Achar, the troubler of Israel. 1 Chronicles 2:7 The troubler of Israel George Venables. I have read many biographies, but never met with any which hit off a man's character in a line as this word of inspiration does. The noble and the great used frequently to suspend the "achievement" over the tomb of their departed ancestor in memorial of his renown, bearing a motto, which described the leading characteristic of the ancient founder of the family. Here is the tomb of Achar, or Achan, and here is the motto for his achievement. The tomb consists of a large heap of stones, which am injured people by God's command piled upon his ashes after they had stoned him to death, and burned his dead body with fire. What is the motto? "The troubler of Israel." What a finale to a man's life! What a record to paint on his escutcheon! I. WHAT MADE ACHAN A TROUBLER OF ISRAEL? Sin. All trouble may be traced to this. It led Achan to commit the threefold crime of disobedience, defiance of God's scrutiny, and sacrilege. His one sin brought trouble into all the camp. This is all the mere remarkable when you remember how insignificant his position was among the tribes. We die all alone, but we cannot all sin alone. Even our secret sins are public calamities, and no transgression is without its malign influence upon the common weal. II. THE TROUBLES ACHAN BROUGHT UPON HIS PEOPLE. 1. Defeat before a less powerful foe. 2. Depression of spirit, which unremedied, would he fatal to the very existence of the nation. 3. Anger from God, which would not be appeased even by the intercession of Joshua. 4. The threat of abandonment by God if they did not root out the evil from among them. ( George Venables. ) Achan, the troubler of Israel Christian Age. Why was the punishment of Achan so severe? 1. His was a terrible sin; it was a wilful disobedience; it was high treason against God; it was sacrilege; it was stealing, lying, coveting, and practically murder. 2. This sin struck at the very life of the nation. If the people could disobey God with impunity, the nation would soon be ruined, and the hope of the world be put out. 3. The course Achan took would have degraded God in the eyes of Israel and of the Gentiles. The people and cities of Canaan were rich; the Israelites were poor. Canaan had the resources of a somewhat high civilisation — gold, silver, vessels of brass and of iron; goodly Babyionish garments. Now, suppose the Lord had given them free license to plunder, to steal and hide, and appropriate all they could lay hands on? This movement for the conquest of Canaan would have become a savage, plundering, marauding expedition. 4. These fascinating spoils — these glittering prizes of gold and silver, and these ornaments of the cultured Canaanites — were linked in on every hand with idolatry. Art and wealth in Canaan, as in every other heathen nation, lent their power to augment the attractions towards idol-worship. 5. But another consideration must have great weight. The Israelites had before them the task of conquering Palestine, a task which required the utmost discipline in the army. God was the Captain, directing, through Joshua, all the campaign. It was absolutely necessary, in the interests of military discipline, to check the first buddings of that cupidity which so often characterised ancient warfare. ( Christian Age. ) Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. 1 Chronicles 2:34 Compensations J. Parker, D. D. Men should always put down after a statement of their deficiencies a statement of their possessions; thus: had no money, but heal mental power; had no external fame, but had great home repute; had no genius, but had great common sense; had no high connections of a social kind, but enjoyed easy access to heaven in prayer; had no earthly property, but was rich in ideas and impulses; was not at the head of a great circle of admirers, but was truly respected and trusted wherever known; had no health, but had great cheerfulness. Thus we must keep the two sides, so to say, parallel; if we have not one thing we have another. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) The compensations of life Leo H. Grindon. The disproportion in man's inheritances is far less than we are prone to think. If one hand of the Universal Giver be closed, the other is expanded; no one is left without his need of compensation; only in our weakness and unthankfulness we look more at the darker side of our lot, and at what appears to us the brighter side of our neighbour's. Epictetus explains the mystery in part: "It is not fortune that is blind, but ourselves." Whatever be our lot, if man will but just concede that that must be best for him which the Best of Beings has ordained, life thenceforward has a solace which no fortune can wrest away. ( Leo H. Grindon. ) And the families of the Scribes which dwelt at Jabez 1 Chronicles 2:55 Scribes James Wolfendale. : — I. A NOBLE CALLING. To study and expound sacred books, inform society, and spread the will of God. II. A FAMILY CALLING. "The families of the scribes." mere ditary pursuits in all communities. III. A NEEDFUL CALLING. A literary profession useful to society. A learned ministry the want of the times. ( James Wolfendale. )

Benson Commentary 1 Chronicles 2:1 These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, 1 Chronicles 2:2 Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. 1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. 1 Chronicles 2:3 . The sons of Judah — He puts Judah first, because the best part of the right of the firstborn, namely, the dominion, was conferred on him, Genesis 49:8 ; in consequence of which, his tribe obtained a pre- eminence among, and a kind of superiority over the rest, even before the time of David. And from David’s time, it is without doubt, that till the Babylonish captivity a kingly power continued in this tribe; Zerubbabel, also, who was their leader, when they returned to their own land, was of the same tribe. The chief reason, however, why the genealogy of Judah is set down first, is because the Messiah was to descend from him. 1 Chronicles 2:4 And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five. 1 Chronicles 2:5 The sons of Pharez; Hezron, and Hamul. 1 Chronicles 2:6 And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all. 1 Chronicles 2:6 . And Dara — If these be the same who are mentioned as the sons of Mahol, ( 1 Kings 4:31 ,) either the same man had two names, Zerah and Mahol, as was usual among the Hebrews, or one of these was their immediate father, and the other their grandfather. These are named, because they were the glory of their father’s house. When the Holy Ghost would magnify the wisdom of Solomon, he saith, he was wiser than these four men. That four brothers should be so eminent, was a rare thing. 1 Chronicles 2:7 And the sons of Carmi; Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed. 1 Chronicles 2:7 . The sons of Carmi — This man is here mentioned, because he was the son of Zimri, who was also called Zabdi, Joshua 7:18 . Achar, the troubler of Israel — He who in Joshua 7. is called Achan, is here, by a small variation, elegantly and significantly called Achar, which means troubler: because he had brought Israel into great danger and distress, by the sin he committed. 1 Chronicles 2:8 And the sons of Ethan; Azariah. 1 Chronicles 2:9 The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai. 1 Chronicles 2:9-10 . And Ram — Who is mentioned in the genealogy of our Saviour, ( Matthew 1:3-4 ,) and called Aram. Nashon, prince of the children of Judah — Namely, when, being come out of Egypt, they pitched under their several standards, Numbers 2:3 . 1 Chronicles 2:10 And Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; 1 Chronicles 2:11 And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz, 1 Chronicles 2:12 And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, 1 Chronicles 2:13 And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 . Eliab — Called also Elihu, 1 Chronicles 27:18 , unless that was another son of Jesse, as some think, not mentioned elsewhere; which would make the number to be eight, according to 1 Samuel 16:10 ; 1 Samuel 17:12 . Or that Elihu, although there called the brother of David, might perhaps only be his kinsman, according to the usual language of Scripture. David the seventh — David was certainly the youngest son of Jesse, 1 Samuel 16:11 . And if, as seems probable, one of them died soon after the time when they were said to he eight, he would of course be reckoned as the seventh. 1 Chronicles 2:14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 1 Chronicles 2:15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 1 Chronicles 2:16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 1 Chronicles 2:17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite. 1 Chronicles 2:17-18 . Jether the Ishmaelite — By birth or habitation, but by profession an Israelite, 2 Samuel 17:25 . And her sons — The sons of Azubah, who is by way of distinction called his wife, when Jerioth probably was only his concubine, and, it may seem, barren: therefore, upon Azubah’s death he married another wife, 1 Chronicles 2:19 . And those other sons of this Caleb, mentioned 1 Chronicles 2:42 , are his sons by some other wife distinct from all these. 1 Chronicles 2:18 And Caleb the son of Hezron begat children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth: her sons are these; Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon. 1 Chronicles 2:19 And when Azubah was dead, Caleb took unto him Ephrath, which bare him Hur. 1 Chronicles 2:20 And Hur begat Uri, and Uri begat Bezaleel. 1 Chronicles 2:21 And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was threescore years old; and she bare him Segub. 1 Chronicles 2:21 . The father of Gilead — It is doubtful whether the word Gilead is here the name of a man, or of the country so called: if it be the latter, the expression means, the prince of Gilead, as the word father often signifies: if the former, the Gilead intended must have been a person of noted valour, probably the great champion in those parts. 1 Chronicles 2:22 And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead. 1 Chronicles 2:23 And he took Geshur, and Aram, with the towns of Jair, from them, with Kenath, and the towns thereof, even threescore cities. All these belonged to the sons of Machir the father of Gilead. 1 Chronicles 2:23 . All these belonged to the sons of Machir — Partly to his own sons, and partly to his son-in-law Jair, who by reason of that dear affection which was between them, and his forsaking his own tribe and kindred to fight for them, and to dwell with them, is here reckoned as his own son. 1 Chronicles 2:24 And after that Hezron was dead in Calebephratah, then Abiah Hezron's wife bare him Ashur the father of Tekoa. 1 Chronicles 2:24 . The father of Tekoa — A known place, of which he is termed the father, because he was either the progenitor of the people who inhabited it, or their prince and ruler, or the builder of the city. 1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron were, Ram the firstborn, and Bunah, and Oren, and Ozem, and Ahijah. 1 Chronicles 2:26 Jerahmeel had also another wife, whose name was Atarah; she was the mother of Onam. 1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the firstborn of Jerahmeel were, Maaz, and Jamin, and Eker. 1 Chronicles 2:28 And the sons of Onam were, Shammai, and Jada. And the sons of Shammai; Nadab, and Abishur. 1 Chronicles 2:29 And the name of the wife of Abishur was Abihail, and she bare him Ahban, and Molid. 1 Chronicles 2:30 And the sons of Nadab; Seled, and Appaim: but Seled died without children. 1 Chronicles 2:31 And the sons of Appaim; Ishi. And the sons of Ishi; Sheshan. And the children of Sheshan; Ahlai. 1 Chronicles 2:31 . The sons of Appaim, Ishi — The plural number is often used, when one son or daughter only is spoken of, for in that one, all the posterity are comprehended. Ahlai — It is plain from 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 , that this Ahlai was not a son, but a daughter. 1 Chronicles 2:32 And the sons of Jada the brother of Shammai; Jether, and Jonathan: and Jether died without children. 1 Chronicles 2:33 And the sons of Jonathan; Peleth, and Zaza. These were the sons of Jerahmeel. 1 Chronicles 2:34 Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. 1 Chronicles 2:34 . But daughters — We read of no more than one daughter that he had: but the writer speaks in the plural number, as before, 1 Chronicles 2:31 . An Egyptian, whose name was Jarha — To whom, as being a proselyte to the Jewish religion, and a faithful servant, his master Sheshan first gave his freedom, and then his daughter in marriage. 1 Chronicles 2:35 And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife; and she bare him Attai. 1 Chronicles 2:36 And Attai begat Nathan, and Nathan begat Zabad, 1 Chronicles 2:37 And Zabad begat Ephlal, and Ephlal begat Obed, 1 Chronicles 2:38 And Obed begat Jehu, and Jehu begat Azariah, 1 Chronicles 2:39 And Azariah begat Helez, and Helez begat Eleasah, 1 Chronicles 2:40 And Eleasah begat Sisamai, and Sisamai begat Shallum, 1 Chronicles 2:41 And Shallum begat Jekamiah, and Jekamiah begat Elishama. 1 Chronicles 2:42 Now the sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were , Mesha his firstborn, which was the father of Ziph; and the sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron. 1 Chronicles 2:43 And the sons of Hebron; Korah, and Tappuah, and Rekem, and Shema. 1 Chronicles 2:44 And Shema begat Raham, the father of Jorkoam: and Rekem begat Shammai. 1 Chronicles 2:45 And the son of Shammai was Maon: and Maon was the father of Bethzur. 1 Chronicles 2:45 . The father of Beth-zur — A place in Judah, ( Joshua 15:58 ,) of which this Maon was the founder. The same is the meaning of the word father in several of the following verses. Madmannah, Machbenah, Gibea, &c, being the names not of persons, but of places. 1 Chronicles 2:46 And Ephah, Caleb's concubine, bare Haran, and Moza, and Gazez: and Haran begat Gazez. 1 Chronicles 2:47 And the sons of Jahdai; Regem, and Jotham, and Geshan, and Pelet, and Ephah, and Shaaph. 1 Chronicles 2:48 Maachah, Caleb's concubine, bare Sheber, and Tirhanah. 1 Chronicles 2:49 She bare also Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah, and the father of Gibea: and the daughter of Caleb was Achsah. 1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim, 1 Chronicles 2:51 Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader. 1 Chronicles 2:52 And Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim had sons; Haroeh, and half of the Manahethites. 1 Chronicles 2:53 And the families of Kirjathjearim; the Ithrites, and the Puhites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; of them came the Zareathites, and the Eshtaulites. 1 Chronicles 2:53 . The families of Kirjath-jearim; the Ithrites, &c. — The inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim were divided into several families, as Kimchi interprets it, and these here mentioned were the heads of families, denominated from Ithra or Jether, and Puhah, &c. As from Jimni came the family of the Jimnites, and from Beriah the Beriites, in Numbers 26:44 . Of them came the Zareathites, &c. — Zarah and Eshtaul were two cities in the tribe of Judah, which were built by two persons of Kirjath-jearim of this name, who inhabited these places, and left two great families, who were from them called Zareathites and Eshtaulites. 1 Chronicles 2:54 The sons of Salma; Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Ataroth, the house of Joab, and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites. 1 Chronicles 2:54 . The sons of Salma; Beth-lehem — That is, the inhabitants of Beth-lehem: and so of Ataroth, and the house of Joab, or, as it should rather be rendered, Beth-joab, for the writer is not speaking of a family, but of a place. The people of those towns, and the Manahethites, and the Zorites, were all the descendants of this Salma, the son of Caleb. So that, it appears, he had a very numerous posterity. 1 Chronicles 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab. 1 Chronicles 2:55 . The families of the scribes — Either civil, who were public notaries, that wrote and signed legal instruments; or ecclesiastical. And these were either Levites or Simeonites, or rather Kenites, and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but because they dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Chronicles 2:1 These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, {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 casui