Adam, Sheth, Enosh. 1 Chronicles 1 Israelite descent W. H. Bennett, M. A. Israel was Jehovah's chosen people, His son, to whom special privileges were guaranteed by solemn covenant. A man's claim to share in this covenant depended on his genuine Israelite descent, and the proof of such descent was an authentic genealogy. In these chapters the chronicler has taken infinite pains to collect pedigrees from all available sources and to construct a complete set of genealogies exhibiting the lines of descent of the families of Israel. These chapters, which seem to us so dry and useless, were probably regarded by the chronicler's contemporaries as the most important part of his work. The preservation or discovery of a genealogy was almost a matter of life and death ( Ezra 2:61-63 ; Nehemiah 7:63-65 ). ( W. H. Bennett, M. A. ) Names W. H. Bennett, M. A. The first nine chapters contain the largest extant collection of Hebrew names. 1. These names have an individual significance. A mere parish register is not in itself attractive, but if we consider even such a list, the very names interest us and kindle our imaginations. It is almost impossible to linger in a country churchyard, reading the half-effaced inscriptions upon the headstones, without forming some dim picture of the character and history and even the outward semblance of the men and women who once bore the names. A name implies the existence of a distinct personality. In its lists of what are now mere names the Bible seems to recognise the dignity and sacredness of bare human life. 2. These names have also a collective significance. They are typical and representative — the names of kings and priests and captains; they sum up the tribes of Israel, both as a Church and a nation, down all the generations of its history. 3. The meanings of names reveal the ideas of the people who used them. "The Hebrew names bear important testimony to the peculiar vocation of this nation. No nation of antiquity has such a proportion of names of religious import." The Old Testament contains more than a hundred etymologies of personal names, most of which attach a religious meaning to the words explained. 4. How far do these names help us to understand the spiritual life of ancient Israel? The Israelites made constant use of El and Jehovah in their names, and we have no parallel practice. Were they then so much more religious than we are? Probably in a sense they were. Modern Englishman have developed a habit of almost complete reticence and reserve on religious matters, and this habit is illustrated by our choice of proper names. 5. According to the testimony of names, the Israelites' favourite ideas about God were that He heard, and knew, and remembered; that He was gracious, and helped men and gave them gifts; they loved best to think of Him as God the Giver. This is a foreshadowing of the Christian doctrines of grace and of the Divine sovereignty. God hears and remembers and gives — what? All that we have to say to Him and all that we are capable of receiving from Him. ( W. H. Bennett, M. A. ) The genealogies indicative of universal brotherhood W. H. Bennett, M. A. The existing races of the world are all traced back through Shem, Ham, and Japheth to Noah, and through him to Adam. The Israelites did not claim, like certain Greek clans, to be the descendants of a special god of their own, or, like the Athenians, to have sprung miraculously from sacred soft. Their genealogies testified that not merely Israelite nature, but human nature, is moulded on a Divine pattern. These apparently barren lists of names enshrine the great principles of the universal brotherhood of man and the universal Fatherhood of God. The opening chapters of Genesis and Chronicles are among the foundations of the catholicity of the Church of Christ. ( W. H. Bennett, M. A. ) The genealogies and heredity W. H. Bennett, M. A. Each nation rightly regards its religious ideas and life and literature as a precious inheritance peculiarly its own; and it should not be too severely blamed for being ignorant that other nations have their inheritance also. Such considerations largely justify the interest in heredity shown by the chronicler's genealogies. On the positive practical side religion is largely a matter of heredity, and ought to be. The Christian sacrament of baptism is a continued profession of this truth: our children are "clean"; they are within the covenant of grace; we claim for them the privileges of the Church to which we belong. This was also part of the meaning of the genealogies. ( W. H. Bennett, M. A. ) The genealogies: what we owe to the past W. H. Bennett, M. A. We are the creatures and debtors of the past, though we are slow to own our obligations. We have nothing that we have not received; but we are apt to consider ourselves self-made men, the architects and builders of our own fortunes, who have the right to be self-satisfied, self-assertive, and selfish. The heir of all the ages, in the full vigour of youth, takes his place in the foremost ranks of time, and marches on in the happy consciousness of profound and multifarious wisdom, immense resources, and magnificent opportunity. He forgets, or even despises, the generations of labour and anguish that have built up for him his great inheritance. The genealogies are a silent protest against such insolent ingratitude. They remind us that in bygone days a man derived his gifts and received his opportunities from his ancestors; they show us men as the links in a chain, tenants for life, as it were, of our estate, called upon to pay back with interest to the future the debt which they have incurred to the past. ( W. H. Bennett, M. A. ) Genealogies as symbols of the solidarity of our race W. H. Bennett, M. A. The genealogies that set forth family histories are the symbols of the brotherhood or solidarity of our race. The chart of converging lines of ancestors in Israel carried men's minds back from the separate families to their common ancestor. As far as they go, the chronicler's genealogies form a clear and instructive diagram of the mutual dependence of men on men and family on family. They are in any case a true symbol of the facts of family relations; but they are drawn, so to speak, in one dimension only, backwards and forwards in time. Yet the real family life exists in three dimensions. A man has not merely his male ancestors in the directly ascending line — father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. — but he has female ancestors as well. By going back three or four generations a man is connected with an immense number of cousins; and if the complete network of ten or fifteen generations could be worked out, it would probably show some blood bond throughout a whole nation. The further we go back the larger is the element of ancestry common to the different individuals of the same community. The chronicler's genealogies only show us individuals as links in a set of chains. The more complete genealogical scheme would be better illustrated by the ganglia of the nervous system, each of which is connected by numerous fibres with the other ganglia. Patriotism and humanity are instincts as natural and as binding as those of the family; and the genealogies express or symbolise the wider family ties, that they may commend the virtues and enforce the duties that arise out of these ties. ( W. H. Bennett, M. A. ) The antiquity and unity of man J. Parker, D. D. Other nations have had more or less imperfect visions of ancient history and of the unity of the race, but in the Bible alone do we find an authoritative declaration made concerning the antiquity and unity of man and the ultimate destiny of the human race. The Chaldeans had a tradition of ten antediluvian patriarchs or kings. They made the duration of this first period of human history four hundred and thirty-two thousand years. All other chronicles have been bewildered by their polytheism, whereas in the Hebrew history we have all the sublime unity which would seem to be necessitated by the monotheism of the writers. They who believed in one God were likely to believe in one humanity. Monotheism accounts for the two commandments which relate first to God, and then to man. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Because in his days the earth was divided. 1 Chronicles 1:19 The division of the earth The chief value of the genealogical records consists — 1. In enabling us to view the origin of nations historically. 2. In enabling us to trace out the various tribes of the sons of Jacob. 3. In enabling us to prove the lineal descent of Christ to have been of the house and lineage of David; and that He was the fulfiller of the promise to Abraham, "In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed." 4. Independently of all this we meet with a sentence or a paragraph suggestive of the deepest thought, or illuminating a principle expressed in another part of the Scriptures with light as clear and bright as it is beautiful and enchanting. Such an instance we have in the text. I. CONSIDER THE DIVISION OF THE EARTH AS ORDAINED WITHOUT SIN. Sin alters and affects everything. There is not a duty you perform or matter you can engage in, in which you do not find sin exerting a pernicious influence. And here it is, I think, that many persons make great error when seeking to interpret to themselves the trials and calamities which come upon them. "Providence ordained it," is the common philosophy on the matter, when I humbly think the truer account of every calamity would be, "Providence ordained and desired my happiness, but sin has deformed it, and for a time blasted the intended joys and filled me with anxieties." The division which God intended would be but a repetition in every case of what He had done at the beginning; there would have been allotted to the sons of men certain portions of this fair earth to govern and to till, and every child of Adam would be taught, in the beautiful homilies of nature, the first principles at least of homage to the Creator, and of confidence, and of love. The division Jehovah ordained was division without disunion. Distinction, but not discord. Partition, but still perfect peace. This first inquiry, then, is of much value, and will prove, ere many years, of vast importance in refuting the errors of the sceptical writers which abound. Nor will it perhaps be without its use, to have noticed the character of that division which God intended among the sons of men, one which should have promoted the equal comfort of all, amidst the blessings of universal peace and brotherhood. It may be, that when grace shall have triumphed in our sin-stained earth even but a little more, you may see a disposition to revert to these very principles of division which the Eternal desired to be followed, but which (as we shall notice directly) have been marvellously distorted ever since the day of which it is recorded in the text — "Unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided." II. NOW LET US INQUIRE INTO THE DIVISION OF THE EARTH AMONG NATIONS AS IT DOES EXIST, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SIN. Now you notice, by referring to the text ( Genesis 10:25 ), that the division took place before the building of Babel, and according to some persons, some considerable period before that epoch. At all events, the narrative implies that this division preceded the dispersion, and must therefore have occurred when all men spoke but one language. Remember, then, that God's will was that men should divide (though without discord) and replenish all the earth. Recollect, too, that from the text we learn that the first step in this had been taken, even as Eber names his child Peleg (division) in memory of the event. Observe, then, what we are told immediately after the division in the days of Peleg. You read in the eleventh chapter of Genesis that the whole earth was of one language and of one speech; but that in their journeyings from the east, instead of dividing (as probably was the intention when they started), finding a large and inviting plain in Shinar, they counsel each other: "Let us build a city and tower whose top may reach to heaven, and let us make us a name lest" (mark) "we be scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth." So that sin at once interrupted the beneficent designs of God, and interposing its corrupting leaven, sought to change His ordinances by promising greater benefits than He, but which have ever been found productive of evil. And now, that which was ordained for a blessing in every age, forthwith becomes a curse while it is yet obeyed; for God coming down, and seeing the injurious moral effect which would follow from this congregating together, disperses them by a division wholly unlooked for. God confounded their speech, made them talk in different languages, and they are obliged in consequence to disperse, and the division is accomplished. But how? Not in peace and harmony, and with a "God be with you." But brother utters jargon to brother, and words of blessing and adieu are impossible, and now it is no more division with love, but confusion, and disunion, and discord, and ill-will. For I ask you what is the history of nations, but a continuation of this story? Nations for the most part are distinguished from one another by their .difference of speech. But this is not the only difference. Scarcely a nation in the world but has at one time or another, been at war with other nations, and almost .every kingdom of importance has, in its turn, encountered the armies of all other kingdoms in the dread attack of war and slaughter, at some period of their history. And this is the place for observing another very striking result of sin in the division of the earth. God, we saw, intended it so to be conducted as to subserve the advantage of all; but man decreed in his pride of intellect and reasoning that he would live in the dense vastness of a thickly populated city. And though God indeed dispersed them from Babel, the tendency of our nature seems to be far from eradicated. Still mankind crowd into cities, until they are so closely populated, that disease and death are fearfully increased. So you may notice how the retributive hand of judgment has followed these transactions. Man is a social being, and intended by God to congregate, but intended not so to congregate as we find he has done, and will still persist in doing, until by a strange anomaly his next-door neighbour is the veriest stranger to him. God ordered earth to be divided; and the plan by which thousands are huddled in close, dark, narrow alleys and areas is only sin's development of its influences, as it reverses God's intended method of division, and says with towering vanity, "Go to, let us build rather a city that we may not be scattered." It is a known fact, that there is less religion in large towns than small ones, and far less where the poor are obliged to pack together as I have described. The reason is also plain. The cause is, that since the days of Peleg, the earth has been divided according to sin, and the dispersion of nations is the result of God's anger, in confounding their speech. But the reason is, because the human mind, cut off from the beauties of nature, and those countless sources which it possesses for preparing the mind for religion, becomes prejudiced in its fearfully artificial state of town life, and by the evil customs and habits which surround it, against every sense of real godliness, which it thus learns to regard as belonging only to the rich. III. BUT THOUGH YOU SEE SIN SO PLAINLY OPERATING, YOU ARE ASSURED THAT CHRIST WILL CONQUER, AND GRACE FINALLY PREVAIL. In the day of glory which awaits you (described in the last two chapters of the Revelation), it is very interesting to observe that the city of the new Jerusalem described there bears a peculiar likeness to those which would have existed if the division of the world had been such as God ordained, and which began in the days of Peleg. In Christ's kingdom there will be division without discord, that is, every person in his right place, in perfect love, and unity with all the rest. Johab the son of of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:44 Successors J. Parker, D. D. Never let it be supposed that Providence is limited to any one man in the matter of kingship and dominion. Men who are reigning should lay to heart the reflection that their reign is to come to an end. Every man is bound to consider his successor; it is not enough to vacate office; every man should leave behind him a character worthy of imitation, an example that will stimulate in all highest directions. Let every man prepare himself to succeed the king — in the family, in the state, in the social circle: we should always be preparing ourselves for some higher office, and the best way of so preparing is to fill with faithfulness the office which we have at present assigned to us. There is only one King who shall have no successor, and that King's name is Jesus Christ. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:48 The race and the individual S. Horton. "The king is dead. Long live the king!" After the Saxon comes the Norman; after George the First George the Second, and then George the Third. So is history written with wearying monotony. These chapters have their lessons, and not the least significant is contained in the words "reigned in his stead." We hear the tramp of many generations as we read these verses. The march of the human family has been always towards a grave. That is the end of every life. "And so death passed on all men; for all have sinned." Who were Bela, and Jobad, and Husham, and Hadad, Samlah, and Shaul? They were kings once, but who cares anything about them now? They are dead, and their deeds are forgotten. Another man shall fill my pulpit; another man shall attend to your business; another man shall sit in your chair. Our text suggests the thought of the death of the individual and the perpetuation of the race. Instead of father comes the son. Whether we like it or not, our children will soon be pushing us out of our places. The world demands strong hands and nimble intellects. The cry is for young men. It is pathetic, it is sometimes heart-breaking, to see how cavalierly the world treats the aged. With rude hands it pushes them aside to make way for their successors. The moral suggestiveness of the genealogical chapters is great. The Bible has a wonderful method of epitomising. It informs us of the creation of the world, the sun, moon, and stars, earth, heaven, and sea in a single chapter. It tells the whole story of Redemption in one verse ( John 3:16 ). The very brevity is significant. What importance we poor mortals attach to very trifling things! Our pleasures, our troubles, our work, our family, its marriages, its funerals; and we sometimes feel aggrieved that these things have not a deeper interest for others. Here are many generations of men all crammed into one chapter. "Behold God is very great." And so He tells of many generations of men in a few verses. It is such a small thing to Him. The individual passes away, but the race continues. Men die, but man endures. "One generation cometh and another goeth." The earth is very beautiful, hut it is, after all, one vast cemetery, in which repose the ashes of our forefathers. It is a lovely garden full of flowers and singing birds, but in the garden there is always a new tomb. The dead outnumber the living. We pride ourselves on our possessions. A few years ago they were not ours, they belonged to the departed; in a few years to come they will not be ours, they will be held by our successors. God lends us a house to live in, clothes to wear, money to use, and we grow arrogant, and exclaim," See how rich I am!" We shut our fists tight over our gold, and say, "This is mine; I will keep it. Nobody else shall have it." And Death comes, and says, "Give it up. Thou mayest retain it no longer." Twenty — thirty generations of men. What solemn thoughts the words suggest! But who could not weep over this vast host who have all felt the joy and beauty of life, but are now dead? Where are the ancient seers and prophets whose eagle vision peered through the mists of time and read with unerring certainty the fate of great nations and the purposes of God? Gone! Prepare thyself! Thou shalt die and another reign in thy stead. Our text suggests the solidarity of our race. We are all children of one earthly father, as we are an the children of one Heavenly Father. All the fountains of history have their rise in the solitary pair who were driven from the gates of Paradise by the flaming sword of the angel sentinel of God. We are all descendants of a gardener, and the proudest crest might well have upon it a spade. The common brotherhood of the race is, I trust, soon to receive practical recognition by statesmen. Long enough have poets sung of equal rights and preachers repeated stale platitudes about "all men being as one in God's sight"; and yet the nations have gone on murdering one another, and, under the plea of extending civilisation, have extirpated many a tribe whose only crime was that they would not give up the land of their fathers to satisfy the territorial greed of the white man. Our text reminds us of our indebtedness to the past. Every man is an epitome of the race. In him history has its reflection and development. He is the incarnation of the past and the prophecy of the future. No man can isolate himself. Where did this man get that imagination which transforms the commonplaces of life, and gives to the veriest mudbank hues of iridescent beauty? Where did that other get his logical faculty, his mathematical accuracy, or his genius for construction? You would have to trace his ancestry back through centuries to answer those questions. Some of us, alas! have inherited from the past other qualities which are the bane and cross of our life. But there is another way in which we are indebted to the past. We have come into a heritage of noble deeds and splendid thoughts. We are heirs of all the ages. For us the thinkers of past ages burned the midnight oil, for us the workers tolled when Nature bade them sleep. For a shilling I can purchase the plays it took Shakespeare a lifetime to write. A few coppers will make Milton my life companion. We are indebted to the nameless dead, as well as to those favoured few who have snatched immortality from the hand of fate. The world is better for their unrecorded heroism, their quiet, patient suffering, as the atmosphere is sweeter for the fragrance of the violet. The civil liberties we enjoy, the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, have been bought for us by the rich blood of brave men and women. Let us hand to our sons unimpaired the holy legacy of our sires. Our text also suggests the debt we owe to the future. Posterity has a claim upon us as well as the past. Let it be ours to make the bounds of freedom wider yet; to leave at least one evil less than when we were born. It is glorious, and yet it is awful to think that in writing our own history we are also determining the character of generations to come. To the young I say, Prepare yourselves to take our places. We mean to make it as easy for you to reign in our stead as we can by removing out of the way some of the difficulties and dangers that have beset our own lives. We mean to make it u hard for you to succeed us as we can by living so well that it shall only be by the most strenuous efforts that you shall surpass us in moral effort, in high purpose, in brave deeds, and aspiring thoughts. Get ready, I say, for the larger duties and greater responsibilities the future has in store for you. The business of the world, its philanthropies and its religion, will soon be in your hands. Another lesson of these chapters is that of our own insignificance. They tend to correct our overwhelming self-esteem. Men come and pass away, but the old world goes on. There is no place but what can be filled; no man is indispensable. Who will succeed you? Who will lift the sword that you lay down, who will wear your mantle, who will fill your office? Can anybody do it? Yes; but you have nothing to do with that. It is yours to make it difficult for any man to succeed you by doing your work so well that it cannot be done better. We are all apt to magnify our own importance. Our place may not be so hard to fill as we imagine. Some ruddy country lad may come with his sling and stone, and in simple faith hurl a pebble in the name of God at the giants before where we have trembled and fled. At the weaver's loom may be another David Livingston, in the market garden a Robert Moffat, at the cobbler's bench a William Carey, in the school a Charles Haddon Spurgeon. One closing thought, rues to us, and that is, in the common aspirations, longings, and desires of men; in their common origin and destiny, we find an argument for a common redemption. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Generation after generation of men and not one absolutely holy save Him who bore all our sins on the Cross, but had no sin of His own. In due time Christ died for the ungodly. The cry of all ages has been a cry for deliverance from the curse of sin. That cry found its answer at Calvary. Jesus is the only King of whom the text will never be true. He sits on an eternal throne. His crown will never lose its lustre. We sinners cannot do without the Redeemer. The gospel we proclaim is a resurection gospel. Because He lives we shall live also. ( S. Horton. ) These are the dukes of Edom. 1 Chronicles 1:54 A high order of names J. Parker, D. D. The great lesson teaches the transitoriness of all human dignity and glory. Where are the dukes of Edom now? Who knows the names of Timnah, Allah, Jetheth? How far are our own names known? What will be thought of them in the next century? Men are not to be estimated by their renown, but by them in the next goodness and their local influence. In the Christian Church we have come to a higher order of names than was ever known in secular history. Men may now be called sons of God, saints, slaves of Jesus Christ, inheritors of the world of light: let us aspire after these higher titles, for they never perish. The titles which men give soon expire: the titles which God confers are vital with His own Eternity. ( J. Parker, D. D. )

Benson Commentary 1 Chronicles 1:1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, 1 Chronicles 1:1 . Adam, Sheth, Enosh — Adam was the father of Sheth, and Sheth the father of Enosh, and so on to the sons of Noah. For brevity’s sake he only mentions the names, the rest being easily understood out of the former books. No mention is made of the posterity of Cain or Abel, nor of the other sons of Adam, because the sacred writer was only engaged to give a detail of the patriarchs, in a line from Adam to Noah. The history of the Bible was not designed as a history of the world, but as a history of the church, and of the deduction of the sacred promise of the seed of the woman. This was the peculiar glory of the Jewish nation, that they alone were able to trace their pedigree from the first man that God created, which no other nation pretended to, but abused themselves and their posterity with fabulous accounts of their originals; the people of Thessaly fancying that they sprang from stones, the Athenians, that they grew out of the earth. 1 Chronicles 1:2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, 1 Chronicles 1:3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 1 Chronicles 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 1 Chronicles 1:5 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 1 Chronicles 1:5 . The sons of Japheth — The historian, repeating the account of the replenishing the earth by the sons of Noah, begins with those that were strangers to the church, the sons of Japheth, who peopled Europe, of whom he says little, as the Jews had hitherto little or no dealings with them. He proceeds to those that had many of them been enemies to the church, and thence hastens to the line of Abraham, breaking off abruptly from all the other families of the sons of Noah, but that of Arphaxad, from whom Christ was to come. The great promise of the Messiah was transmitted from Adam to Seth, from him to Shem, from him to Eber, and so to the Jewish nation, who were intrusted above all nations with that sacred treasure, till the promise was performed, and the Messiah was come. 1 Chronicles 1:6 And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 1 Chronicles 1:7 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 1 Chronicles 1:8 The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. 1 Chronicles 1:9 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. 1 Chronicles 1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth. 1 Chronicles 1:11 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 1 Chronicles 1:12 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphthorim. 1 Chronicles 1:13 And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth, 1 Chronicles 1:14 The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, 1 Chronicles 1:14 . The Jebusite — The names which follow until 1 Chronicles 1:17 are not the names of particular persons, but of people, or nations. And all these descended from Canaan, though some of them were afterward extinct, or confounded with others of their brethren by cohabitation or mutual marriages, whereby they lost their names; which is the reason why they are no more mentioned, at least under these names. 1 Chronicles 1:15 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 1 Chronicles 1:16 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. 1 Chronicles 1:17 The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. 1 Chronicles 1:17-19 . The sons of Shem — Either the name of sons is so taken here as to include grandsons, or the children of Aram are understood before Uz, out of Genesis 10:23 , where they are expressed. Arphaxad begat — Either immediately, or mediately by his son Canaan, who is expressed Luke 3:35 . Divided — In their languages and habitations. 1 Chronicles 1:18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber. 1 Chronicles 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan. 1 Chronicles 1:20 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, 1 Chronicles 1:21 Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah, 1 Chronicles 1:22 And Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba, 1 Chronicles 1:23 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan. 1 Chronicles 1:24 Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, 1 Chronicles 1:24 . Shem, Arphaxad, &c. — Having given a brief and general account of the original of the world, and the people in it, he now returns to a more large and particular account of the genealogy of Shem, from whom the Jews were descended. 1 Chronicles 1:25 Eber, Peleg, Reu, 1 Chronicles 1:26 Serug, Nahor, Terah, 1 Chronicles 1:27 Abram; the same is Abraham. 1 Chronicles 1:28 The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael. 1 Chronicles 1:28 . The sons of Abraham — All nations but the seed of Abraham are already shaken off from this genealogy. Not that we conclude, no particular persons of any other nation but this found favour with God; multitudes will be brought to heaven out of every nation, and we may hope there were many, very many people in the world, whose names were in the book of life, though they did not spring from the loins of Abraham. 1 Chronicles 1:29 These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, 1 Chronicles 1:30 Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema, 1 Chronicles 1:31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael. 1 Chronicles 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan. 1 Chronicles 1:33 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah. 1 Chronicles 1:34 And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel. 1 Chronicles 1:35 The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah. 1 Chronicles 1:36 The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. 1 Chronicles 1:36 . And Timna — There is another Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz, Genesis 36:12 ; but this was one of his sons, though called by the same name; there being some names common both to men and women in the Hebrew and in other languages. 1 Chronicles 1:37 The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. 1 Chronicles 1:38 And the sons of Seir; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan. 1 Chronicles 1:38 . The sons of Seir — This Seir was not Esau, nor of his posterity, but the ancient lord of this country, from whom it had its name, (see Genesis 36:20 ,) whose genealogy is here set down, that it might be understood from whom Eliphaz’s concubine and the mother of Amalek sprung; and because of that affinity which was contracted between his and Esau’s posterity. Those who were not united and incorporated with them, were destroyed by them, Deuteronomy 2:12 . 1 Chronicles 1:39 And the sons of Lotan; Hori, and Homam: and Timna was Lotan's sister. 1 Chronicles 1:40 The sons of Shobal; Alian, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah. 1 Chronicles 1:41 The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Amram, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran. 1 Chronicles 1:42 The sons of Ezer; Bilhan, and Zavan, and Jakan. The sons of Dishan; Uz, and Aran. 1 Chronicles 1:43 Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 1 Chronicles 1:44 And when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:45 And when Jobab was dead, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:46 And when Husham was dead, Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith. 1 Chronicles 1:47 And when Hadad was dead, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:48 And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:49 And when Shaul was dead, Baalhanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead. 1 Chronicles 1:50 And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. 1 Chronicles 1:51 Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth, 1 Chronicles 1:52 Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon, 1 Chronicles 1:53 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, 1 Chronicles 1:54 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom. 1 Chronicles 1:54 . These are the dukes of Edom — Let us, in reading these genealogies, think of the multitudes that have gone through the world, have successively acted their parts in it, and retired into darkness. All these and all theirs had their day: many of them made a mighty noise in the world, until their day came to fall, and their place knew them no more. The paths of death are trodden paths. How soon are we to tread them! Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Chronicles 1:1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh, {e-Sword Note: 1 and 2 Chronicles were largely in topical format in the printed edition. When possible, this content has been divided by verse/chapter. Content that could not fit elsewhere was placed in the 1 and 2 Chronicles Book Comments for e-Sword.} NAMES 1 Chronicles 1:1-54 ; 1 Chronicles 2:1-55 ; 1 Chronicles 3:1-24 ; 1 Chronicles 4:1-43 ; 1 Chronicles 5:1-26 ; 1 Chronicles 6:1-81 ; 1 Chronicles 7:1-40 ; 1 Chronicles 8:1-40 ; 1 Chronicles 9:1-44 THE first nine chapters of Chronicles form, with a few slight exceptions, a continuous list of names. It is the largest extant collection of Hebrew names. Hence these chapters may be used as a text for the exposition of any spiritual significance to be derived from Hebrew names either individually or collectively. Old Testament genealogies have often exercised the ingenuity of the preacher, and the student of homiletics will, readily recollect the methods of extracting a moral from what at first sight seems a barren theme. For instance, those names of which little or nothing is recorded are held up as awful examples of wasted lives. We are asked to take warning from Mahalalel and Methuselah, who spent their long centuries so ineffectually that there was nothing to record except that they begat sons and daughters and died. Such teaching is not fairly derived from its text. The sacred writers implied no reflection upon the Patriarchs of whom they gave so short and conventional an account. Least of all could such teaching be based upon the lists in Chronicles, because the men who are there merely mentioned by name include Adam, Noah, Abraham, and other heroes of sacred story. Moreover, such teaching is unnecessary and not altogether wholesome. Very few men who are at all capable of obtaining a permanent place in history need to be spurred on by sermons; and for most people the suggestion that a man’s life is a failure unless he secures posthumous fame is false and mischievous. The Lamb’s book of life is the only record of the vast majority of honorable and useful lives; and the tendency to self-advertisement is sufficiently wide-spread and spontaneous already: it needs no pulpit stimulus. We do not think any worse of a man because his tombstone simply states his name and age, or any better because it catalogues his virtues and mentions that he attained the dignity of alderman or author. The significance of these lists of names is rather to be looked for in an opposite direction. It is not that a name and one or two commonplace incidents mean so little, but that they suggest so much. A mere parish register is not in itself attractive, but if we consider even such a list, the very names interest us and kindle our imagination. It is almost impossible to linger in a country churchyard reading the half-effaced inscriptions upon the headstones, without forming some dim picture of the character and history and even the outward semblance of the men and women who once bore the names. "For though a name is neither hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man," yet, to use a somewhat technical phrase, it connotes a man. A name implies the existence of a distinct personality, with a peculiar and unique history, and yet, on the other hand, a being with whom we are linked in close sympathy by a thousand ties of common human nature and everyday experience. In its lists of what are now mere names, the Bible seems to recognize the dignity and sacredness of bare human life. But the names in these nine chapters have also a collective significance: they stand for more than their individual owners. They are typical and representative, the names of kings, and priests, and captains; they sum up the tribes of Israel, both as a Church and a nation, down all the generations of its history. The inclusion of these names in the sacred record, as the express introduction to the annals of the Temple, and the sacred city, and the elect house of David, is the formal recognition of the sanctity of the nation and of national life. We are entirely in the spirit of the Bible when we see this same sanctity in all organized societies: in the parish, the municipality, and the state; when we attach a Divine significance to registers of electors and census returns, and claim all such lists as symbols of religious privilege and responsibility. But names do not merely suggest individuals and communities: the meanings of the names reveal the ideas of the people who used them. It has been well said that "the names of every nation are an important monument of national spirit and manners, and thus the Hebrew names bear important testimony to the peculiar vocation of this nation. No nation of antiquity has such a proportion of names of religious import." Amongst ourselves indeed the religious meaning of names has almost wholly faded away; "Christian name" is a mere phrase, and children are named after relations, or according to prevailing fashion, or after the characters of popular novels. But the religious motive can still be traced in some modern names; in certain districts of German the name "Ursula" or "Apollonia" is a sure indication that a girl is a Roman Catholic and has been named after a popular saint. The Bible constantly insists upon this religious significance, which would frequently be in the mind of the devout Israelite in giving names to his children. The Old Testament contains more than a hundred etymologies of personal names, most of which attach a religious meaning to the words explained. The etymologies of the patriarchal names -" Abraham," father of a multitude of nations; "Isaac," laughter; "Jacob,"supplanter; "Israel," prince with God-are specially familiar. The Biblical interest in edifying etymologies was maintained and developed by early commentators. Their philology was far from accurate, and very often they were merely playing upon the forms of words. But the allegorizing tendencies of Jewish and Christian expositors found special opportunities in proper names. On the narrow foundation of an etymology mostly doubtful and often impossible, Philo, and Origen, and Jerome loved to erect an elaborate structure of theological or philosophical doctrine. Philo has only one quotation from our author: "Manasseh had sons, whom his Syrian concubine bare to him, Machir; and Machir begat Gilead." { 1 Chronicles 7:14 } He quotes this verse to show that recollection is associated in a subordinate capacity with memory. The connection is not very clearly made out, but rests in some way on the meaning of Manasseh, the root of which means to forget. As forgetfulness with recollection restores our knowledge, so Manasseh with his Syrian concubine begets Machir. Recollection therefore is a concubine, an inferior and secondary quality. This ingenious trifling has a certain charm in spite of its extravagance, but in less dexterous hands the method becomes clumsy as well as extravagant. It has, however, the advantage of readily adapting itself to all tastes and opinions, so that we are not surprised when an eighteenth-century author discovers in Old Testament etymology a compendium of Trinitarian theology. Ahiah { 1 Chronicles 7:8 } is derived from ‘ehad, one, and yah, Jehovah, and is thus an assertion of the Divine unity; Reuel { 1 Chronicles 1:35 } is resolved into a plural verb with a singular Divine name for its subject: this is an indication of trinity in unity; Ahilud { 1 Chronicles 18:15 } is derived from ‘ehad, one, and galud, begotten, and signifies that the Son is only-begotten. Modern scholarship is more rational in its methods, but attaches no less importance to these ancient names, and finds in them weighty evidence on problems of criticism and theology; and before proceeding to more serious matters, we may note a few somewhat exceptional names. As pointed in the present Hebrew text, Hagarmoveth and Azmaveth { 1 Chronicles 8:36 } have a certain grim suggestiveness. Hazarmaveth, court of death, is given as the name of a descendant of Shem. It is, however, probably the name of a place transferred to an eponymous ancestor, and has been identified with Hadramawt, a district in the south of Arabia. As, however, Hadramawt is a fertile district of Arabia Felix, the name does not seem very appropriate. On the other hand, Azmaveth, "strength of death," would be very suitable for some strong death-dealing soldier. Azubah, { 1 Chronicles 2:18 } "forsaken," the name of Caleb’s wife, is capable of a variety of romantic explanations. Hazel-elponi { 1 Chronicles 4:3 } is remarkable in its mere form; and Ewald’s interpretation, "Give shade, Thou who turnest to me Thy countenance," seems rather a cumbrous signification for the name of a daughter of the house of Judah. Jushabhesed, { 1 Chronicles 3:20 } "Mercy will be renewed," as the name of a son of Zerubbabel, doubtless expresses the gratitude and hope of the Jews on their return from Babylon. Jashubi-lehem, { 1 Chronicles 4:22 } however, is curious and perplexing. The name has been interpreted "giving bread" or "turning back to Bethlehem," but the text is certainly corrupt, and the passage is one of many into which either the carelessness of scribes or the obscurity of the chronicler’s sources has introduced hopeless confusion. But the most remarkable set of names is found in 1 Chronicles 25:4 , where Giddalti and Romantiezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, Maha-zioth, are simply a Hebrew sentence meaning, "I have magnified and exalted help; sitting in distress, I have spoken visions in abundance." We may at once set aside the cynical suggestion that the author lacked names to complete a genealogy and, to save the trouble of inventing them separately, took the first sentence that came to hand and cut it up into suitable lengths, nor is it likely that a father would spread the same process over several years and adopt it for his family. This remarkable combination of names is probably due to some misunderstanding of his sources on the part of the chronicler. His parchment rolls must often have been torn and fragmentary, the writing blurred and half illegible; and his attempts to piece together obscure and ragged manuscripts naturally resulted at times in mistakes and confusion. These examples of interesting etymologies might easily be multiplied; they serve, at any rate, to indicate a rich mine of suggestive teaching. It must, however, be remembered that a name is not necessarily a personal name because it occurs in a genealogy; cities, districts, and tribes mingle freely with persons in these lists. In the same connection we note that the female names are few and far between, and that of those which do occur the "sisters" probably stand for allied and related families, and not for individuals. As regards Old Testament theology, we may first notice the light thrown by personal names on the relation of the religion of Israel to that of other Semitic peoples. Of the names in these chapters, and elsewhere, a large proportion are compounded of one or other of the Divine names. El is the first element in Elishama, Eliphelet, Eliada, etc.; it is the second in Othniel, Jehaleleel, Asareel, etc. Similarly Jehovah is represented by the initial Jeho-in Jehoshaphat, Jehoiakim, Jehoram, etc., by the final - iah in Amaziah, Azariah, Hezekiah, etc. It has been calculated that there are a hundred and ninety names beginning or ending with the equivalent of Jehovah, including most of the kings of Judah and many of the kings of Israel. Moreover, some names which have not these prefixes and affixes in their extant form are contractions of older forms which began or ended with a Divine name. Ahaz, for instance, is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as Jahuhazi- i.e. , Jehoahaz-and Nathan is probably a contracted form of Neth-aniah. There are also numerous compounds of other Divine names. Zur, rock, is found in Pedahzur, { Numbers 1:10 } Shaddai, A.V Almighty, in Ammishaddai; { Numbers 1:12 } the two are combined in Zurishaddai. { Numbers 1:6 } Melech is a Divine name in Malchiram and Malchishua. Baal occurs as a Divine name in Eshbaal and Meribbaal. Abi, father, is a Divine name in Abiram, Abinadab, etc., and probably also Ahi in Ahiram and Ammi in Amminadab. Possibly, too, the apparently simple names Melech, Zur, Baal, are contractions of longer forms in which these Divine names were prefixes or affixes. This use of Divine names is capable of very varied illustration. Modern languages have Christian and Christopher, Emmanuel, Theodosius, Theodora, etc.; names like Hermogenes and Heliogabalus are found in the classical languages. But the practice is specially characteristic of Semitic languages. Mohammedan princes are still called Abdur-rahman, servant of the Merciful, and Abdallah, servant of God; ancient Phoenician kings were named Ethbaal and Abdalonim, where alonim is a plural Divine name, and the bal in Hannibal and Hasdrubal = baal. The Assyrian and Chaldaean kings were named after the gods Sin, Nebo, Assur, Merodach, e.g. , Sin-akki-irib (Sennacherib); Nebuchadnezzar; Assur-bani-pal; Merodach-baladan. Of these Divine names El and Baal are common to Israel and other Semitic peoples, and it has been held that the Hebrew personal names preserve traces of polytheism. In any case, however, the Baal-names are comparatively few, and do not necessarily indicate that Israelites worshipped a Baal distinct from Jehovah; they may be relics of a time when Baal (Lord) was a title or equivalent of Jehovah, like the later Adonai. Other possible traces of polytheism are few and doubtful. In Baanah and Resheph we may perhaps find the obscure Phoenician deities Anath and Reshaph. On the whole, Hebrew names as compared; for instance, with Assyrian afford little or no evidence of the prevalence of polytheism. Another question concerns the origin and use of the name Jehovah. Our lists conclusively prove its free use during the monarchy, and its existence under the judges. On the other hand, its apparent presence in Jochebed, the name of the mother of Moses, seems to carry it back beyond Moses. Possibly it was a Divine name peculiar to his family or clan. Its occurrence in Yahubidi, a king of Hamath, in the time of Sargon may be due to direct Israelite influence. Hamath had frequent relations with Israel and Judah. Turning to matters of practical religion, how far do these names help us to understand the spiritual life of ancient Israel? The Israelites made constant use of El and Jehovah in their names, and we have no parallel practice. Were they then so much more religious than we are? Probably in a sense they were. It is true that the etymology and even the original significance of a name in common use are for all practical purposes quickly and entirely forgotten. A man may go through a life-time bearing the name of Christopher and never know its etymological meaning. At Cambridge and Oxford sacred names like "Jesus "and "Trinity" are used constantly and familiarly without suggesting anything beyond the colleges so called. The edifying phrase, "God encompasseth us," is altogether lost in the grotesque tavern sign "The Goat and Compasses." Nor can we suppose that the Israelite or the Assyrian often dwelt on the religious significance of the Jeho-or- iah, the Nebo, Sin, or Merodach, of current proper names. As we have seen, the sense of -iah, -el, or Jeho-was often so little present to men’s minds that contractions were formed by omitting them. Possibly because these prefixes and affixes were so common, they came to be taken for granted; it was scarcely necessary to write them, because in any case they would be understood. Probably in historic times Abi-, Ahi-, and Ammi-were no longer recognized as Divine names or titles; and yet the names which could still be recognized as compounded of El and Jehovah must have had their influence on popular feeling. They were part of the religiousness, so to speak, of the ancient East; they symbolized the constant intertwining of religious acts, and words, and thoughts with all the concerns of life. The quality of this ancient religion was very inferior to that of a devout and intelligent modern Christian; it was perhaps inferior to that of Russian peasants belonging to the Greek Church: but ancient religion pervaded life and society more consciously than modern Christianity does; it touched all classes and occasions more directly, if also more mechanically. And, again, these names were not the fossil relics of obsolete habits of thought and feeling, like the names of our churches and colleges; they were the memorials of comparatively recent acts of faith. The name "Elijah" commemorated the solemn occasion on which a father professed his own faith and consecrated a new-born child to the true God by naming his boy "Jehovah is my God." This name-giving was also a prayer; the child was placed under the protection of the deity whose name it bore. The practice might be tainted with superstition; the name would often be regarded as a kind of amulet; and yet we may believe that it could also serve to express a parent’s earnest and simple-minded faith. Modern Englishmen have developed a habit of almost complete reticence and reserve on religious matters, and this habit is illustrated by our choice of proper names. Mary, and Thomas, and James are so familiar that their Scriptural origin is forgotten, and therefore they are tolerated; but the use of distinctively Scriptural Christian names is virtually regarded as bad taste. This reticence is not merely due to increased delicacy of spiritual feeling: it is partly the result of the growth of science and of literary and historical criticism. We have become absorbed in the wonderful relations of methods and processes; we are fascinated by the ingenious mechanism of nature and society. We have no leisure to detach our thoughts from the machinery and carry them further on to its Maker and Director. Indeed, because there is so much mechanism and because it is so wonderful, we are sometimes asked to believe that the machine made itself. But this is a mere phase in the religious growth of mankind: humanity will tire of some of its new toys, and will become familiar with the rest; deeper needs and instincts will reassert themselves; and men will find themselves nearer in sentiment than they supposed to the ancient people who named their children after their God. In this and other matters the East today is the same as of old; the permanence of its custom is no inapt symbol of the permanence of Divine truth, which revolution and conquest are powerless to change. "The East bowed low before the blast In patient, deep disdain; She let the legions thunder past, And plunged in thought again." But the Christian Church is mistress of a more compelling magic than even Eastern patience and tenacity: out of the storms that threaten her, she draws new energies for service, and learns a more expressive language in which to declare the glory of God. Let us glance for a moment at the meanings of the group of Divine names given above. We have said that, in addition to Melech in Malehi-, Abi, Ahi, and Ammi are to be regarded as Divine names. One reason for this is that their use as prefixes is strictly analogous to that of El and Jeho-. We have Abijah and Ahijah as well as Elijah, Abiel and Ammiel as well as Eliel, Abiram and Ahiram as well as Jehoram; Ammishaddai compares with Zurishaddai, and Ammizabad with Jehozabad, nor would it be difficult to add many other examples. If this view be correct, Ammi will have nothing to do with the Hebrew word for "people," but will rather be connected with the corresponding Arabic word for "uncle." As the use of such terms as "brother" and "uncle" for Divine names is not consonant with Hebrew theology in its historic period, the names which contain these prefixes must have come down from earlier ages, and were used in later times without any consciousness of their original sense. Probably they were explained by new etymologies more in harmony with the spirit of the times; compare the etymology "father of a multitude of nations" given to Abraham. Even Abi-, father, in the early times to which its use as a prefix must be referred, cannot have had the full spiritual meaning which now attaches to it as a Divine title. It probably only signified the ultimate source of life. The disappearance of these religious terms from the common vocabulary and their use in names long after their significance had been forgotten are ordinary phenomena in the development of language and religion. How many of the millions who use our English names for the days of the week ever give a thought to Thor or Freya? Such phenomena have more than an antiquarian interest. They remind us that religious terms, and phrases, and formulae derive their influence and value from their adaptation to the age which accepts them: and therefore many of them will become unintelligible or even misleading to later generations. Language varies continuously, circumstances change, experience widens, and every age has a right to demand that Divine truth shall be presented in the words and metaphors that give it the clearest and most forcible expression. Many of the simple truths that are most essential to salvation admit of being stated once for all; but dogmatic theology fossilizes fast, and the bread of one generation may become a stone to the next. The history of these names illustrates yet another phenomenon. In some narrow and imperfect sense the early Semitic peoples seem to have called God "Father" and "Brother." Because the terms were limited to a narrow sense, the Israelites grew to a level of religious truth at which they could no longer use them; but as they made yet further progress they came to know more of what was meant by fatherhood and brotherhood, and gained also a deeper knowledge of God. At length the Church resumed these ancient Semitic terms; and Christians call God "Abba, Father," and speak of the Eternal Son as their elder Brother. And thus sometimes, but not always, an antique phrase may for a time seem unsuitable and misleading, and then again may prove to be the best expression for the newest and fullest truth. Our criticism of a religious formula may simply reveal our failure to grasp the wealth of meaning which its words and symbols can contain. Turning from these obsolete names to those in common use-El; Jehovah; Shaddai; Zur; Melech-probably the prevailing idea popularly associated with them all was that of strength: El, Strength in the abstract; Jehovah, strength shown in permanence and independence; Shaddai, the strength that causes terror, the Almighty from whom cometh destruction; Zur, rock, the material symbol of strength; Melech, king, the possessor of authority. In early times the first and most essential attribute of Deity is power, but with this idea of strength a certain attribute of beneficence is soon associated. The strong God is the Ally of His people; His permanence is the guarantee of their national existence; He destroys their enemies. The rock is a place of refuge; and, again, Jehovah’s people may rejoice in the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. The King leads them to battle, and gives them their enemies for a spoil. We must not, however, suppose that pious Israelites would consciously and systematically discriminate between these names, any more than ordinary Christians do between God, Lord, Father, Christ, Savior, Jesus. Their usages would be governed by changing currents of sentiment very difficult to understand and explain after the lapse of thousands of years. In the year A.D. 3000, for instance, it will be difficult for the historian of dogmatics to explain accurately why some nineteenth-century Christians preferred to speak of "dear Jesus" and others of "the Christ." But the simple Divine names reveal comparatively little; much more may be learnt from the numerous compounds they help to form. Some of the more curious have already been noticed, but the real significance of this nomenclature is to be looked for in the more ordinary and natural names. Here, as before, we can only select from the long and varied list. Let us take some of the favorite names and some of the roots most often used, almost always, be it remembered, in combination with Divine names. The different varieties of these sacred names rendered it possible to construct various personal names embodying the same idea. Also the same Divine name might be used either as prefix or affix. For instance, the idea that "God knows" is equally well expressed in the names Eliada ( El-yada’ ), Jediael ( Yada’-el ), Jehoiada ( Jeho-yada’ ), and Jedaiah ( Yada’-yah ). "God remembers" is expressed alike by Zachariah and Jozachar; " God hears" by Elishama ( El-shama’ ), Samuel (if for Shama’-el ), Ishmael (also from Shama’-el ), Shemaiah, and Ishmaiah (both from Shama’ and Yah); "God gives" by Elnathan, Nethaneel, Jonathan, and Nethaniah; " God helps" by Eliezer, Azareel, Joezer, and Azariah; " God is gracious" by Elhanan, Hananeel, Johanan, Ha-naniah, Baal-hanan, and, for a Carthaginian, Hannibal, giving us a curious connection between the Apostle of love, John ( Johanan ), and the deadly enemy of Rome. The way in which the changes are rung upon these ideas shows how the ancient Israelites loved to dwell upon them. Nestle reckons that in the Old Testament sixty-one persons have names farmed from the root nathan, to give; fifty-seven from shama, to hear; fifty-six from ‘azar, to help; forty-five from hanan, to be gracious; forty-four from zakhar, to remember. Many persons, too, bear names from the root yada’, to know. The favorite name is Zechariah, which is borne by twenty-five different persons. Hence, according to the testimony of names, the Israelites’ favorite ideas about God were that He heard, and knew, and remembered; that He was gracious, and helped men, and gave them gifts: but they loved best to think of Him as God the Giver. Their nomenclature recognizes many other attributes, but these take the first place. The value of this testimony is enhanced by its utter unconsciousness and naturalness; it brings us nearer to the average man in his religious moments than any psalm or prophetic utterance. Men’s chief interest in God was as the Giver. The idea has proved very permanent; St. James amplifies it: God is the Giver of every good and perfect gift. It lies latent in names: Theodosius, Theodore, Theodora, and Dorothea. The other favorite ideas are all related to this. God hears men’s prayers, and knows their needs, and remembers them; He is gracious, and helps them by His gifts. Could anything be more pathetic than this artless self-revelation? Men’s minds have little leisure for sin and salvation; they are kept down by the constant necessity of preserving and providing for a bare existence. Their cry to God is like the prayer of Jacob, "If Thou wilt give me bread to eat and raiment to put on!" The very confidence and gratitude that the names express imply periods of doubt and fear, when they said, "Can God prepare a table in the wilderness?" times when it seemed to them impossible that God could have heard their prayer or that He knew their misery, else why was there no deliverance? Had God forgotten to be gracious? Did He indeed remember? The names come to us as answers of faith to these suggestions of despair. Possibly these old-world saints were not more pre-occupied with their material needs than most modern Christians. Perhaps it is necessary to believe in a God who rules on earth before we can understand the Father who is in heaven. Does a man really trust in God for eternal life if he cannot trust Him for daily bread? But in any case these names provide us with very comprehensive formulae, which we are at liberty to apply as freely as we please: the God who knows, and hears, and remembers, who is gracious, and helps men, and gives them gifts. To begin with, note how in a great array of Old Testament names God is the Subject, Actor, and Worker; the supreme facts of life are God and God’s doings, not man and man’s doings, what God is to man, not what man is to God. This is a foreshadowing of the Christian doctrines of grace and of the Divine sovereignty. And again we are left to fill in the objects of the sentences for ourselves: God hears, and remembers, and gives-what? All that we have to say to Him and all that we are capable of receiving from Him. HEREDITY 1 Chronicles 1:1-54 ; 1 Chronicles 2:1-55 ; 1 Chronicles 3:1-24 ; 1 Chronicles 4:1-43 ; 1 Chronicles 5:1-26 ; 1 Chronicles 6:1-81 ; 1 Chronicles 7:1-40 ; 1 Chronicles 8:1-40 ; 1 Chronicles 9:1-44 IT has been said that Religion is the great discoverer of truth, while Science follows her slowly and after a long interval. Heredity, so much discussed just now, is sometimes treated as if its principles were a great discovery of the present century. Popular science is apt to ignore history and to mistake a fresh nomenclature for an entirely new system of truth, and yet the immense and far-reaching importance of heredity has been one of the commonplaces of thought ever since history began. Science has been anticipated, not merely by religious feeling, but by a universal instinct. In the old world political and social systems have been based upon the recognition of the principle of heredity, and religion has sanctioned such recognition. Caste in India is a religious even more than a social institution; and we use the term figuratively in reference to ancient and modern life, even when the institution has not formally existed. Without the aid of definite civil or religious law the force of sentiment and circumstances suffices to establish an informal system of caste. Thus the feudal aristocracy and guilds of the Middle Ages were not without their rough counterparts in the Old Testament. Moreover, the local divisions of the Hebrew kingdoms corresponded in theory, at any rate, to blood relationships; and the tribe, the clan, and the family had even more fixity and importance than now belong to the parish or the municipality. A man’s family history or genealogy was the ruling factor in determining his home, his occupation, and his social position. In the chronicler’s time this was especially the case with the official ministers of religion, the Temple establishment to which he himself belonged. The priests, the Levites, the singers, and doorkeepers formed castes in the strict sense of the word. A man’s birth definitely assigned him to one of these classes, to which none but the members of certain families could belong. But the genealogies had a deeper significance. Israel was Jehovah’s chosen people, His son, to whom special privileges were guaranteed by solemn covenant. A man’s claim to share in this covenant depended on his genuine Israelite descent, and the proof of such descent was an authentic genealogy. In these chapters the chronicle has taken infinite pains to collect pedigrees from all available sources and to construct a complete set of genealogies exhibiting the lines of descent of the families of Israel. His interest in this research was not merely antiquarian: he was investigating matters of the greatest social and religious importance to all the members of the Jewish community, and especially to his colleagues and friends in the Temple service. These chapters, which seem to us so dry and useless, were probably regarded by the chronicler’s contemporaries as the most important part of his work. The preservation or discovery of a genealogy was almost a matter of life and death. Witness the episode in Ezra and Nehemiah: { Ezra 2:61-63 Nehemiah 7:63-65 } "And of the priests: the children of Hobaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found; therefore they were deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the governor said unto them that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim." Cases like these would stimulate our author’s enthusiasm. As he turned over dusty receptacles, and unrolled frayed parchments, and painfully deciphered crabbed and faded script, he would be excited by the hope of discovering some mislaid genealogy that would restore outcasts, to their full status and privileges as Israelites and priests. Doubtless he had already acquired in some measure the subtle exegesis and minute casuistry that were the glory of later Rabbinism. Ingenious interpretat