I CHRONICLES 9 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

1 All Israel was listed in the genealogies recorded in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. They were taken captive to Babylon because of their unfaithfulness.

BARNES, "Rather, So all Israel were reckoned ... the kings of Israel. And Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their transgressions.

CLARKE, "Were reckoned by genealogies - Jarchi considers these as the words of Ezra, the compiler of the book; as if he had said: I have given the genealogies of the Israelites as I have found them in a book which was carried into Babylon, when the people were carried thither for their transgressions; and this book which I found is that which I have transcribed in the preceding chapters.

GILL, "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies,.... Not now by the writer of this book in the preceding chapters; for two of the tribes are not reckoned at all, and the rest but in part; but there had been kept an exact account of them: and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel; not in the canonical book or books of Kings, but in the annals, journals, and diaries, which each king took care to be kept with some exactness, often referred to in the preceding books; out of which this writer, under a divine direction, had taken what was proper to be continued, and had carried the genealogy down to the captivity of the ten tribes; but the genealogy being lost with them, he could proceed no further, nor say anything more concerning them: but Judah; for so the word should be stopped, and read according to the Hebrew

1

accents: who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression; their idolatry, and were now returned again; of them the writer proposes to give a further account.

HENRY 1-13, The first verse looks back upon the foregoing genealogies, and tells us they were gathered out of the books of the kings of Israel and Judah, not that which we have in the canon of scripture, but another civil record, which was authentic, as the king's books with us. Mentioning Israel and Judah, the historian takes notice of their being carried away to Babylon for their transgression. Let that judgment never be forgotten, but ever be remembered, for warning to posterity to take heed of those sins that brought it upon them. Whenever we speak of any calamity that has befallen us, it is good to add this, it was for my transgression, that God may be justified and clear when he judges. Then follows an account of the first inhabitants, after their return from captivity, that dwelt in their cities, especially in Jerusalem. 1. The Israelites. That general name is used (1Ch_9:2) because with those of Judah and Benjamin there were many of Ephraim and Manasseh, and the other ten tribes (1Ch_9:3), such as had escaped to Judah when the body of the ten tribes were carried captive or returned to Judah upon the revolutions in Assyria, and so went into captivity with them, or met them when they were in Babylon, associated with them, and so shared in the benefit of their enlargement. It was foretold that the children of Judah and of Israel should be gathered together and come up out of the land (Hos_1:11), and that they should be one nation again, Eze_37:22. Trouble drives those together that have been at variance; and the pieces of metal that had been separated will run together again when melted in the same crucible. Many both of Judah and Israel staid behind in captivity; but some of both, whose spirit God stirred up, enquired the way to Zion again. Divers are here named, and many more numbered, who were chief of the fathers (1Ch_9:9), who ought to be remembered with honour, as Israelites indeed. 2. The priests, 1Ch_9:10. It was their praise that they came with the first. Who should lead in a good work if the priests, the Lord's ministers, do not? It was the people's praise that they would not come without them; for who but the priests should keep knowledge? Who but the priests should bless them in the name of the Lord? (1.) It is said of one of them that he was the ruler of the house of God (1Ch_9:11) not the chief ruler, for Joshua was then the high priest, but the sagan, and the next under him, his deputy, who perhaps applied more diligently to the business than the high priest himself. In the house of God it is requisite that there be rulers, not to make new laws, but to take care that the laws of God be duly observed by priests as well as people. (2.) It is said of many of them that they were very able men for the service of the house of God, v. 13. In the house of God there is service to be done, constant service; and it is well for the church when those are employed in that service who are qualified for it, able ministers of the New Testament, 2Co_3:6. The service of the temple was such as required at all times, especially in this critical juncture, when they had newly come out of Babylon, great courage and vigour of mind, as well as strength of body; and therefore they are praised as mighty men of valour.

JAMISON, "1Ch_9:1-26. Original registers of Israel and Judahs genealogies.all Israel were reckoned by genealogies From the beginning of the Hebrew nation, public records were kept, containing a registration of the name of every

2

individual, as well as the tribe and family to which he belonged. The book of the kings of Israel and Judah does not refer to the two canonical books that are known in Scripture by that name, but to authenticated copies of those registers, placed under the official care of the sovereigns; and as a great number of the Israelites (1Ch_9:3) took refuge in Judah during the invasion of Shalmaneser, they carried the public records along with them. The genealogies given in the preceding chapters were drawn from the public records in the archives both of Israel and Judah; and those given in this chapter relate to the period subsequent to the restoration; whence it appears (compare 1Ch_3:17-24) that the genealogical registers were kept during the captivity in Babylon. These genealogical tables, then, are of the highest authority for truth and correctness, the earlier portion being extracted from the authenticated records of the nation; and as to those which belong to the time of the captivity, they were drawn up by a contemporary writer, who, besides enjoying the best sources of information, and being of the strictest integrity, was guided and preserved from all error by divine inspiration.

K&D, "1Ch_9:1-3 form the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem in vv. 4-34.1Ch_9:1-2

And all the Israelites were registered; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah was led away to Babylon for her transgressions. The lxx and Vulg. have erroneously connected with the preceding words, and render, in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, and then have translated the following words arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau's opinion, that Israel here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken of, for both reasons are quite worthless. The book of the kings of Israel is cited in 2Ch_20:34 (cf. 2Ch_33:18), and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the historical work cited as the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (2Ch_27:7; 2Ch_35:27; 2Ch_36:8), or as the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (2Ch_16:11; 2Ch_25:26, and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened title, book of the kings of Israel, that kings of the northern kingdom are spoken of? Then, as to the contrast between Israel and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in favour of taking the name in its narrower sense; but when we consider the grouping together in 1Ch_9:10 of Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim, we see clearly that Israel in 1Ch_9:2 incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. In 1Ch_9:1, Israel is used in the same sense as in 1Ch_9:2; and the contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to the contrast Judah and Jerusalem, i.e., Israel is a designation of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be understood to denote the whole covenant people. That 1Ch_9:1forms the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the genealogies in 1 Chron 2-8, is so manifest that Bertheau cannot adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, that the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning. For the assertion, We recognise in it a short introduction to the historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites after the exile, cannot be adduced in support of his view, since it

3

not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the words of the verse.(Note: Bertheau's further remark, 1Ch_9:1 cannot have been written by our historian, because he did not consider it sufficient to refer his readers to the work he quotes from, but thought himself bound to communicate genealogical registers of the tribes of the northern kingdom (1 Chron 5-7), which he must have extracted from older registers prepared in the time of the kings (cf. 1Ch_6:1), perhaps even out of the work here named, is quite incomprehensible by me. Notwithstanding repeated consideration of it clause by clause, I have not succeeded in comprehending the logic of this argument.)

The statement, Judah was led captive to Babylon for her transgressions, corresponds to the statement 1Ch_5:25., 1Ch_6:15. But when, after this statement, our writer continues, And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah, etc., the former inhabitants can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Neh 11, - a similarity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vv. 2-34, to that in Neh 11:3-24: As the result of the comparison, we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents. The first point in this result has some foundation; for if we turn our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the registers in 1Ch_9:4-17 of our chapter and in Neh 11:3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chron 9:2-34 and Neh 11:3-24, we see that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by the remark, 1Ch_9:2, The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests, etc., according to which the following words, 1Ch_9:3, And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah, etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, to Neh_5:15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time of the former governors ( with whom ,(Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily call his predecessors in the office former governors; while the inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From the fact that the inhabitants of their cities are not contrasted as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers and Bertheau from Neh_11:1, that the former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, is not tenable. In Neh 11, on the contrary, the register is introduced by the remark, 1Ch_9:3, These are the heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests, etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities of Judah, at

4

that time, i.e., at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been made out, as in vv. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are enumerated, and in 1Ch_9:25-36 the inhabitants of the other cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 3-19a), while in vv. 19b-34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving upon the Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in their cities outside of Jerusalem (1Ch_9:2), because all that was necessary had been already communicated in the preceding genealogies (1 Chron 2-8).1Ch_9:3

1Ch_9:3, too, is not, as Bertheau and others think, the superscription of the register of those dwelling in Jerusalem; for were it that, mention must have been made in it of the priests and Levites, the enumeration of whom fills up the greater part of the following register, vv. 10-33. 1Ch_9:3 corresponds rather to 1Ch_9:35, and serves to introduce the contents of the whole chapter, and with it commences the enumeration itself. In Neh 11, consequently, we have a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, while our chapter contains only a register of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem. Only in so far as it treats of the inhabitants of Jerusalem does Nehemiah's register resemble ours in plan; that is, to this extent, that the sons of Judah, the sons of Benjamin, priests and Levites, are enumerated seriatim as dwelling in Jerusalem, that is, that heads of the fathers'-houses of these inhabitants, as is stated by Nehemiah in the superscription 1Ch_11:3, and in our chapter, at the end of the respective paragraphs, 1Ch_9:9, 1Ch_9:13, and in the subscription, 1Ch_9:33 and 1Ch_9:34.But if we examine the contents of the two catalogues more minutely, their agreement is shown by the identity of several of the names of these heads. On this point Bertheau thus speaks: Of the three heads of Judah, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, 1Ch_9:4-6, we recognise the first two in Athaiah and Maaseiah, Neh_11:4-5; only the third name, Jeuel, is omitted. Of the five heads of Benjamin, 1Ch_9:5-7, it is true, we meet with only two, Sallu and Hodaviah, in Neh_11:7-9; but it is manifest that there was no intention to communicate in that place a complete enumeration of the hereditary chiefs of Benjamin. The names of the six heads of the divisions of the priests, Jedaiah and Jehoiarib, Jachin, Azariah (Seriah occupies his place in the book of Nehemiah), Adaiah and Maasiai (represented in Nehemiah by Amashai), are enumerated in both places in the same order. Among the Levites there occur the names of Shemaiah and Mattaniah as representatives of the great Levitic divisions of Merari and Gershon-Asaph, and we

easily recognise our in the of the book of Nehemiah. Only the two first of the four chiefs of the doorkeepers, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, are named in the abridged enumeration of the book of Nehemiah, while the two others are only referred to in the added . Now, even according to this statement of the matter, the difference is seen to be almost as great as the agreement; but in reality, as a more exact comparison of the catalogues shows, the true state of the case is very different. According to 1Ch_9:3, there dwelt in Jerusalem also sons of Ephraim and Manasseh; but the catalogue from 1Ch_9:4 onwards contains only sons of Judah and Benjamin, and not a single Ephraimite or Manassite. The reason of that is probably this, that only single families and individuals from among the latter dwelt there, while the register only makes mention of the heads of the larger family groups in the population of Jerusalem.

5

COKE, "1 Chronicles 9:1. So all Israel, &c. But all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and behold they were written in the book of the kings of Israel. But Judah were carried away to Babylon for their transgression. Houbigant. The first clause in this verse is written to give a reason why the genealogies of Israel, that is, of the ten tribes, are omitted; because they were already written in the book of the kings of Israel. Houbigant renders the beginning of the next verse thus: now they who first returned, every one into the possession of his own city, were, &c.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 9:1 So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they [were] written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, [who] were carried away to Babylon for their transgression.Ver. 1. In the book of the kings.] Not now extant. This chapter, and 1 Chronicles 3:19; 1 Chronicles 3:24, are noted for some parcels of the last passages, for history, of the Old Testament.

POOLE, "The chief of the tribe of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, who returned from captivity, and dwelt at Jerusalem, 1 Chronicles 9:1-9. Also the priests and Levites, and how they executed their office in the temple at Jerusalem, 1 Chronicles 9:10-34. The family of Saul, 1 Chronicles 9:35-44.In the book of the kings of Israel and Judah; not in that sacred and canonical book so called, but (as hath been oft observed before) in the public records, wherein there was an account of that kingdom, and of the several families in it, according to their genealogies. Who were carried away, i.e. which tribe or people of Judah last mentioned.

EBC, "TEACHING BY ANACHRONISM

1 Chronicles 9:1-44

"And David the king said Who then offereth willingly? And they gave for the 6

service of the house of God ten thousand darics."- 1 Chronicles 29:1; 1 Chronicles 29:5; 1 Chronicles 29:7

TEACHING by anachronism is a very common and effective form of religious instruction; and Chronicles, as the best Scriptural example of this method, affords a good opportunity for its discussion and illustration.

All history is more or less guilty of anachronism; every historian perforce imports some of the ideas and circumstances of his own time into his narratives and pictures of the past: but we may distinguish three degrees of anachronism. Some writers or speakers make little or no attempt at archaeological accuracy; others temper the generally anachronistic character of their compositions by occasional reference to the manners and customs of the period they are describing; and, again, there are a few trained students who succeed in drawing fairly accurate and consistent pictures of ancient life and history.

We will briefly consider the last two classes before returning to the first, in which we are chiefly interested.

Accurate archaeology is, of course, part of the ideal of the scientific historian. By long and careful study of literature and monuments and by the exercise of a lively and well-trained imagination, the student obtains a vision of ancient societies. Nineveh and Babylon, Thebes and Memphis, rise from their ashes and stand before him in all their former splendor; he walks their streets and mixes with the crowds in the market-place and the throng of worshippers at the temple, each "in his habit as he lived." Rameses and Sennacherib, Ptolemy and Antiochus, all play their proper parts in this drama of his fancy. He cannot only recall their costumes and features: he can even think their thoughts and feel their emotions; he actually lives in the past. In "Marius the Epicurean," in Eberss "Uarda," in Masperos "Sketches of Assyrian and Egyptian Life," and in other more serious works we have some of the fruits of this enlightened study of antiquity, and are enabled to see the visions at second hand and in some measure to live at once in the present and the past, to illustrate and interpret the one by the other, to measure progress and decay, and to understand the Divine meaning of all history. Our more recent histories and works

7

on life and manners and even our historical romances, especially those of Walter Scott, have rendered a similar service to students of English history. And yet at its very best such realization of the past is imperfect; the gaps in our information are unconsciously filled in from experience, and the ideas of the present always color our reproduction of ancient thought and feeling. The most accurate history is only a rough approximation to exact truth; but, like many other rough approximations, it is exact enough for many important practical purposes.

But scholarly familiarity with the past has its drawbacks. The scholar may come to live so much amongst ancient memories that he loses touch with his own present. He may gain large stores of information about ancient Israelite life, and yet not know enough of his own generation to be able to make them sharers of his knowledge. Their living needs and circumstances lie outside his practical experience; he cannot explain the past to them because he does not sympathize with their present; he cannot apply its lessons to difficulties and dangers which he does not understand.

Nor is the usefulness of the archaeologist merely limited by his own lack of sympathy and experience. He may have both, and yet find that there are few of his contemporaries who can follow him in his excursions into bygone time. These limitations and drawbacks do not seriously diminish the value of archaeology, but they have to be taken into account in discussing teaching by anachronism, and they have an important bearing on the practical application of archaeological knowledge. We shall return to these points later on.

The second degree of anachronism is very common. We are constantly hearing and reading descriptions of Bible scenes and events in which the centuries before and after Christ are most oddly blended. Here and there will be a costume after an ancient monument, a Biblical description of Jewish customs, a few Scriptural phrases; but these are embedded in paragraphs which simply reproduce the social and religious ideas of the nineteenth century. For instance, in a recent work, amidst much display of archaeological knowledge, we have the very modern ideas that Joseph and Mary went up to Bethlehem at the census, because Joseph and perhaps Mary also had property in Bethlehem, and that when Joseph died "he left her a small but independent fortune." Many modern books might be named in which Patriarchs and Apostles hold the language and express the sentiments of the most recent schools of devotional Christianity; and yet an air of historical accuracy is

8

assumed by occasional touches of archaeology. Similarly in mediaeval miracle-plays characters from the Bible appeared in the dress of the period, and uttered a grotesque mixture of Scriptural phrases and vernacular jargon. Much of such work as this may for all practical purposes be classed under the third degree of anachronism. Sometimes, however, the spiritual significance of a passage or an incident turns upon a simple explanation of some ancient custom, so that the archaeological detail makes a clear addition to its interest and instructiveness. But in other cases a little archaeology is a dangerous thing. Scattered fragments of learned information do not enable the reader in any way to revive the buried past; they only remove the whole subject further from his interest and sympathy. He is not reading about his own day, nor does he understand that the events and personages of the narrative ever had anything in common with himself and his experience. The antique garb, the strange custom, the unusual phrase-disguise that real humanity which the reader shares with these ancient worthies. They are no longer men of like passions with himself, and he finds neither warning nor encouragement in their story. He is like a spectator of a drama played by poor actors with a limited stock of properties. The scenery and dresses show that the play does not belong to his own time, but they fail to suggest that it ever belonged to any period. He has a languid interest in the performance as a spectacle, but his feelings are not touched, and he is never carried away by the acting.

We have laid so much stress on the drawbacks attaching to a little archaeology because they will emphasize what we have to say about the use of pure anachronism. Our last illustration, however, reminds us that these drawbacks detract but little from the influence of earnest men. If the acting be good, we forget the scenery and costumes; the genius of a great preacher, more than atones for poor archaeology, because, in spite of dress and custom, he makes his hearers feel that the characters of the Bible were instinct with rich and passionate life. We thus arrive at our third degree of pure anachronism.

Most people read their Bible without any reference to archaeology. If they dramatize the stories, they do so in terms of their own experience. The characters are dressed like the men and women they know: Nazareth is like their native village, and Jerusalem is like the county town; the conversations are carried on in the English of the Authorized Version. This reading of Scripture is well illustrated by the description in a recent writer of a modern prophet in Tennessee:

9

"There was naught in the scene to suggest to a mind familiar with the facts an Oriental landscape-naught akin to the hills of Judaea. It was essentially of the New World, essentially of the Great Smoky Mountains. Yet ignorance has its license. It never occurred to Teck Jepson that his Bible heroes had lived elsewhere. Their history had to him an intimate personal relation, as of the story of an ancestor, in the homestead ways and closely familiar. He brooded upon these narratives, instinct with dramatic interest, enriched with poetic color, and localized in his robust imagination, till he could trace Hagars wild wanderings in the fastnesses, could show where Jacob slept and piled his altar of stones, could distinguish the bush, of all others on the bald, that blazed with fire from heaven when the angel of the Lord stood within it. Somehow, even in their grotesque variation, they lost no dignity in their transmission to the modern conditions of his fancy. Did the facts lack significance because it was along the gullied red clay roads of Piomingo Cove that he saw David, the smiling stripling, running and holding high in his hand the bit of cloth cut from Sauls garments while the king had slept in a cave at the base of Chilhowie Mountain? And how was the splendid miracle of translation discredited because Jepson believed that the chariot of the Lord had rested in scarlet and purple clouds upon the towering summit of Thunderhead, that Elijah might thence ascend into heaven?"

Another and more familiar example of "singular alterations in date and circumstances" is the version in "Ivanhoe" of the war between Benjamin and the other tribes:-

"How long since in Palestine a deadly feud arose between the tribe of Benjamin and the rest of the Israelitish nation; and how they cut to pieces well-nigh all the chivalry of that tribe; and how they swore by our blessed Lady that they would not permit those who remained to marry in their lineage; and how they became grieved for their vow, and sent to consult his Holiness the Pope how they might be absolved from it; and how, by the advice of the Holy Father, the youth of the tribe of Benjamin carried off from a superb tournament all the ladies who were there present, and thus won them wives without the consent either of their brides or their brides families."

10

It is needless to say that the chronicler was not thus hopelessly at sea about the circumstances of ancient Hebrew history; but he wrote in the same simple, straightforward, childlike spirit. Israel had always been the Israel of his own experience, and it never occurred to him that its institutions under the kings had been other than those with which he was familiar. He had no more hesitation in filling up the gaps in the book of Kings from what he saw round about him than a painter would have in putting the white clouds and blue waters of today into a picture of skies and seas a thousand years ago. He attributes to the pious kings of Judah the observance of the ritual of his own times. Their prophets use phrases taken from post-Exilic writings. David is regarded as the author of the existing ecclesiastical system in almost all matters that do not date back to Moses, and especially as the organizer of the familiar music of the Temple. Davids choristers sing the hymns of the second Temple. Amongst the contributions of his nobles towards the building of the Temple, we read of ten thousand darics, the daric being a coin introduced by the Persian king Darius.

But we must be careful to recognize that the chronicler writes in perfect good faith. These views of the monarchy were common to all educated and thoughtful men of his time; they were embodied in current tradition, and were probably already to be met with in writing. To charge him with inventing them is absurd; they already existed, and did not need to be invented. He cannot have colored his narrative in the interests of the Temple and the priesthood. When he lived, these interests were guaranteed by ancient custom and by the authoritative sanction of the Pentateuchal Law. The chronicler does not write with the strong feeling of a man who maintains a doubtful cause; there is no hint of any alternative view which needs to be disproved and rejected in favor of his own. He expatiates on his favorite themes with happy, leisurely serenity, and is evidently confident that his treatment of them will meet with general and cordial approval.

And doubtless the author of Chronicles "served his own generation by the will of God," and served them in the way he intended. He made the history of the monarchy more real and living to them, and enabled them to understand better that the reforming kings of Judah were loyal servants of Jehovah and had been used by Him for the furtherance of true religion. The pictures drawn by Samuel and Kings of David and the best of his successors would not have enabled the Jews of his time to appreciate these facts. They had no idea of any piety that was not expressed in the current observances of the Law, and Samuel and Kings did not ascribe such

11

observances to the earlier kings of Judah. But the chronicler and his authorities were able to discern in the ancient Scriptures the genuine piety of David and Hezekiah and other kings, and drew what seemed to them the obvious conclusion that these pious kings observed the Law. They then proceeded to rewrite the history in order that the true character of the kings arm their relation to Jehovah might be made intelligible to the people. The only piety which the chronicler could conceive was combined with observance of the Law; naturally therefore it was only thus that he could describe piety. His work would be read with eager interest, and would play a definite and useful part in the religious education of the people. It would bring home to them, as the older histories could not, the abiding presence of Jehovah with Israel and its leaders. Chronicles interpreted history to its own generation by translating older records into the circumstances and ideas of its own time.

And in this it remains our example. Chronicles may fall very far short of the ideal and yet be superior to more accurate histories which fail to make themselves intelligible to their own generation. The ideal history no doubt would tell the story with archaeological precision, and then interpret it by modern parallels; the historian would show us what we should actually have seen and heard if we had lived in the period he is describing; he would also help our weak imagination by pointing us to such modern events or persons as best illustrate those ancient times. No doubt Chronicles fails to bring before our eyes an accurate vision of the history of the monarchy; but, as we have said, all history fails somewhat in this respect. It is simply impossible to fulfill the demand for history that shall have the accuracy of an architects plans of a house or an astronomers diagrams of the orbit of a planet. Chronicles, however, fails more seriously than most history, and on the whole rather more than most commentaries and sermons.

But this lack of archaeological accuracy is far less serious than a failure to make it clear that the events of ancient history were as real and as interesting as those of modern times, and that its personages were actual men and women, with a full equipment of body, mind, and soul. There have been many teachers and preachers, innocent of archaeology, who have yet been able to apply Bible narratives with convincing power to the hearts and consciences of their hearers. They may have missed some points and misunderstood others, but they have brought out clearly the main, practical teaching of their subject; and we must not allow amusement at curious anachronisms to blind us to their great gifts in applying ancient history to modern circumstances. For instance, the little captive maid in the story of Naaman

12

has been described by a local preacher as having illuminated texts hung up in her bedroom, and (perambulators not being then in use) as having constructed a go-cart for the baby out of an old tea-chest and four cotton reels. We feel inclined to smile; but, after all, such a picture would make children feel that the captive maid was a girl whom they could understand and might even imitate. A more correct version of the story, told with less human interest, might leave the impression that she was a mere animated doll in a quaint costume, who made impossibly pious remarks.

Enlightened and well-informed Christian teachers may still learn something from the example of the chronicler. The uncritical character of his age affords no excuse to them for shutting their eyes to the fuller light which God has given to their generation. But we are reminded that permanently significant stories have their parallels in every age. There are always prodigal sons, and foolish virgins, importunate widows, and good Samaritans. The ancient narratives are interesting as quaint and picturesque stories of former times; but it is our duty as teachers to discover the modern parallels of their eternal meaning: their lessons are often best enforced by telling them afresh as they would have been told if their authors had lived in our time, in other words by a frank use of anachronism.

It may be objected that the result in the case of Chronicles is not encouraging. Chronicles is far less interesting than Kings, and far less useful in furnishing materials for the historian. These facts, however, are not inconsistent with the usefulness of the book for its own age. Teaching by anachronism simply seeks to render a service to its own generation; its purpose is didactic, and not historical. How many people read the sermons of eighteenth-century divines? But each generation has a right to this special service. The first duty of the religious teacher is for the men and women that look to him for spiritual help and guidance. He may incidentally produce literary work of permanent value for posterity; but a Church whose ministry sacrificed practical usefulness in the attempt to be learned and literary would be false to its most sacred functions. The noblest self-denial of Christian service may often lie in putting aside all such ambition and devoting the ability which might have made a successful author to making Divine truth intelligible and interesting to the uncultured and the unimaginative. Authors themselves are sometimes led to make a similar sacrifice; they write to help the many today when they might have written to delight men of literary taste in all ages. Few things are so ephemeral as popular religious literature; it is as quickly and entirely forgotten as last years sunsets: but it is as necessary and as useful as the

13

sunshine and the clouds, which are being always spent and always renewed. Chronicles is a specimen of this class of literature, and its presence in the canon testifies to the duty of providing a special application of the sacred truths of ancient history for each succeeding generation.

PARKER, " The Hell of DeathChurch UsagesEvery Man In His Place

1 Chronicles 9

If we regard all the names which occur in this chapter under the image of a deep flowing river, all we can hope to do is to wander by its banks awhile, and pluck here and there a flower, or watch here and there some shining bubble as it rises, gleams, and dies. We can hardly realise the toil that is expressed in the keeping of so large and critical a register. It is easy for us to run through the names, as but so many letters in the alphabet thrown into various relations and signifying little or nothing in particular. But let any one connected with a large family make a point of giving the name of every individual connected with that family, say during the last two hundred years, and he will soon see how vast and intricate were the labours of the registrars of Israel. We cannot too often repeat that all these lists of names represent a solemn process always taking effect in the divine administration of human affairs. From an early period in Biblical history we are accustomed to think of God keeping books in which are written names, and deeds, and judgmentsa register traced in every line by a hand that cannot err. In the last portion of the sacred canon we come again upon the same idea, for John , the holy seer, noted the production of books, and of one particular book in which the history of the world was written. Solemn beyond all imagination is the thought that whilst literary men are writing the histories of their respective countries, God himself is putting on record the whole drama of human life the world over, a drama in which every actor is still alive, and upon whom special judgment will be eventually delivered. Historians speak about pre-historic time, they draw a line beyond which they know nothing; to that dim region they refer as the sphere of fable, conjecture, mythology; they can only begin at a definite date and work down to modern times. Not so with the divine historian; he begins his narrative far away in eternity, yea, by looking into the elements if we may so say, which constitute his own nature, and his history is the more complete and entrancing in that what he says of humanity he is really giving a revelation of himself. Hence the mysteriousness of the Bible. We feel that we do not get at the

14

beginning so far as mere letters are concerned, so that when the letter comes before the eye it brings with it vitality and colour, celestial and indescribable. All edifices of stone began, continued, and ended, by dates clearly determinable; but who knows where cloud first took shape, where rainbow first spanned the sky, when music first broke in upon the silence of space? It is even so with every individual man"s life, the man feels as if he had been in a pre-existent state; he claims spiritual kinship and masonic brotherhood, and all the charm of soul friendship without being able to assign any reason of a strictly logical kind for the outgoing of his affection and confidence. All that we ever see is but a little and obscure part of Song of Solomon -called history. The infinite volume lies under the divine hand, and when we come to peruse it we shall find many a mystery illuminated, and many a fear dispelled.

In the very first verse, we come upon the expression"Who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression." Familiar words these in various relations. Transgression always carries a man away from flowery paths, from sweet rest, from conditions of growth and perfectness; carries him away into degradation, bondage, and despair. The way of transgressors is hard. Let no man or nation think that transgression is not followed sooner or later by adequate punishment. If we could in imagination summon all transgressors, their unanimous testimony would be that their master is deceitful, cruel, and implacable. Men do not think of the bondage of Babylon, they think of the delight of the immediate satisfaction of burning desires. Men are made mad by sin. When the soul rises in the fierceness of self-will, when a legion of devils seem to besiege the heart, when the ear is filled with promises of delight, it is in vain for virtue to expostulate, or for judgment to threaten and denounce. But, alas I to what a Babylon is the sinful soul being driven! What time for reflection, unavailing repentance, and inexpressible suffering, is surely coming! It is the merest and emptiest sentimentalism to turn away from this aspect of the case, and to speak of the love or mercy of God. Love has been trampled upon, mercy has been abused, gospels with all their mystery of redemption and pardon have been scornfully entreated; what wonder therefore, that the apostle should solemnly declare that the only thing which remains in the case of impenitence isa fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. We must not look upon the future punishment of the wicked as a mystery of which no sign or hint has ever been given in this life. All the way through God has been pointing out that there is as certainly a way to destruction, as there is a way to immortality. Let there be no mistake about this matter, as if God had concealed the one way, and pointed out only the other. In his very first interview with Prayer of Manasseh , God pointed out the hell of death. We are not to suppose that what we speak of as the bottomless pit is an invention of

15

the middle ages, or a mere priestly contrivance, for the frightening of souls. It is hardly too much to say that there is more of hell in the Book of Genesis than there is of heaven. If we are the subjects of surprise at all, it must be that any heaven is possible to a soul which has disregarded the way of God. It is the more important to notice this, because there are not wanting those who would teach us that destruction, or hell, or the worm that dieth not, or the fire which is not quenched, is a superstition of days quite modern. Our answer is an empthatic No. Go to Genesis , the very book with which the Bible begins, and there you will find the revelation of the issue of disobedience.

In the thirteenth verse we read"Very able men for the work of the service of the house of God," in other words, mighty men of valour, an expression which occurs in chapter7 , 1 Chronicles 7:9. The ability is noticeable in connection with its definite exercise. We do not read of ability in some merely general way, but of ability specially directed to the house of God. It is often supposed that ability is necessary in a larger way everywhere than in the sanctuary. It is not uncommon to imagine that the son who has least mental power, may be able to serve in the Church. All this will be changed just in proportion as right conceptions of the Church of God prevail. If that Church is simply managed by mechanical regulations, by the starting of wheels, the turning of taps, the management of congregational machinery, then an automaton may some day be invented, that will conduct the whole process without intelligence or feeling. But if the Church of God is humanity in its best aspect, and humanity engaged in its most beneficent activities; if it is humanity intent upon bringing all races and grades of men into sympathy, and conducting them towards a worthy destiny, then is the Church a place for statesmanship, genius, and more than soldier-like discipline and authority. The Church does not exist for the purpose of retaining dogmas that are dead, no more than society is an institution for the preservation of barbarisms which civilisation has superseded. The Church as to its forms, usages, and methods must adapt itself to all variations of progress. In its quest after God, in its love of truth, in its consecration to the cross of Christ, in its sense of responsibility, it must remain the same through all the ages; we thus have in the Christian Church what may be termed the permanent and the changeablethe eternal truth, and the variable instrumentality.

In the nineteenth verse men are referred to as being over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle. Here there is no reference to special genius. The men were what we should call churchwardens, attending to outward things, to

16

necessary but not supreme arrangements connected with the tabernacle or temple. But it is just here that Christianity in some of its rarest qualities is revealed. We must never forget that there are men unknown for genius or large capacity who can be entrusted with the lighting of the lamps or the keeping of the gate better than many poets or philosophers. The question should always be, what is the thing to be done and who is the best man to do it? There is quite as much responsibility in its own degree resting upon the door-keeper as upon the high priest. It does not look so within our narrow limits of judgment, yet it may be really so in the estimation and criticism of God. But the distance is not always between the high priest and the keepers of the gates of the tabernacle; it is often between the high priest and the man who stands next to him in dignity; it is often between two men who are so nearly equal as scarcely to be measurable in influence as between one another; it is where responsibility seems to lessen its claims as it goes down from office to office that men must be particularly careful lest they suppose that the office determines the responsibility. If a man can only keep a gate, then in keeping a gate he rises to the very highest degree of responsibility or obligation. Very often the highest work of the Church fails in the attainment of its object because it is not adequately supported by the secondary order of officers. When the keeper of the gate feels that he is as responsible for the success of the temple service as is the high priest himself, the institution will be equally vital at every point and exquisitely adapted to the ends proposed by its creation. Zechariah according to the twenty-first verse was porter of the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, that is to say, he was the door-keeper of the tent of meeting. Door-keeping was no sinecure in the olden days. There were two hundred and twelve porters or door-keepers according to the twenty-second verse. Nehemiah speaks of the total of the porters as one hundred and seventy-two. Ezra reckoned the number as one hundred and thirty-nine. Under David the number of warders was ninety-three. David and Samuel had ordained the door-keepers in their office of trust. It has been pointed out that no mention is made elsewhere of Samuel"s part in arranging the Levitical service; but tradition associated him with David in the work of religious reform, and the statement of the text may be true in spirit though not in form. It is interesting to notice according to the best authorities that the families of the temple warders, like those of the singers, lived on their farms in the villages round about Jerusalem, and came up for their duties every seventh day. There is always much work to be done which the supreme men of the Churchas priests, prophets, interpreters,cannot do so well as it can be done by intellectually inferior men. The rule should be every man in his place, and a place for every man.

17

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 9:1

So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies. The Hebrew verb ( ) is sufficiently satisfied by the rendering were enrolled, or were registered. The book of the kings of Israel and Judah. The book referred to is often styled "The book of the kings of Israel" (2 Chronicles 20:34; 2 Chronicles 33:18); and it is more probable that that is the intended title here, and that the words should follow thus: And Judah were carried captive to Babylon because of their transgressions. This the Masoretic accenting dictates, though the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther have our Authorized Version order. The inconvenience to certain of not being able to find their registers is alluded to in Ezra 2:59.

The People in Jerusalem

2 Now the first to resettle on their own property in their own towns were some Israelites, priests, Levites and temple servants.

BARNES, "The first inhabitants - i. e. the first inhabitants of the holy land after the return from the captivity. They are enumerated under four heads:

(1) Israelites, i. e. the mass of the laity, whether belonging to the ten tribes or the two;(2) priests;(3) Levites; and(4) the lowest order of the ministry, the Nethinims.These last, whose name is derived from a root to give, were a sort of sacred slaves -persons given to the Levites to perform the more laborious duties of the sanctuary. Some had been given as early as the time of Moses Num_31:47; and the number afterward increased Jos_9:23; Ezr_8:20. At the time of the return from the captivity, owing to the small number of Levites who came back Ezr_2:40-42, the services of the

18

Nethinims became very important. They are mentioned under the name of Nethinims only in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

CLARKE, "Now the first inhabitants - This is spoken of those who returned from the Babylonish captivity, and of the time in which they returned; for it is insinuated here that other persons afterwards settled at Jerusalem, though these mentioned here were the first on the return from the captivity. Properly speaking, the divisions mentioned in this verse constituted the whole of the Israelitish people, who were, ever since the days of Joshua, divided into the four following classes:

1. The priests.2. The Levites.3. The common people, or simple Israelites.4. The Nethinim, or slaves of the temple, the remains of the Gibeonites, who, having deceived Joshua, were condemned to this service Jos_9:21, etc. In Davids time it is probable that other conquered people were added, as the successors of the Gibeonites were not sufficient to perform all the drudgery of the temple service.

GILL, "Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities,.... Who first returned from Babylon upon the proclamation of Cyrus, and enjoyed their former possessions, and dwelt in the cities they had before, or in such as were allotted them, or they chose: were, the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims; the whole body that returned were divided into four classes, as they had been before the captivity; the Israelites were the common people in general, the body politic; the priests, the ecclesiastics, who officiated in sacred things; the Levites, who ministered to them; and the Nethinims were such persons as were "given", as the word signifies, to do servile work for the sanctuary, as, to be hewers of wood and drawers of water; such were the Gibeonites, Jos_9:27, and such as were appointed by David for such work, see Ezr_8:20.

JAMISON, "the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions This chapter relates wholly to the first returned exiles. Almost all the names recur in Nehemiah (Neh_11:1-36), although there are differences which will be explained there. The same division of the people into four classes was continued after, as before the captivity; namely, the priests, Levites, natives, who now were called by the common name of Israelites, and the Nethinims (Jos_9:27; Ezr_2:43; Ezr_8:20). When the historian speaks of the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions, he implies that there were others who afterwards returned and settled in possessions not occupied by the first. Accordingly, we read of a great number returning successively under Ezra, Nehemiah, and at a later period. And some of those who returned to the ancient

19

inheritance of their fathers, had lived before the time of the captivity (Ezr_3:12; Hag_2:4, Hag_2:10).

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 9:2. The first After the return from Babylon. That dwelt in their possessions That took possession of their own lands and cities, which had been formerly allotted them, but of late years had been taken from them for their sins, and possessed by other people. Israelites The common people of Judah and Israel, called here by the general name of Israelites, which was given them before that unhappy division of the kingdoms; and now is restored to them, when the Israelites are united with the Jews in one and the same commonwealth, that so all the names and signs of their former division might be blotted out. And though the generality of the ten tribes were yet in captivity, yet divers of them, upon Cyruss general proclamation, associated themselves, and returned with those of Judah and Benjamin. Levites These took possession of the cities belonging to them, as they had need and opportunity. Nethinims A certain order of men, either Gibeonites, or others joined with them, who were , nethinim, given to the priests and Levites for performing the servile offices of the tabernacle or temple: accordingly the LXX. in this place render the word by , persons given. Thus Joshua gave the Gibeonites to be hewers of wood, &c., Joshua 9:21 ; Joshua 9:27. That they might attend upon their work without distraction, they had certain places and possessions given to them, which they are now said to repossess.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 9:2. The Nethinims Nethinim, from the word natan, to give, signifies persons given to the priests and Levites for performing the servile offices of the tabernacle or temple: accordingly, the LXX in this place render the word by , persons given. The Gibeonites, of whom we read, (Joshua 9:21; Joshua 9:27.) that Joshua itnem, "gave them for hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the congregation and altar of Jehovah," were the first of this kind. We next read of the Nethinims, which David and the princes natan, gave for the service of the Levites, Ezra 8:20. It is likely that these were taken from some of the people conquered by David; and it is highly probable, that of the remaining Canaanites also conquered by Solomon, some were devoted to his service. Compare Ezra 2:58. 1 Kings 21-9:20 and see Calmet.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 9:2 Now the first inhabitants that [dwelt] in their possessions in their cities [were], the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims.\

20

Ver. 2. Now the first inhabitants,] sc., After the return from captivity. [Ezra 1:1-11; Ezra 2:1-60]That dwelt in their possessions.] The same they had before the captivity. A wonderful providence of God it was, that as the land kept her Sabbaths for those seventy years, so the country should be all that while kept empty, till the return of the natives: for we read not that any colonies were sent thither, nor any displaced to make room for these at their return.And the Nethinims.] Dedititii; these were the posterity of those old Gibeonites. [Joshua 9:3-17] {See Trapp on "Ezra 2:58"} Vocati ad vilia officia Deum respiciant, &c. (a)

POOLE, " The first inhabitants; the first after the return from Babylon.That dwelt in their possessions in their cities, i.e. that took possession of their own lands and cities, which had been formerly allotted to them; but of late years had been taken from them for their sins, and possessed by other people.The Israelites, i.e. the common people of Judah and Israel, called here by the general name of Israelites, which was given to them before that unhappy division of the two kingdoms, and now is restored to them when the Israelites are united with the Jews in one and the same commonwealth, that so all the names and signs of their former division might be blotted out. And although the generality of the ten tribes were yet in captivity, yet divers of them were now returned; either such as had long before the captivity fled to Jerusalem to worship God, and joined themselves with Judah, as those 2 Chronicles 11:16, and others; or such as, upon Cyruss general proclamation, associated themselves, and returned with those of Judah and Benjamin.The priests, Levites; these took possession of the cities or places belonging to them, as they had need and opportunity. TheNethinims; a certain order of men, either Gibeonites, or others joined with them, devoted to the service of God, and of his house, and of the priests and Levites; who, that they might attend upon their work without distraction, had certain places and possessions given to them; which they are now said to repossess.

WHEDON, " 2. Israelites priests Levites Nethinim Four classes of 21

inhabitants. The Israelites here denote the mass of the people, the laity, as distinguished from the three classes next named.

The Nethinim The given ones. Hebrew, ; Septuagint . Here this name first occurs as an appellative, though the participle Nethunim, ( ,) from the same root, is applied to the Levites of the time of Moses.

Numbers 3:9; Numbers 8:19. The Levites were given to Aaron and his sons to do service in the tabernacle. At a later time a number of captive Midianites were given to the Levites to assist them in the charge of the tabernacle, (Numbers 31:47;) and still later the Gibeonites were also given to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord. Joshua 9:27. Jewish tradition regards the Nethinim as descendants of those ancient Gibeonitish sanctuary slaves, so that they seem ever to have borne the stigma of a Canaanitish origin. Their work was to perform the menial and laborious service connected with the sanctuary, such as carrying wood and water, and any similar labour which the Levites might require of them. The only period at which they rise into any thing like prominence, is that of the return from the captivity. In that return the priests were conspicuous and numerous; but the Levites, for some reason unknown to us, hung back. Under Zerubbabel there were but three hundred and forty-one Levites to four thousand two hundred and eighty-nine priests. Ezra 42-2:36 . Under Ezra none came up till after a special call. Ezra 8:15. The services of the Nethinim were consequently of more importance, but in their case, also, the small number of those that joined indicates that many preferred remaining in the land of their exile to returning to their old service. Those that did come were consequently thought worthy of special mention. The names of their families were registered with as much care as those of the priests. Ezra 58-2:43 . They were admitted, in strict conformity to the letter of the rule of Deuteronomy 29:11, to join in the great covenant with which the restored people inaugurated its new life. Nehemiah 10:28. They, like the priests and Levites, were exempted from taxation by the Persian satraps. Ezra 7:24. They were also under the control of a chief of their own body. Ezra 2:43; Nehemiah 7:46. They took an active part in the work of rebuilding the city, (Nehemiah 3:26,) and the tower of Ophel was assigned to some of them as a residence, (Nehemiah 11:21,) while others dwelt with the Levites in their cities. Ezra 2:70. They took their place in the chronicles of the time as next in order to the Levites. SMITHS Bib. Dict.

22

PULPIT, "Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions, in their cities. Authorities are very divided as to whether this expression describes inhabitants of the land before the Captivity or subsequent to it. Almost all the older authorities, and Keil amongst those of more modern date, take the former position; Movers, Bertheau, and others take the latter, as also Canon Rawlinson. It must be admitted that there is some obscurity, and which accounts for the contrariety of opinion. But obscurity and contrariety notwithstanding, a comparison of 1 Chronicles 9:2 and 1 Chronicles 9:3 with Nehemiah 11:1-4 : produces two impressions almost irresistible, viz. that the difficulty is occasioned by some comparatively slight corruption or mutilation in our Nehemiah 11:2; and that, whatever the reference is in Nehemiah 11:1-4 (and there is no ambiguity there), that it is in the present passage. The fourfold classification intends the Israel people (Isaiah 24:2; Hosea 4:9), the priests, the Levites, the Nethinims, i.e. those given as helpers of the priests, bond-men of the temple (Numbers 8:18, Numbers 8:19; Numbers 31:47; Ezra 2:40-48; Ezra 8:17, Ezra 8:20). Not before the time of the return does the name Nethinim seem to have crystallized upon this class of helpers, the explanation of which may possibly be that their numbers and their services then became so much more necessary. To this classification is added in Nehemiah 11:3, "And the children of Solomon's servants" (Ezra 2:55).

3 Those from Judah, from Benjamin, and from Ephraim and Manasseh who lived in Jerusalem were:

BARNES, "The correspondence and the diversity between the account here and in Nehemiah Neh. 11:4-19 are explained by the probability that both writers drew from a common and fuller document. They selected, in some instances, different names, or names which are now different through corruption; and they frequently expressed the

23

genealogies of the same persons differently, both going on the principle of compression by means of omissions, but omitting from their lists different links of the chain.

CLARKE, "And in Jerusalem dwelt - Several of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, took advantage of the proclamation of Cyrus to return to Jerusalem, and so mingled with the Israelites, and those to whom Jerusalem had previously appertained; and this was necessary in order to provide a sufficient population for so large a city.

GILL, "And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin,.... Of which tribes were the largest number that went into, and returned out of, captivity: and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh; such of those tribes who had joined the others when Jeroboam introduced his idolatry, or had fled to them when Samaria was besieged and taken by Shalmaneser, and so went into captivity with Judah, and now returned; and as many of them as took the advantage of the proclamation of Cyrus, who were carried captive with the ten tribes.

ELLICOTT, "(3) And in Jerusalem dwelt (some) of the children of Judah, and (some) of the children of Benjamin.This sentence is word for word the same with Nehemiah 11:4 a. The next clause, and some of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh, is not found in Nehemiah, and nothing further is said in the present chapter concerning these two tribes. But so far from proving the clause to be a figment of the chroniclers, this fact only indicates that he has chosen to use the ordinary freedom of a compiler in transcribing from the fuller document which supplied him with materials here and in Nehemiah 11. His source dealt with the neighbouring townships as well as Jerusalem; the latter is the sole subject of the chroniclers extracts here.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 9:3 And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh;Ver. 3. And in Jerusalem dwelt.] See Nehemiah 11:1-2.POOLE, "i.e. Some of each of these tribes; either such as offered themselves, or such as were chosen by lot: See Nehemiah 11:1,2

24

4 Uthai son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, a descendant of Perez son of Judah.

CLARKE, "Uthai the son of Ammihud - The list here is nearly the same with those found in Ezra and Nehemiah, and contains those who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel; but the list in Nehemiah is more ample, probably because it contains those who came afterwards. The object of the sacred writer here was to give the list of those who came first. Now the first inhabitants, etc.

GILL, "Uthai, the son of Ammihud,.... Called Athaiah, Neh_11:4 though his ancestors there are differently reckoned here; his genealogy here is traced from his father Ammihud, through Omri, Imri, Bani, Pharez, to Judah.

K&D 4-6, In the same place there dwelt, of the sons of Judah, three chiefs of the three most important families of Judah, that of Pharez, that of Shelah, and that of Zerah; cf. 1Ch_2:3-4. Of the family of Pharez was Uthai, whose descent is traced back in 1Ch_9:4 to Bani, of the children of Pharez. The Kethibh is clearly to be read according to the Keri The name Bani occurs, 1Ch_6:31, among the .Merarites; while in the genealogies of Judah, 1 Chron 2-4, neither Bani nor Uthai, nor any one of his ancestors who are here named, is mentioned. In Neh_11:4, on the contrary, there is named of the sons of Pharez, Athaiah (, perhaps only another form of ), with quite other ancestors; while not a single one of the five names of the persons through whom his race is traced back to Mahalaleel, of the sons of Pharez, coincides with the ancestors of Uthai.1Ch_9:5

Of the family of Shelah, Asaiah the first-born, and his other) sons. , after ,can only be understood of the other sons or descendants. But the epithet give to Asaiah, is surprising, for it is a formation from , or and appears to denote a ,

25

native of Shiloh, a well-known city of Ephraim. This derivation, however, is not suitable, since here the sons (descendants) of Judah are enumerated; and no connection between the inhabitants of Judah and the Ephraimite city Shiloh can either be proved or is at all likely. The older commentators, therefore, have suggested the reading , as in Num_26:20, where the family of Shelah, the third sons of Judah, is so called. This suggestion is doubtless correct, and the erroneous punctuation has probably arisen only from the scriptio plena of the word instead of . This supposition is confirmed by the fact that the form is found in Neh_11:5, although it also is pointed In Neh. loc. cit., instead of Asaiah, Maaseiah is introduced as . in the seventh generation, while no ancestors whatever of our Asaiah are mentioned. The name , moreover, is not unfrequent, and occurs in 1Ch_4:36 among the Simeonites; in 1Ch_6:15; 1Ch_15:6, 1Ch_15:11, among the Levites; in 2Ki_22:12, 2Ki_22:14 and 2Ch_34:20, as of the King Josiah. is the name of many persons, e.g., in 1Ch_15:18, 1Ch_15:20, and likewise in 2Ch_23:1; Jer_21:1; Jer_29:21; Jer_35:4; and elsewhere it is used of men of other tribes: so that even should Maaseiah have been written instead of Asaiah merely by an error of transcription, we are not warranted in identifying our Asaiah with the Maaseiah of Nehemiah.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 9:4. Ammihud That there is so great a diversity of names between this catalogue and that Nehemiah 11., may be ascribed to two causes. 1st, To the custom of the Hebrews, who used frequently to give several names to one person. And, 2d, To the change of times; for here they are named who came up at the first return: but many of those in Nehemiah might be such as returned afterward, and came and dwelt, either instead of the persons here named, or with them.

ELLICOTT, "(4) Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani.Nehemiah 11:4 traces this line thus: Athaiah son of Uzjiah, son of Zechariah, son of Amariah, son of Shephatiah, son of Mahalaleel, of the children of Perez. Uthai is equivalent to Athaiah, and Imri to Amariah, by a common contraction. The other intermediate names in the two series do not coincide; but this does not prove that Uthai and Athaiah are different clans. Many more than five or six members would obviously be required to constitute a complete genealogical stem, reaching from post-exilic times to the age of the tribal patriarchs. We may therefore conclude that the compiler has chosen to select different names in each case from a longer list, which comprised both series.

26

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 9:4 Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, of the children of Pharez the son of Judah.Ver. 4. Uthai, &c.] See the same catalogue in Nehemiah 11:4-36, though with some alteration of names, as before often.

POOLE, " That there is so great a diversity of names between this catalogue and that Ne 11, may be ascribed to two causes:1. To the custom of the Hebrews, who used very frequently to give two or three several names to one person; and,2. To the change of times; for here they are named who came up at the first return; but many of those in Nehemiah might be such as returned afterward, and came and dwelt either instead of the persons here named, who might be then dead, or gone from Jerusalem, or with them.

PULPIT, "This verse contains a short list, with many links wanting, of descendants of Judah through Pharez, six in number, and in reverse order. .4. similar list as regards its extreme terms is that which we find in Nehemiah 11:4, but only three (Uthai, Imri, Pharez) of the six names here can be considered identical with a like number (Athaiah, Amariah, Perez) out of the seven found there. Nehemiah 11:6 adds, "The number of the sons of Perez that dwelt at Jerusalem four hundred three score and eight valiant men."

5 Of the Shelanites[a]:Asaiah the firstborn and his sons.

GILL, "And of the Shilonites,.... Not called so from the city of Shiloh, which was in 27

Ephraim; whereas these here intended were of the tribe of Judah, and were either the descendants of a man whose name was Shiloni, Neh_11:5 or rather these are the same with the Shelanites, Num_26:20 so called from Shelah the son of Judah; and so the Targum here is,"and of the tribe of Shelah:" Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons; the same with Maaseiah, Neh_11:5.

ELLICOTT, " (5) And of the Shilonites.Shilonite means man of Shiloh, the ancient capital of Ephraim; whereas 1 Chronicles 9:4-6 have to do with Judah. The three sons of Judah, after whom three great sub-tribal divisions were named, were Pharez, Shelah, and Zarah (Genesis 38). The clan of Shelah was called the Shelanite (Numbers 26:20), and that is doubtless the correct reading here (see 1 Chronicles 2:3; 1 Chronicles 4:21), supported as it is by the LXX. ( ) and the Targum.

Asaiah (Jah hath wrought) is essentially the same as Maaseiah (Work of Jah) in Nehemiah 11:5, where six progenitors are enumerated.

The firstborn.That is, the leading clan.

His sons.The members of the clan.

TRAPP, "Verse 51 Chronicles 9:5 And of the Shilonites; Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.Ver. 5. And the Shilonites.] The posterity of Shelah, son of Judah. (a) [Genesis 38:5]

POOLE, " Or, Shelanites, as they are called from Shelah, Numbers 26:20.Asaiah, called also Masseiah, Nehemiah 11:5.

PULPIT, "The Shilonites. These are the descendants of Shelah, youngest son of Judah. In place of the one name Asaiah here, Nehemiah (Nehemiah 11:7) gives a list

28

of seven, among which Maassiah is found, answering to our Asaiah.

6 Of the Zerahites:Jeuel.The people from Judah numbered 690.

GILL, "And of the sons of Zerah,.... Another son of Judah: Jeuel, and their brethren; six hundred and ninety; or their kinsmen; for this number includes all of the posterity of Pharez, Shelah and Zerah mentioned.

K&D, "1Ch_9:6Of the sons of Zerah, Jeuel; also the name of various persons; cf. 1Ch_5:7; 2Ch_26:11 : the register in Neh 11 notices no descendants of Zerah. And their brethren, 690

(men). The plural suffix in cannot be referred, as Bertheau thinks, to Jeuel, for that name, as being that of the head of a father's-house, cannot be a collective. The suffix most consequently refer to the three heads mentioned in 1Ch_9:4-6, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, whose brethren are the other heads of fathers'-houses of the three families descended from Judah; cf. 1Ch_9:9, where the number of the mentioned refers to all the heads who had formerly been spoken of.

ELLICOTT, " (6) Of the sons of Zerah.The Zarhites are omitted in the parallel passage of Nehemiah, where we read, instead of the present statement, that all the sons of Perez that dwelt at Jerusalem were four hundred threescore and eight valiant men. The common source of both the narratives must have contained information about the Zarhites. as well as their brother clansmen, the Parzites and Shelanites. We see from the verse before us that the Zarhites were more numerous in Jerusalem than the Parzites. The chronicler has again exercised his own discretion in the choice and rejection of details.

29

Jeuel, and their brethren.The plural pronoun clearly hints that Jeuel is a Zarhite father-house or clan. The passage of Nehemiah just cited shows that six hundred and ninety is the total of the Zarhites only. The number of the Parzites and Shelanites is not here specified.

PULPIT, "No corresponding list whatever is found in Nehemiah, but in Nehemiah 11:24 mention is made of "Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel, of the children of Zerah." Zeta was twin brother of Pharez (Genesis 38:30).

7 Of the Benjamites:Sallu son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah;

GILL, "And of the sons of Benjamin,.... Who were of the tribe of Benjamin, and went with Judah into captivity, and returned with them, and such of them as dwelt in Jerusalem before that: Sallu the son of Meshullam; whose pedigree is differently given, Neh_11:7, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenaah; perhaps these men had two names, there called Joel and Pedaiah.

K&D 7-9, Of the sons of Benjamin, i.e., of the Benjamites, four heads are named, Sallu, Ibneiah, Elah, and Meshullam; and of the first and fourth of these, three generations of ancestors are mentioned, of the second only the father, of the third the father and grandfather. And their brethren according to their generations, 956; cf. on 1Ch_9:6. All these men are not the brethren whose number is given, but the heads who have been mentioned by name. Now, if we compare this with Neh 11, we meet in 1Ch_9:7-9 with only one of the four heads of Benjamin, Sallu, and that too, as in the Chronicle, as a son of Meshullam, while the ancestors of both are different. Instead of

30

the three others in 1Ch_9:8, we have ,(and in 1Ch_9:9, as overseer (prefect ;928 ,and Jehudah as ruler over the city.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 9:7. Sallu the son of Meshullam Who is mentioned, but described by other parents, (Nehemiah 11:7,) or at least by persons under other names. Possibly these were his more immediate, and those his more remote parents: or he might be begotten by the one, and adopted by the other. For it is certain that men are sometimes, in Scripture, called the sons of those that adopted them, or whose right of inheritance fell to them.

ELLICOTT, " (7) And of the sons of Benjamin.The parallel passage (Nehemiah 11:7) starts with Sallu the son of Me-shullam, but continues, the son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah, and carries the ancestry four generations further back.

The son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasenuah.Perhaps we should read and Hodaviah, instead of son of Hodaviah. (See Note on 1 Chronicles 9:9-10.) The name Hodaviah, which occurred 1 Chronicles 5:24, is a peculiar Aramaizing form of Hoduyah (Thank the Lord). Perhaps here the true reading is whudah. and Judah. Comp. Nehemiah 11:9, Judah the son of Senuali (Heb. ha-Senuah).

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 9:7 And of the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasenuah,Ver. 7. Hodaviah.] Alias Joed. [Nehemiah 11:7] Names are oft abbreviated.

POOLE, "Salu the son of Meshullam, who is mentioned, but described by other parents, Nehemiah 11:7, or at least by persons under other names. Possibly these were his more immediate, and those his more remote parents; or he might be born of one, and adopted by another. For this is certain, men are sometimes in Scripture called the sons of those who adopted them, or whose right of inheritance fell to them.

31

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 9:7-9The corresponding passage (Nehemiah 11:7, Nehemiah 11:8) varies much in the names given, and adds up the number of Benjamite chief men to nine hundred and twenty-eight, instead of nine hundred and fifty-six.

8 Ibneiah son of Jeroham; Elah son of Uzzi, the son of Mikri; and Meshullam son of Shephatiah, the son of Reuel, the son of Ibnijah.

GILL, "And Ibneiah the son of Jeroham,.... Who with two more, Elah and Meshullam, whose ancestors are given, of whom we have no mention elsewhere, were all of the tribe of Benjamin, said to settle at Jerusalem.

ELLICOTT, " (8) Three other Benjamite houses.

Ibneiah is much the same name as Ibnijah at the end of the verse. Both mean Jah buildeth, i.e., maketh offspring. (Comp. Assyrian Ea-Ibni, Ea made, i.e., a son.)

Son of Jeroham.The sons of Jeroham dwelt in Jerusalem before the exile as well as after it (1 Chronicles 8:27).

Michri should perhaps be Zichri. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 8:19; 1 Chronicles 8:23; 1 Chronicles 8:27.)

1 Chronicles 9:7-9 correspond to Nehemiah 11:7-9; but after tracing the ascending line of Sallu son of Meshullam (1 Chronicles 9:7) through six degrees, the latter account continues (Nehemiah 11:8): And after him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred twenty and eight. This apparently is quite a different statement from that of our 1

32

Chronicles 9:8. Gabbai, Sallai, however (note the absence of a conjunction), may be corrupt. Gabbai perhaps conceals Bani or Ibni, a contracted form of lbneiah; and Sallai might have originated out of Shallum or Meshullam, under the influence of the preceding Sallu (1 Chronicles 9:7). Nehemiah 11:9 continues, And Joel son of Zikri was their overseer, and Judah son of Hasenuah was over the second part of the city. Joel son of Zikri may be our Elah son of Uzzi son of Michri (1 Chronicles 9:8); for Joel (Jah is El) may be compared with Elah, which is perhaps a disguise of Elijah (El is Jah; only yod, the smallest Hebrew letter, is wanting). Judah son of Hasenuah, may be the equivalent of Hodaviah son of Hasenuah. If these combinations be accepted, the list here is brought into strict harmony with its parallelfive Benjamite clans being named in each, viz., Sallu, Hodaviah (Judah), Ibneiah (Bani), Joel (Elah), and Meshullam.

And their brethren, according to their generations.The members of the five Benjamite clans amounted to nine hundred and fifty-six, according to their family registers. Nehemiah 11:8 gives a total of nine hundred and twenty-eight. If the numbers are both genuine, our text may refer to a date a little subsequent to the time intended in Nehemiah.

All these men.Translate, all these men were chiefs of their respective clans. This appears to be the subscription to 1 Chronicles 9:4-9. It states that the proper names are representatives of clans, and, so to speak, collective personalities.

9 The people from Benjamin, as listed in their genealogy, numbered 956. All these men were heads of their families.

BARNES, "The discrepancy between the numbers here and in Nehemiah Neh_11:8may arise from corruption. So in 1Ch_9:13, 1Ch_9:22.

33

GILL, "And their brethren, according to their generations, nine hundred amd fifty and six,.... Which was the number of the Benjaminites there resident put together, and which greatly exceeded that of Judah, 1Ch_9:6. all these men were chief of the fathers, in the house of their fathers; principal men in the families of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, even all the seven before mentioned.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 9:9. Nine hundred and fifty-six They are reckoned but nine hundred and twenty-eight in Nehemiah 11:8, either because there he mentions only those that were by lot determined to dwell at Jerusalem, to whom he here adds those who freely offered themselves to it; or because some of the persons first placed there were dead, or removed from Jerusalem upon some emergent occasion.

POOLE, "Nine hundred and fifty and six: they are reckoned but nine hundred and twenty-eight in Nehemiah 11:8, either because there he mentions only those that were by lot determined to dwell at Jerusalem, to whom he here adds those who freely offered themselves to it; see Nehemiah 11:1,2; or because some of the persons and families first placed there were dead or extinguished, or else removed from Jerusalem upon some emergent occasion.

10 Of the priests:Jedaiah; Jehoiarib; Jakin;

BARNES, "Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin, are not here names of individuals but of priestly families. From 1Ch_24:7-17, it appears that Jehoiarib was the original head of the first course, Jedaiah of the second shift, and Jachin of the twenty-first shift.

GILL, "And of the priests,.... Who returned and dwelt at Jerusalem: 34

Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, and Jachin; Jedaiah was the son of Jehoiarib, and Jachin is called Jachin, Neh_11:10.

K&D 10-13, The priests. - The three names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin (1Ch_9:10) denote three classes of priests (cf. 1Ch_24:7, 1Ch_24:17), who accordingly dwelt in Jerusalem. There also dwelt there (1Ch_9:11) Azariah the son of Hilkiah, etc., the prince of the house of God; cf. 2Ch_31:13. This is the Azariah mentioned in 1Ch_6:13, the son of Hilkiah, etc., the grandfather of the Jehozadak who was led captive into Babylon. then in 1Ch_9:12 we have two other heads of the priestly fathers'-houses, with an enumeration of their ancestors, through whom they are traced back to the classes of priests to which they belonged respectively, viz., Adaiah to the class Malchijah (1Ch_24:9), and Maasiai to the class Immer (1Ch_24:14). According to this, therefore, there dwelt at Jerusalem, of the priesthood, the three classes Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin, Azariah the prince of the temple, and of the classes Malchijah and Immer, the fathers'-houses Adaiah and Maasiai. In 1Ch_9:13 the whole number is estimated at 1760. A difficulty is raised by the first words of this verse, And their brethren, heads of their fathers'-houses, 1760, which can hardly be taken in any other sense than as denoting that the number of the heads of the fathers'-houses amounted to 1760. This, however, is not conceivable, as fathers'-houses are not single households, but larger groups of related families. Moreover, , which is co-ordinate with the heads of the fathers'-houses, can only denote, as in 1Ch_9:6, 1Ch_9:9, the heads of the families which belonged to or constituted the fathers'-houses. To arrive at this meaning, however, we must transpose the words and connecting , with 1Ch_9:12, and with the number, thus: heads of fathers'-houses, etc., were those mentioned in 1Ch_9:12, and their brethren 1760 (men), valiant heroes in the work of the service of the house of God. Before one would expect the word , as in 1Ch_23:24 and Neh_11:12, but its presence is not so absolutely necessary as to warrant us in supposing that it has been dropped out, and in inserting it. may be also taken as an accusative of relation, valiant heroes in reference to the work; or at most a a tso may be supplied before , as it might easily have been omitted by a clerical error after the immediately preceding . On comparing our passage with Neh_11:10-14, we find there, if in 1Ch_9:10 be altered into the same three ,classes of priests; but instead of Azariah, Seraiah is prince of the house of God, 1Ch_9:11 : thereafter we have 822 brethren, performing the work of the house (of God). Then follows Adaiah of the class Malchijah (as in the Chronicles), but with the addition, his brethren 242; and then Amashai of the class Immer, but with other ancestors than those of the Maasiai of the Chronicles, and with the addition, and their brethren, valiant heroes, 128; and finally, Zabdiel Ben Hagdolim as overseer (president over them).

The sum of the three numbers is 1192, as contrasted with the 1760 of the Chronicle.

ELLICOTT, " (10) And of the priests; Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, and Jaehin.These three names do not designate persons, but three of the priestly courses, or classes,

35

instituted by David according to 1 Chronicles 24, of which Jehoiarib was the first, Jedaiah the second, and Jachin the twenty-first. Nehemiah 11:10 has Jehoiarib son of Jedaiah, a mistake of the scribe. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 9:7 and Note; cf. also Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 12:6.)Verses 10-13(10-13) The priests resident in Jerusalem. (Comp. Nehemiah 11:10-14.)

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 9:10 And of the priests; Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, and Jachin,Ver. 10. And of the priests.] He had reckoned four distinct orders or ranks of people among the Jews, [1 Chronicles 9:2] and here he instanceth the second order or classis; viz., Sacerdotalis: Priestly.

PULPIT, "This verse is correct in not calling (as does Nehemiah 11:10) Jedaiah the son of Jehoiarib, or as it is there written Joiarib. The origin of the names of these three priest families is found in 1 Chronicles 24:7, 1 Chronicles 24:17.

11 Azariah son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the official in charge of the house of God;

CLARKE, "The ruler of the house of God - The high priest at this time was Jeshua the son of Jozadak, (Ezr_3:8), and Seraiah, (Neh_11:11), called here Azariah, was the ruler of the house; the person next in authority to the high priest, and who probably had the guard of the temple and command of the priests, Levites, etc. It is likely that the person here was the same as is called the second priest, 2Ki_25:18 (note), who was the sagan or high priests deputy. See the note there.

36

GILL, "And Azariah the son of Hilkiah,.... That is, the son of Azariah, whose name was Seraiah, see 1Ch_6:13, whose pedigree is traced up from Hilkiah through Meshullam, called Shallum, 1Ch_6:12. Zadok, Meraioth, to Ahitub: the ruler of the house of God; high priest in it; which is to be understood of Ahitub, and not of Azariah or Seraiah in the time of Ezra; for Joshua was then high priest.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 9:11. The ruler Or rather, a ruler in the house of God Not the high-priest, who was Ezra, (Ezra 3:8,) but a chief ruler under him.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 9:11. The ruler of the house of God Rather a ruler; for he was not the high-priest. See Ezra 3:2 and Haggai 1:1.

REFLECTIONS.Israel never more returned from Assyria; there all their genealogies perished; so that the writer could carry them no farther: but Judah (as it should be rendered) being returned again, their families were preserved, and the places where their ancestors resided, particularly those who were fixed at Jerusalem. It is remarked, that they were carried away for their transgression, a warning to those who were returned, to beware of their fathers' sins. Many of Ephraim and Manasseh, either at the captivity of Israel, or when Judah was in Babylon, joined them, and returned with them to Jerusalem. It is a mercy if affliction drive us together, and, forgetting former variance, we unite in the work and service of God, Ephraim no more vexing Judah, nor Judah Ephraim. The priests appear to have the greatest zeal for returning to Jerusalem: more of them came, than of Judah and Benjamin put together; and their peculiar commendation was, that they were as able as willing for the service of God. It is an unspeakable mercy, when abilities and zeal unite in a minister of the sanctuary: under such rulers in the house of God, the cause may be expected to prosper.

ELLICOTT, "(11) And Azariah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam.See 1 Chronicles 6:12-13. The names coincide so far as Zadok; but either Meraioth and Ahitub have been transposed (see 1 Chronicles 6:7), or perhaps Meraioth has been omitted in 1 Chronicles 6:12. Instead of Azariah, the parallel in Nehemiah 11:11 has Seraiah, the rest of the verse being verbatim the same as here. A l