Now the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel. 1 Chronicles 5:1, 2 Reuben's rights transferred to Joseph J. Parker, D. D. This incident is worth dwelling upon, only because it elucidates a special phase of the Divine government. God is not bound by arbitrary laws. Primogeniture can be changed in the court of heaven. Conduct is the only absolute guarantee of real and enduring primogeniture. "Once in grace, always in grace," may be a glorious truth, but everything depends upon what is meant by being "in grace." They are not all Israel that are called Israel. We can only prove that we were once in grace by continually living in grace. Any vital breach in the continuance will throw discredit upon the supposed reality of the origin. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) And of him came the Chief Ruler. 1 Chronicles 5:2 The Chief Ruler Joseph Irons. I read of "the rulers of the darkness of this world"; "the rulers of synagogues"; the rulers that "set themselves against the Lord and against His Anointed"; but none of them are "Chief." Christ is the "Chief Ruler." I. HIS APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE ( Proverbs 8:22-31 ; Psalm 2:6-9 ). 1. He rules in the Church. 2. He rules in the hearts of His people. II. HIS ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THAT OFFICE. 1. Infinite wisdom. 2. Invincible power. 3. Order. III. THE MERCIES UNFOLDED IN IT. 1. By it is maintained the truth of God. 2. His empire is secured through it. He must rule until every enemy submits ( Psalm 72:11 ; Isaiah 11:7 ). 3. Triumphs are secured to us and repeatedly realised by our Chief Ruler. (1) Over temptations ( 1 Corinthians 10:13 ). (2) Over every difficulty in providence ( Isaiah 13:16 ). ( Joseph Irons. ) And they were helped against them. 1 Chronicles 5:20 Helped Sword and Trowel. We are like William of Orange, with a few followers and an empty purse, making war against the master of half the world with the mines of Peru for a treasury. But like William, too, when questioned concerning our resources, we can reply, "Before we took up this cause we entered into close alliance with the King of kings." ( Sword and Trowel. ) Because the war was of God. 1 Chronicles 5:22 God's war J. Parker, D. D. When a man fights against himself, in his lusts, passions, and unauthorised aspirations, he fights a war approved of God, and if he fights that war in the name of God he shall be none other than a victor at the close. When a man fights for the poor, the oppressed, the helpless, he is engaged in a battle over which God holds the banner, and the holding of that banner is the guarantee of triumph. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) The war is of God In speaking on temperance principles and trying to help and encourage temperance workers, this story of Bible history will well illustrate our theme. Consider: I. THE WARRIORS. 1. They were courageous men — "valiant men," sons of valour as the original has it. 2. They were skilful. 3. They were united. II. THE WEAPONS WHICH THESE WARRIORS USED. 1. The buckler. This was a weapon of defence, a small hand shield that was fastened to the wrist or to the hand itself, with which the warriors parried the blows of their enemies. "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." 2. The sword. If temperance workers would take the Bible as their sword, they would get on better than with the wooden swords which so many are inclined to use. 3. Bows and arrows. The spiritual parallel is the "arrow of conviction." III. THEIR WARFARE. It was distinguished — 1. By faith.(1) Personal. They trusted in God; we must also have a personal faith in Christ as our Saviour.(2) Also in the power of the gospel to change the hearts and lives of men. 2. By prayer. "They cried to God in the battle." IV. THE VICTORY. ( Thomas Spurgeon. ) And they transgressed against the God of their fathers. 1 Chronicles 5:25 The transgressions of the people J. Parker, D. D. I. If we turn to the Book of Kings we shall be surprised to find how the fatal sin of Israel was often of an intellectual kind, as distinguished from the baser iniquities which corrupt and overthrow the soul. There were three instances in which the intellectual sins of the people were conspicuous — 1. In the worship of the holy places. 2. In adoration of the heavenly bodies. 3. In the practice of magic and divination.There we find nothing of adultery, drunkenness, theft, or licentiousness of any kind. There are sins and sins. One man is simply a sinner of the coarse type, a criminal seen and known of all men and cast out by society; another man sins intellectually — that is to say he mentally deposes God, and more or less secretly endeavours to live without Him, never breaking any of the great social commandments, and thereby forfeiting social confidence, yet all the while committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. In this way men write their own bibles, invent their own deities, banish from the mind all the old orthodoxies, and in hidden vanity walk after the council of their own hearts. ( J. Parker, D. D. )

Benson Commentary 1 Chronicles 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. 1 Chronicles 5:1 . The son of Israel — This is added emphatically, because the sons of Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim were treated as if they had been the immediate sons of Jacob. The genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright — This is the second reason which showeth both why Reuben’s genealogy was not first mentioned, and if another tribe was to be ranked before it, why that was Judah, and not Joseph, because the order of their genealogy was not to be ruled by the birthright, but by a higher privilege, which was given to Judah. 1 Chronicles 5:2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's:) 1 Chronicles 5:2 . For Judah — Not the person, (for in person Joseph prevailed,) but the tribe of Judah. Prevailed — Excelled the other tribes, especially in the following privilege. And of him — Rather, For of him, as the Hebrew ? , vau, is often used: this being a reason of the foregoing assertion, or declaration, showing wherein he did prevail. Came the chief ruler — The government was, by God’s promise and appointment, to be seated chiefly and most durably in that tribe, first in David and his successors, and then in the Messiah, who sprang out of Judah, ( Hebrews 7:14 ,) which was a far greater privilege than the birthright. But, or although, the birthright was Joseph’s — So this prevents or removes an objection to Judah’s precedency taken from the birthright. 1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons, I say , of Reuben the firstborn of Israel were , Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi. 1 Chronicles 5:4 The sons of Joel; Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son, 1 Chronicles 5:5 Micah his son, Reaia his son, Baal his son, 1 Chronicles 5:6 Beerah his son, whom Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria carried away captive : he was prince of the Reubenites. 1 Chronicles 5:7 And his brethren by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was reckoned, were the chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah, 1 Chronicles 5:7-8 . And his brethren — The other sons of Reuben, and their posterity. Were the chief — Hebrew, the head: each was the head of his family. Who dwelt in Aroer, even, &c. — Namely, the Reubenites, all those here before mentioned, as appears, both by the following verses, which relate to the whole tribe, and by the agreement of this description of their inheritance with that Joshua 13:15-16 . 1 Chronicles 5:8 And Bela the son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Joel, who dwelt in Aroer, even unto Nebo and Baalmeon: 1 Chronicles 5:9 And eastward he inhabited unto the entering in of the wilderness from the river Euphrates: because their cattle were multiplied in the land of Gilead. 1 Chronicles 5:9 . And eastward he inhabited — That is, the tribe of Reuben. Unto the entering in of the wilderness, &c. — From Jordan and the wilderness, beyond it unto Euphrates. Or, of the wilderness, which lies toward, or reacheth to the river Euphrates — Namely, the great wilderness of Kedemoth, ( Deuteronomy 2:26 ,) which was extended far and wide toward Euphrates: for that was the eastern border of Reuben’s possession, and not Euphrates, to which their habitation never reached. Because their cattle were multiplied — Which forced them to enlarge their habitation as far as they could toward Euphrates. 1 Chronicles 5:10 And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the east land of Gilead. 1 Chronicles 5:10 . In the days of Saul they made war — The Gadites and Manassites joining with them in the war, 1 Chronicles 5:18-19 . With the Hagarites — The Ishmaelites who dwelt in Arabia Deserta. They dwelt in their tents — The Israelites took possession of their lands, and tents or houses, which lay eastward from the land of Gilead. Thus God fulfilled his promise to his people: he cast out the enemy from before them by little and little, and gave them their land as they had occasion for it. 1 Chronicles 5:11 And the children of Gad dwelt over against them, in the land of Bashan unto Salchah: 1 Chronicles 5:12 Joel the chief, and Shapham the next, and Jaanai, and Shaphat in Bashan. 1 Chronicles 5:12 . Joel the chief — The prince of the tribe, or, at least, of the family, when they were numbered, namely, in the days of Jotham, 1 Chronicles 5:17 . In Bashan — That is, either who dwelt in the city of Bashan, or who abode in Bashan to defend the city and country, when their brethren went out to war against the Hagarenes, 1 Chronicles 5:19 . 1 Chronicles 5:13 And their brethren of the house of their fathers were , Michael, and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven. 1 Chronicles 5:14 These are the children of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz; 1 Chronicles 5:14-15 . These are the children of Abihail — These seven last named. Ahi, chief of the house of their fathers — Ahi was the head or chief of the houses or families of those seven named 1 Chronicles 5:13 . 1 Chronicles 5:15 Ahi the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of the house of their fathers. 1 Chronicles 5:16 And they dwelt in Gilead in Bashan, and in her towns, and in all the suburbs of Sharon, upon their borders. 1 Chronicles 5:16 . They dwelt in Gilead — That is, the children or tribe of Gad inhabited a part of Gilead, the Reubenites and Manassites dwelling in other parts of it, Deuteronomy 3:12 . In Bashan — In the land of Bashan, as is said, 1 Chronicles 5:11 . And in her towns — In some of her cities and towns. In all the suburbs of Sharon — Not that Sharon in Canaan, but that to the east of Jordan, namely, in the fields and pasture-grounds of it. Upon their borders — The borders of Gilead and Bashan. For Gilead, properly so called, or the greatest part of it, belonged to the Reubenites, and the greatest part of Bashan to the Manassites; and the Gadites, whose habitation was between these two tribes, had those parts of both these countries which lay toward their borders. 1 Chronicles 5:17 All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel. 1 Chronicles 5:17 . In the days of Jotham king of Judah — Who, reigning long, partly in his father’s days, and partly by himself, and being at leisure from wars and troubles, thought this a fit season to examine the state of his people. And in the days of Jeroboam — Probably Jeroboam the second, of whom see 2 Kings 13:13-14 . This does not imply that Jotham and Jeroboam reigned at the same time; but only that in their several reigns this account was taken. 1 Chronicles 5:18 The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war, were four and forty thousand seven hundred and threescore, that went out to the war. 1 Chronicles 5:18-20 . The sons of Reuben, &c. — These three tribes, or at least so many of them as made a great army, joined their forces together, consisting of their best soldiers, to invade the country of the Hagarites. They were helped against them — Against the Hagarites, who, it seems, fought stoutly; but God assisted the Israelites, enduing them with extraordinary courage and success, in consequence of their crying to him, and putting their trust in him, in his power, mercy, and faithfulness to his promise. 1 Chronicles 5:19 And they made war with the Hagarites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and Nodab. 1 Chronicles 5:20 And they were helped against them, and the Hagarites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with them: for they cried to God in the battle, and he was intreated of them; because they put their trust in him. 1 Chronicles 5:21 And they took away their cattle; of their camels fifty thousand, and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand, and of asses two thousand, and of men an hundred thousand. 1 Chronicles 5:21 . Of their camels fifty thousand — For camels were very numerous in Arabia, being used in war and for burdens, &c., and being very patient of thirst, and therefore most fit for those hot and dry countries. Of men a hundred thousand — Whom they took prisoners, and either used as slaves, or sold them for such. 1 Chronicles 5:22 For there fell down many slain, because the war was of God. And they dwelt in their steads until the captivity. 1 Chronicles 5:22 . For there fell down many slain — Besides those taken captive, a great number were slain in the battle. Because the war was of God — Undertaken in his fear, and carried on in a dependance on him. Then we may expect to prosper in any enterprise, and then only, when we take God along with us. And they dwelt in their steads — Most or all of those valiant men who were engaged in this war, who were forty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty, ( 1 Chronicles 5:18 ,) settled themselves in the country which they had conquered, and remained there until the captivity, of which see 2 Kings 15:29 ; 2 Kings 17:6 . 1 Chronicles 5:23 And the children of the half tribe of Manasseh dwelt in the land: they increased from Bashan unto Baalhermon and Senir, and unto mount Hermon. 1 Chronicles 5:23 . The half-tribe of Manasseh — Having spoken of the Reubenites, ( 1 Chronicles 5:3-10 ,) and next of the Gadites, ( 1 Chronicles 5:11 , &c.,) he now comes to the Manassites. Dwelt in the land — In the same country with the Reubenites and Gadites, on the other side of Jordan, namely, in the northern part of that land. 1 Chronicles 5:24 And these were the heads of the house of their fathers, even Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and Jahdiel, mighty men of valour, famous men, and heads of the house of their fathers. 1 Chronicles 5:25 And they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God destroyed before them. 1 Chronicles 5:25 . They transgressed against the God of their fathers — Had they kept close to God and their duty, they would have continued to enjoy both their ancient lot and their new conquests; but lying upon the borders, and conversing with the neighbouring nations, they learned their idolatrous usages, and transmitted the infection to the other tribes: and for this God had a controversy with them. 1 Chronicles 5:26 And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day. 1 Chronicles 5:26 . The God of Israel — Who had been a husband to Israel, and whose jealousy burned like fire, when Israel went a whoring after other gods. Stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, &c. — That is, so governed his counsels and affections, that he brought his forces against this people rather than others. God served his own purposes by the designs of those ambitious monarchs, employed them first to chastise those revolters, and when that did not reduce them, wholly to root them out. These tribes were first placed, and they were first displaced. They would have the best land, not considering that it lay most exposed. They who are governed more by sense than by reason or faith in their inclinations and choices, may expect to fare accordingly. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Chronicles 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. -54{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.} -54 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