'>Psa 8:4</a> s:w. <a href='B:130 16:12'>1Ch 16:12</a>; <a href='B:130 16:15'>1Ch 16:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>you seed of Israel His servant, you children of Jacob, His chosen ones- </p><p>David was clearly the "chosen one::. My servant" (<a href='B:230 89:3'>Psa 89:3</a>), but these very terms are applied to Israel as a whole (<a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a>; <a href='B:230 105:43'>Psa 105:43</a>; <a href='B:230 106:5'>Psa 106:5</a>) and to the "servant" of later Isaiah, who refers to both Israel and their Messiah as their embodiment (<a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a>; <a href='B:290 45:4'>Isa 45:4</a>). David's path of sin, repentance and restoration was intended to be that of all God's people, as he himself recognizes in Psalms 32. But the exiles refused to repent and therefore their restoration was precluded. They were not therefore treated as His "chosen one".</p>


text:
<p>He is Yahweh our God. His judgments are in all the earth- </p><p>The exiles were to believe the prophetic word, that all the nations in the eretz promised to Abraham were to experience God's judgments; the judgments of "our God", Yahweh, the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Remember His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations- </p><p>The real import of the covenant-relationship with God which we have is brought out by David in <a href='B:130 16:15-18'>1Ch 16:15-18</a>: “Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance”. The covenant, the promise that God’s people really will inherit the land, becomes a law, a “word which he commanded”, something which should be thought about all the time. The sure promise of entering the Kingdom, the knowledge that by grace, according to the covenant, ‘we will be there’, cannot be accepted passively. The covenant-certainty of that great salvation becomes a command to action.</p><p>Jeremiah, Zechariah, Hosea and Ezekiel point out to Judah that they had broken the old covenant; their only basis of connection with God was therefore on the basis of the new covenant He was offering, which was based upon the promises to Abraham. That word of promise was unconditional, to all who wanted to believe it. It was therefore eternal, "to a thousand generations". It would therefore be abrogated, unlike the old covenant based on the law of Moses.</p>


text:
<p>the covenant which He made with Abraham, His oath to Isaac- </p><p>The "oath to Isaac" must refer to the repetition of the promises to Abraham to Isaac in <a href='B:10 26:3'>Gen 26:3</a>, where the same word for "oath" is used. But the context of that repetition of the covenant oath to Isaac was in commanding him not to seek material prosperity in Egypt, but rather to remain in the famished land of Israel, then experiencing famine. This was relevant to the exiles, many of whom preferred to remain in Babylon, seeing that Malachi, Ezra and others record serious famine in the land of Judah at that time.</p>


text:
<p>He confirmed the same to Jacob for a statute, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant- </p><p>The "statute" doesn't refer to the law of Moses, but to the covenant with Abraham of :16. The covenant with Abraham was an unconditional offer of eternal inheritance of the land; all that was and is required is that this great salvation be believed. But it became and becomes a "statute" or "law" in the same way as grace reigns or is a ruler over us (<a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a>). If we believe in God's unconditional covenant of salvation, then this becomes a law of our lives, the guiding principle in all our thinking, worldviews and perceptions. It is in this sense that "the grace of God::. teaches us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and Godly lives" (<a href='B:630 2:11-12'>Tit 2:11-12</a>). Grace is grace, but the wonder of it, when believed, is such that it naturally elicits changed behaviour, and in this sense is a "statute" or law.</p><p>God wanted to make a covenant with David, by His grace, rather than demand gifts and obedience for the sake of obedience. Yet grace of itself means that we cannot be passive to it. The covenants with Abraham and Isaac are spoken of by David as a law, in the sense that they required certain things of those within those covenants (<a href='B:130 16:15-19'>1Ch 16:15-19</a>). And those same covenants are binding upon all baptized into Christ (<a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a>), and the hope of the Kingdom which they bring likewise becomes a ‘law’ governing our behaviour. <a href='B:330 20:37'>Eze 20:37</a> speaks of "the bond of the covenant"- and "bond" is literally a fetter, a tie that binds, that restricts. To be in covenant relationship therefore means that we are not free to do as we like; there is an element of regulation in our lives, but of course it has a purpose- to bring us to God's Kingdom and keep us within the sphere of relationship with Him. But a covenant is a two way thing. This tie that binds applies to God too; hence the wonderful, oft-repeated idea of His chesed, His covenant faithfulness to us His people. He likewise carries a kind of responsibility to us.</p>


text:
<p>saying, ‘I will give you the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;’- </p><p>As discussed on :17, the promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan was unconditional, by grace. It just had to be believed.</p>


text:
<p>when you were but a few men in number, yes, very few, and foreigners were in it- </p><p>God rejoices to work with the small and feeble. The "few men" must refer to how Jacob's family only numbered about 70 people when they went into Egypt. The same phrase "few men in number" is exactly that used by Jacob in lamenting how very small his tribe was compared to the aggressive tribes amongst whom they lived in Canaan (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>). And it is the phrase used of how when Israel were to be judged for their sins in exile, they would be left "few men in number" (<a href='B:50 4:27'>Deu 4:27</a>). The exiles are being encouraged to see the similarities between them and Jacob's family in Egypt, the original 'Israel' at its first beginnings.</p>


text:
<p>They went about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people- </p><p>This seems to refer, in the context, to the journeyings of the patriarchs amongst the peoples of Canaan, Philistia and Egypt. Although they suffered at the hands of those peoples, they were miraculously preserved; and so would God's people be despite their current exile in Babylon / Persia.</p>


text:
<p>He allowed no man to do them wrong. Yes, He reproved kings for their sakes- </p><p>In this we see God's absolute grace. For both Abraham and Isaac were rightly reproved by the Abimelech kings for lying about their wives, and yet God reproved those kings. He was openly showing His passionate love and preference for His people; they were rightly reproved by the kings (<a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a>), but those kings were reproved by God for their sins of ignorance. And it was this same grace which was available to the exiles. "Wrong" was indeed done to the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:300 50:33'>Jer 50:33</a>; <a href='B:350 5:11'>Hos 5:11</a>), as it was done to the historical Jacob; but the point is being made that it was not ultimately allowed because there was the final restoration of Jacob's fortunes, as there would be ultimately for God's people- but in God's own way and time.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t touch My anointed ones! Do My prophets no harm!- </p><p>This refers to how Abraham and Isaac were not harmed despite lying to Abimelech (see on :20). It definitely doesn't mean that God's visible public servants are beyond criticism; for Abraham and Isaac most definitely are reproved for their actions in the Biblical record. The point is that they, weak as they were and deserving of "harm", were preserved from ultimate harm by God's grace. And they are cited as an example to the exiles, who were all "anointed ones" (<a href='B:310 4:21'>Lam 4:21</a>), they had a special purpose before God; just as all in Christ, the anointed one, are likewise "anointed ones"&nbsp; (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>). So this doesn't give pastors or church leaders special privilege of being beyond criticism, as this verse is misused to teach.</p>


text:
<p>Sing to Yahweh, all the earth! Display His salvation from day to day- </p><p>The LXX uses the word evangelion concerning how daily we should “show forth his salvation” (here and in <a href='B:230 96:2'>Psa 96:2</a>). Witness is therefore a daily feature in the life of those who have known salvation; it is not something done solely by attending an ecclesial gathering once per week. This explains why frequently Paul uses the word "Gospel" as meaning 'the preaching of the Gospel'; the Gospel is in itself something which must be preached if we really have it (<a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a>; <a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a>; Php_1:5 (NIV),12; 2:22; 4:15; <a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a>; <a href='B:590 3:2'>1Th 3:2</a>; <a href='B:600 2:14'>2Th 2:14</a>; <a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a>; <a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a>). The fact we have been given the Gospel is in itself an imperative to preach it. </p><p>Many of the Psalms reflect David’s realization that confession of sin is the basis for powerful preaching. The LXX often uses the verb euangelizesthai to describe his preaching after the Bathsheba incident (<a href='B:230 96:2'>Psa 96:2</a>). Because God has mercifully forgive His people and His face shines upon them in renewed fellowship, His way is thereby made known upon earth to all nations (<a href='B:230 67:1-2'>Psa 67:1-2</a>). He utters forth the mighty acts of God with the preface: “Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord, who can shew forth all his praise?” (<a href='B:230 106:2'>Psa 106:2</a>)- and then proceeds to do just that. He did so with a clear recognition of his own inadequacy. The Psalms of praise are full of this theme. David exhorts all those who have been redeemed to show forth God’s praise (<a href='B:230 107:2'>Psa 107:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 107:32'>Psa 107:32</a>). He wanted all Israel to be a joyful, witnessing people. And even though it seems God’s people didn’t respond, David went on undeterred. Time and again he fearlessly sets himself up as Israel’s example. He speaks of how he trusts in the Lord’s grace, and then appeals to Israel to do just the same (<a href='B:230 62:7-8'>Psa 62:7-8</a>). The strength of his appeal was in the fact that his sin and experience of grace was the bridge between him and his audience.</p>


text:
<p>Declare His glory among the nations, and His marvellous works among all the peoples- </p><p>In <a href='B:490 24:45-47'>Luk 24:45-47</a> we read how Christ explained to the disciples that their preaching of the Gospel "among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" was foretold in the Psalms and prophets. So the Bible student asks: Where&nbsp;in the Psalms and prophets? The Lord spoke as if the prophecies about this were copious. There do not seem to be any specific prophecies which speak of the twelve spreading the Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century. Instead we read of the Gospel being spread from Jerusalem in the Kingdom, and often the phrase "all nations" occurs in a Kingdom context, describing how "all nations" will come to worship Christ at Jerusalem (<a href='B:230 22:27'>Psa 22:27</a>; <a href='B:230 67:2'>Psa 67:2</a>; <a href='B:230 72:11'>Psa 72:11</a>; <a href='B:230 72:17'>Psa 72:17</a>; <a href='B:230 82:8'>Psa 82:8</a>; <a href='B:230 86:9'>Psa 86:9</a>; <a href='B:230 117:1'>Psa 117:1</a>; <a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:18'>Isa 66:18</a>; <a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a>; <a href='B:300 3:17'>Jer 3:17</a>; <a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a>). This selection of "Psalms and prophets" is impressive. Yet the Lord Jesus clearly interpreted these future Kingdom passages as having relevance to the world-wide spreading of the Gospel. "All nations" also occurs in many passages exhorting us to praise Yahweh among all the nations of this world. The reason for this is that God's glory is so great it should be declared as far as possible by us. <a href='B:130 16:24-25'>1Ch 16:24-25</a> is typical of many such verses: "Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. For&nbsp; great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised::. for all the gods of the people are idols". World-wide preaching is therefore an aspect of our praise of Yahweh, and as such it is a spiritual work which is timeless.</p><p>A real sense of wonder becomes the base motivation for our witness. "Declare his glory among the gentiles, his wonders among the nations" (<a href='B:130 16:24'>1Ch 16:24</a>). And the Psalms are full of this, once we appreciate that in their primary context many of them were David's preaching to the Gentile nations around him.</p>


text:
<p>For great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised. He also is to be feared above all gods- </p><p>David's focus of all his praises upon Yahweh as alone "worthy" (Heb:; <a href='B:230 96:4'>Psa 96:4</a>) of praise was what he now wanted his people to follow (<a href='B:230 18:3'>Psa 18:3</a>; <a href='B:230 22:3'>Psa 22:3</a>). The implication of "worthy" could imply a contrast with other gods. This would confirm the hints we have that Saul had been an idolater (see on <a href='B:230 12:8'>Psa 12:8</a>; <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>), and that idolatry was prevalent in Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but Yahweh made the heavens- </p><p>The gods / idols aren't in so many words criticized as not existing, but rather, Yahweh is so exalted above them as creator of all that even if they do exist, they are so relatively powerless that they are show to have no effective existence. It's the same with how the language of demons is used in the New Testament; the Lord's miracles demonstrated that God's power was so infinitely greater, that effectively demons don't exist.</p>


text:
<p>Honor and majesty are before Him. Strength and gladness are in His place- </p><p>See on :28. This is a reference to the Most Holy Place; the reference to His "strength and beauty" going into captivity may refer to the ark (<a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a> s:w:). See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>Ascribe to Yahweh, you relatives of the peoples, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength!- </p><p>The very same Hebrew words used about how David personally felt he wanted to give glory and strength [honour] to the Lord (<a href='B:230 62:7'>Psa 62:7</a>). "Families of nations" or "relatives of the peoples" recalls the promises made to Abraham of his seed. He wished for the whole world to share his relationship with God. The radical nature of what is being suggested here and in Psalms 96 and many similar Psalms can easily be overlooked. The Psalmist is urging Gentiles to come and worship with Israel, proceeding into the tabernacle courts and thence into "the beauty of holiness" (:27 Heb:), i:e. the Most Holy Place ['holiness' being read there as a noun rather than an adjective- it is the same Hebrew word elsewhere translated "sanctuary" and related to the Hebrew word used for "sanctuary"]:&nbsp; The Psalmist is inviting Gentiles to come in to the worship of Israel and proceed where only the High Priest could venture once / year. It was the equivalent of proclaiming an open table policy in the most exclusive of churches.</p><p>The common assumption of expositors is that the Psalmist has in view the Kingdom age, but this seems precluded by his appeal to the Gentiles to come and worship exactly because of the good news that the Lord is coming to judge the earth in righteousness (:33)- which is quoted about the return of Christ to earth in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>. The holiness boundaries taught by the Law were only teaching mechanisms, which is why they were removed by the open Christ. David for one got to this point well before most other Israelites did, acting as the High Priest (<a href='B:130 16:3'>1Ch 16:3</a>), entering the sanctuary when not a Levite (<a href='B:230 63:2'>Psa 63:2</a>) and experiencing forgiveness and salvation quite outside the Law rather than the Law's penalty of death.</p><p>David uses the words and spirit of this Psalm, especially about his vision of his outreach to the Gentiles, in the later Bathsheba Psalms, where he vows to tell the whole world of God's grace. It's not that the experience of sin and forgiveness makes a person somehow weak and wishy washy acceptant of anyone and anything. The experience of God's grace at close quarters leads us to realize how radical was His acceptance of us and thereby we should proactively seek to be acceptant of all those who are afar off. And so David perceived that God's Name (His characteristics, of which grace is uttermost) deserved glory to be given to it- simply for what it was (:29). And that glory is "due" from all, including the Gentiles- and so they should be invited across all holiness boundaries to come with their offerings to God. Thus Yahweh's greatness above all other gods was what led David to appeal to "all you gods" [perhaps put by metonymy for the idol worshipping peoples] to come and worship before Yahweh (<a href='B:230 97:7'>Psa 97:7</a>).</p><p>The appeal was to be global and not just to Israel because David perceived that actually the truth of God is proclaimed by "the whole earth" and "heavens" (<a href='B:230 97:5-6'>Psa 97:5-6</a>). Of course, the call is for the Gentile idolaters to "come" to Yahweh's sanctuary, and not for God's people to leave Yahweh and go to them. And they were to "bring an offering", to make a commitment to the God they were being invited to come close to (:29). <a href='B:230 98:3-5'>Psa 98:3-5</a> continues this radical appeal to the Gentile world, but it urges them to come and worship (which involved coming to the sanctuary in Israel) exactly because God has been so gracious to sinful Israel. Israel's extreme sin and God's radical grace and patience with them for not being good witnesses to the Gentiles::. was to serve as encouragement for the Gentiles to come to Israel's God and praise Him, confident that their sins too could be forgiven.</p><p>The same idea is found in <a href='B:230 99:1-5'>Psa 99:1-5</a> - because of God's grace to Jacob / Israel, an undefined group are bidden come to Zion, to the very cherubim (in the Most Holy Place) to exalt and praise God at His footstool. This group, in line with the preceding Psalms, are surely the Gentile world. "Let them praise Your great Name" (<a href='B:230 99:3'>Psa 99:3</a>) would surely make most sense if it referred to the Gentiles, seeing that David or the Psalmist was Israelite. We see the same idea in <a href='B:230 97:1'>Psa 97:1</a>; it begins with an appeal to the islands of the Gentiles to 'rejoice' and 'be glad', but the same two Hebrew words are used in <a href='B:230 97:8'>Psa 97:8</a> about how Zion- those in the very temple mount- likewise rejoice and are glad. The very "ends of the earth" who saw God's salvation of His people are invited to praise Him for it (<a href='B:230 98:3-4'>Psa 98:3-4</a>)- the invitation to join in praise was effectively an invitation to join in worship, and thereby to become part of God's covenant people.</p>


text:
<p>Ascribe to Yahweh the glory due to His name. Bring an offering, and come before Him. Worship Yahweh in holy array- </p><p>See on :28. This and the next verses confidently anticipated the coming of Messiah there and then, with :33 quoted about the second coming of Jesus in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>:&nbsp;But that was to be delayed; for Israel and the Gentile world weren't going to respond to David's invitation here. For he is asking the Gentiles to dress up as priests and come and worship Yahweh and even enter the most holy place (:28). David was way ahead of his time in thinking in these terms.</p><p>As it was God’s intention that Israel were to be a nation of priests to the rest of the world, so the new Israel likewise are to all discharge the priestly functions of teaching their brethren (<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a> cp. <a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>; <a href='B:730 1:6'>Rev 1:6</a>; <a href='B:730 5:9-10'>Rev 5:9-10</a>). Under the new covenant, we should all teach and admonish one another (<a href='B:580 3:16'>Col 3:16</a>). Indeed, God told Israel [unrecorded in the historical records]: “Ye are gods [elohim] and all of you are sons of the Most High” (<a href='B:230 82:6'>Psa 82:6</a> RV). Further, <a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> makes the paradigm breaking statement that even the Gentiles could come before Yahweh of Israel in holy, priestly array- they too could aspire to the spirit of priesthood (<a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> RVmg:). Moses spoke of how all Israel should pray that God would establish the work of their hands (<a href='B:230 90:17'>Psa 90:17</a>)- but this was in fact his special request for the blessing of Levi, the priestly tribe (<a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a>). <a href='B:230 135:19-20'>Psa 135:19-20</a> parallels all Israel with the priestly family: “Bless the Lord, O house of Israel: bless the Lord, O house of Aaron: bless the Lord, O house of Levi: ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord::. praise ye the Lord”. All Israel were to aspire to the spirit of priesthood. Indeed, the Psalms often parallel the house of Aaron (i:e. the priesthood) with the whole nation (<a href='B:230 115:9-10'>Psa 115:9-10</a>; <a href='B:230 115:12'>Psa 115:12</a>; <a href='B:230 118:2-3'>Psa 118:2-3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Tremble before Him, all the land. The world also is established that it can’t be moved- </p><p>The invitation to the entire eretz promised to Abraham to "tremble before Him" is an invitation for them to accept Yahweh as their God. The idea is that all of the planet, the sea representing the peoples (:32), would rejoice at the prospect of the coming of Israel's Lord in judgment (:33). This is not therefore speaking of the Kingdom; but rather of David's desire that before the Lord's coming, the Gentile peoples would come to such relationship with Him that they rejoiced at the prospect of His coming in judgment, knowing by faith that they would not be condemned. And yet as will be discussed on :31, he seems to think that the ark as God's throne meant that God was now king in Zion and the Gentile world should accept that. And he may be liking to think that this kingdom "can't be moved", when in fact it would be. For the kingdom was to be overturned. It was this wild over interpretation of the significance of his own kingdom which led him to wrongly assume that Solomon would be the promised Messianic king, and this led Solomon to have no sense of possible failure, so that he became proud and turned away from Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice! Let them say among the nations, Yahweh reigns!- </p><p>This again is an invitation to the Gentiles to accept Yahweh as their king and thus become His 'kingdom' before His final, open manifestation in the earth. And that is likewise our call. However in the immediate context, David sees the ark as God's throne, and His reign as therefore now beginning in Jerusalem. It could be that David is seeing this as a foretaste of His future Kingdom coming on earth, based also in Jerusalem. But he could also be over interpreting, and seeing God's Kingdom as fully come in his kingdom, rather than recognizing that this was but a foretaste of that which was yet to come.</p>


text:
<p>Let the sea roar, and its fullness! Let the field exult, and all that is therein!-</p><p>The sea is again a symbol off the Gentiles, and David sees the coming of the ark to Zion as the enthronement of God in the earth (:31), and therefore he is inviting the Gentiles to come and worship there.</p>


text:
<p>Then the trees of the forest will sing for joy before Yahweh, for He comes to judge the earth- </p><p>All the trees of the world will be clapping their hands when Jesus returns. Yet trees are symbolic of Gentile nations. There will be, therefore, a remnant everywhere looking out for the Lord’s return. But perhaps there is an element of literalism here. David perhaps also foresees the joy of the natural and spiritual creation of the last days as they sense the approach of the Lord (as in <a href='B:520 8:22'>Rom 8:22</a>).</p>


