Holy Bible

The sons of Judah. 1 Chronicles 4 Survey of the genealogy James Wolfendale. I. HOW GREAT THE OBSCURITY OF MOST MEN! II. WHAT FOLLY TO SEEK PLACE AND POWER ONLY HERE! III. HOW NEEDFUL TO SECURE RENOWN HEREAFTER! "Rejoice that your names are written in heaven," said the dying Haller, when friends congratulated him on the honour of receiving a visit from the Emperor Joseph II. ( James Wolfendale. ) And Jabez was more honourable than his brethren. 1 Chronicles 4:9, 10 Jabez H. Melvill, B. D. We know nothing whatsoever of the Jabez here commemorated beyond what we find in these two verses. But this is enough to mark him out as worthy, in no ordinary degree, of being admired and imitated. There is a depth and a comprehensiveness in the registered prayer of this unknown individual — unknown except from that prayer — which should suffice to make him a teacher of the righteous in every generation. Let us now take the several parts of the text in succession, commenting upon each and searching out the lessons which may be useful to ourselves. The first verse contains a short account of Jabez; the second is occupied by his prayer. Now there is no denying that we are short-sighted beings, so little able to look into the future that we constantly miscalculate as to what would be for our good, anticipating evil from what is working for benefit, and reckoning upon benefit from that which may prove fraught with nothing but evil. How frequently does that which we have baptized with our tears make the countenance sunny with smiles! how frequently, again, does that which we have welcomed with smiles wring from us tears! We do not know the particular reasons which influenced the mother of Jabez to call him by that name, a name which means "sorrowful." We are merely told, "His mother called his name Jabez, saying, Because I bare him with sorrow." Whether it were that she brought forth this son with more than common anguish, or whether, as it may have been, the time of his birth were the time of her widowhood, the mother evidently felt but little of a mother's joy, and looked on her infant with forebodings and fears. Perhaps it could hardly have been her own bodily suffering which made her fasten on the boy a dark and gloomy appellation, for, the danger past, she would rather have given a name commemorative of deliverance, remembering "no more her anguish for joy that a man was born into the world." Indeed, when Rachel bare Benjamin she called his name Benoni, that is, "the son of my sorrow"; but then it was "as her soul was in departing, for she died." We may well, therefore, suppose that the mother of Jabez had deeper and more lasting sorrows to register in the name of her boy than those of the giving him birth. And whatsoever may have been the cause, whether domestic affliction or public calamity, we may consider the woman as having bent in bitterness over her new-born child, having only tears to give him as his welcome to the world, and feeling it impossible to associate with him even a hope of happiness. She had probably looked with different sentiments on her other children. She had clasped them to her breast with all a mother's gladness. But with Jabez it was all gloom; the mother felt as if she could never be happy again: this boy brought nothing but an accession of care. And yet the history of the family is gathered into the brief sentence, "Jabez was more honourable than his brethren." Nothing is told us of his brethren, except that they were less honourable than himself; they, too, may have been excellent, and perhaps as much is implied, but Jabez took the lead, and whether or not the youngest in years, surpassed every other in piety and renown. Oh, if the mother lived to see the manhood of her sons, how strangely must the name Jabez, a name probably given in a moment of despondency and faithlessness, have fallen on her earl She may then have regretted the gloomy and ominous name, feeling as though it reproached her for having yielded to her grief, and allowed herself to give way to dreary forebodings. It may have seemed to her as a standing memorial of her want of confidence in God, and of the falseness of human calculations. And is not this brief notice of the mother of Jabez full of warning and admonition to ourselves? How ready are we to give the name Jabez to persons or things which, could we but look into God's purpose, or repose on His promise, we might regard as designed to minister permanently to our security and happiness. "All these things," said the patriarch Jacob, "are against me," as one trial after another fell to his lot. And yet, as you all know, it was by and through these gloomy dealings that a merciful God was providing for the sustenance of the patriarch and his household, for their support and aggrandisement in a season of extraordinary pressure. Thus it continually happens in regard of ourselves. We give the sorrowful title to that which is designed for the beneficent end. Judging only by present appearances, allowing our fears and feelings rather than our faith to take the estimate or fix the character of occurrences, we look with gloom on our friends and with melancholy on our sources of good. Sickness, we call it Jabez, though it may be sent to minister to our spiritual health; poverty, we call it Jabez, though coming to help us to the possession of heavenly riches; bereavement, we call it Jabez, though designed to graft us more closely into the household of God. Oh for a better judgment! or rather, oh for a simpler faith! We cannot, indeed, see the end from the beginning, and therefore cannot be sure that what rises in cloud will set in vermilion and gold; but we need not take upon ourselves to give the dark name, as though we could not be deceived in regard of the nature. Let us derive this lesson from the concise but striking narrative in the first verse of our text. Let us neither look confidently on what promises best, nor despairingly on what wears the most threatening appearance. God often wraps up the withered leaf of disappointment in the bright purple bud, and as often unfolds the golden flower of enjoyment in the nipped and blighted shoot. Experience is full of evidence that there is no depending on appearances. If, in a spirit of repining or unbelief, you brand as Jabez what may be but a blessing in disguise, no marvel if sometimes, in just anger and judgment, He allow the title to prove correct, and suffer not this Jabez, this child born in sorrow, to become to you as otherwise it might, more honourable, more profitable than any of its brethren. But let us now turn to the prayer of Jabez. We ought not to examine the prayer without pausing to observe to whom it is addressed. It is not stated that Jabez called on God, but on "the God of Israel." There are few things more significant than the difference in the manner in which God is addressed by saints under the old and under the new dispensation. Patriarchs pray to God as the God of their fathers; apostles pray to Him as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In both forms of address there is an intimation of the same fact, that we need something to encourage us in approaching unto God; that exposed as we are to His just wrath for our sins, we can have no confidence in speaking to Him as to absolute Deity. There must be something to lean upon, some plea to urge, otherwise we can but shrink from the presence of One so awful in His gloriousness. We must, then, have some title with which to address God — some title which, interfering not with His majesty or His mysteriousness, may yet place Him under a character which shall give hope to the sinful as they prostrate themselves before Him. We need not say that under the gospel dispensation this title should be that which is used by St. Paul, "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Having such a Mediator through whom to approach, there is no poor supplicant who may not come with boldness to the mercy-seat. But under earlier dispensations, when the mediatorial office was but imperfectly made known, men had to seize on other pleas and encouragements; and then it was a great thing that they could address God as you continually find Him addressed, as the God of Israel, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. The title assured them that God was ready to hear prayer and to answer it. They went before God, thronged, as it were, with remembrances of mercies bestowed, deliverances vouchsafed, evils averted: how could they fear that God was too great to be addressed, too occupied to reply, or too stern to show kindness, when they bore in mind how He had shielded their parents, hearkened to their cry, and proved Himself unto them "a very present help" in all time of trouble? Ah, and though, under the new dispensation, "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" be the great character under which God should be addressed by us in prayer, there is no need for our altogether dropping the title, the God of our fathers. It might often do much to cheer a sorrowful heart, and to encourage a timid, to address God as the God of our fathers — the God in whom my parents trusted. And what did Jabez pray for? for great things — great, if you suppose him to have spoken only as an heir of the temporal Canaan, greater if you ascribe to him acquaintance with the mercies of redemption. "Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed." Lay the emphasis on that word "indeed." Many things pass for blessings which are not; to as many more we deny, though we ought to give the character. There is a blessing in appearance which is not also a blessing in reality; and conversely, the reality may exist where the appearance is wanting. The man in prosperity appears to have, the man in adversity to be without a blessing — yet how often does God bless by withholding! And Jabez goes on, "That Thou wouldest enlarge my coast." He probably speaks as one who had to win from the enemy his portion of the promised land. He knew that, as the Lord said to Joshua, "there remained yet very much land to be possessed"; it was not, then, necessarily as a man desirous of securing to himself a broader inheritance, it may have been as one who felt jealous that the idolater should still defile what God had set apart for His people, that he entreated the enlargement of his coast. And a Christian may use the same prayer; he, too, has to ask that his coast may be enlarged. Who amongst us has yet taken possession of one-half the territory assigned him by God? Our privileges as Christians, as members of an apostolical Church, as heirs of the kingdom of heaven, how are these practically under-valued, how little are they realised, how sluggishly appropriated! What districts of unpossessed territory are there in the Bible! how much of that blessed book has been comparatively unexamined by us! We have our favourite parts, and give only an occasional and cursory notice to the rest. How little practical use do we make of God's promises! What need, then, for the prayer, "Oh that Thou wouldest enlarge my coast"! I would not be circumscribed in spiritual things. I would not live always within these narrow bounds. There are bright and glorious tracts beyond. It is a righteous covetousness, this for an enlargement of coast; for he has done little, we might almost say nothing, in religion, who can be content with what he has done. It is a holy ambition, this which pants for an ampler territory. But are we only to pray? are we not also to struggle, for the enlargement of our coasts? Indeed we are: observe how Jabez proceeds, "And that Thine hand might be with me." He represents himself as arming for the enlargement of his coast, but as knowing all the while that "the battle is the Lord's." There is one more petition in the prayer of him who, named with a dark and inauspicious name, yet grew to be "more honourable than his brethren": "That Thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me." "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Jabez prayed not for the being kept from evil, but kept from the being grieved by evil. And there is a vast difference between the being visited by evil and grieved by evil. He is grieved by evil who does not receive it meekly and submissively, as the chastisement of his heavenly Father. He is grieved by evil whom evil injures, in place of benefits — which latter is always God's purpose in His permission or appointment. He is grieved by evil whom it drives into sin, and to whom, therefore, it furnishes cause of bitter repentance. You see, then, that Jabez showed great spiritual discernment in casting his prayer into this particular form. We, too, should pray, not absolutely that God would keep us from evil, but that He would so keep it from us, or us from it, that it may not grieve us. ( H. Melvill, B. D. ) The prayer of Jabez T. Binney. Many comparisons have at times been instituted, and I think not altogether without reason, between this book as the work of God and the world as the production of God; such, for instance, as that what is necessary and essential lies amply upon the surface of both. Analogies have sometimes been gathered from the mixture that there is in Scripture in the developments of the character of God; sometimes all that is awful, and sometimes all that is benignant. So in the material world there is the same mixture in the development and display of the Divine character and perfections. Sometimes, again, an analogy, not I think altogether fanciful, has been supposed to exist between this book and the world, in that there are some parts of it that seem luxuriant and beautiful — some parts of the book in which every verse and every word is like a flower springing up under your feet, or like the shade of a beautiful vegetation around you, or like an exhibition of the magnificence and loveliness of vegetable nature, while other parts appear sterile and barren, with rocks on every side. When we look at this barren catalogue of names, when we look at what is here presented, we seem to have got into one of those parts of Scripture in which there is very little to delight the eye or to refresh the heart, just as sometimes we may be passing through some sterile part in the scenery of this world. What is suggested by what we see in some of these barren spots of nature? Why, just this — that we there get a view of the rocks, of the bands and the pillars of our earth, that bind it and keep it together, and make it what it is, and which are essential and necessary for the support of all the earth, and the soil by which is supported and displayed in other parts the beauty and sublimity of vegetation. So it is here; these parts of the Bible are just representations to us of some of those barren rocks, you may say, but still those rocks which run throughout Scripture, those genealogies which are connected with all that is important in the history of the Messiah and the fulfilment of prophecy. In looking at the passage we observe that with respect to this Jabez we really know nothing but what is combined in these two verses; there is no reference to him in any other part of Scripture. He was unquestionably, I suppose, from the position in which he stands, of the tribe of Judah; as this is the genealogy of Judah. We know not precisely from the passage who were his parents; what particular line in Judah he belonged to; nor can we exactly make out the precise time in which he lived; though it appears to me the passage gives us a little light on that subject. It is said generally of him that "he was more honourable than his brethren." That may or may not imply censure against his brethren. He might be honourable among the honourable; he might be great among the great. The probability is, however, that it does rather convey the idea of imperfection and defect in the character of surrounding society, and hence it does mark more prominently the influence of principle and of piety in him. But men may be honourable on various accounts: generally at the time to which the Scripture refers, and now, men are estimated honourable for valour, for wisdom, and for pity. I think it is very probable that all these met in Jabez. 1. There are traditions among the Jews respecting him; and they make him to have been a man distinguished for wisdom as a teacher; distinguished as the founder of a school, and having around him a multitude of disciples. This opinion has upon it, perhaps, some air of probability from the last verse of the second chapter in this book, in which it is said, "And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez," or "with Jabez"; "the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab." Now, "the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez," supposing it to be the name of a place, refers to men who are devoted to study; if it be the name of the persons that dwelt with him, still the same idea seems suggested. So that I think it very probable that the idea of the Jews is right. They themselves take these words which are here used, and in which these different divisions of scribes are distinguished, as being signifcant, expressing certain qualities of these disciples with respect to the manner in which they received the instruction of the master, and the manner in which they were devoted to God. It is very probable, therefore, that he was distinguished and honourable for his mental acquisition and his wisdom. 2. It seems to me that he was honourable also for his enterprise and activity, and perhaps also for his valour, because he prays for the enlargement of his coast. Now it strikes me that this particular prayer of Jabez about the enlargement of his coast, and God being with him, seems to cast a little light on the time in which he lived. It strikes me that he lived soon after the settlement of the people in Canaan, and before they had taken complete and full possession of the different lots. And there was among many of the people a sort of reluctance to do this, a want of vigour and enterprise of mind and character. Joshua really had to reprove them for sitting clown contented too soon, saying, "Why, a few of you have got possession; yet there remains a number of places that are not yet divided; why sit you here? Arise, take possession." It strikes me, therefore, this prayer has relation to that, and that he was more honourable than his brethren because he entered into the mind of God. 3. Whatever may be thought of that, that he was honourable for his piety is, I think, manifest. "He was more honourable than his brethren"; and the sacred writer, after having stated that generally, in the next verse develops the principle of this honourable character: "And Jabez called on the God of Israel," etc.(1) On looking at this prayer you observe the propriety of the feeling with which it is addressed to God. "Jabez called upon the God of Israel." He was neither lost in the vagueness of mere theism, nor led astray by the grossness of idolatry. He understood and felt the principle of the economy under which he lived; he rejoiced in the privileges and advantages which God in covenant had conferred on the people, and he rejoiced to look at God in that aspect, and presented his prayer to Him in that covenant relation. It is thus that you and I must come to God; it is thus that we must be prepared not to lose ourselves in the vagueness of sentimentalism and the generalities of religion, but to feel that there is a way by which we are to come, a specific view we are to have of God.(2) Then let us look at the comprehensiveness of the prayer; how much it includes with respect to the life that now is and the life that is to come.(3) Then I think you may observe the humility that marks the prayer; how completely he is emptied of self, how he goes out of self, feeling that all his resources must be in God. There is a feeling pervading every petition and every expression, marking the consciousness that he had of his own weakness and his own danger: that he needed to be held and sustained by God.(4) Then you may observe the intenseness, the fervour, and the earnestness which seem to mark his supplication: "Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed!"(5) Then observe the fulfilment of the prayer: "And God granted him that which he requested." Such is a brief illustration of what is here stated with respect to this distinguished man, and the prayer that is here recorded of him. Before I pass on to the more general lessons to be drawn from this prayer, I cannot help just observing how short this prayer is. And this is a characteristic of the prayers of Scripture — the prayers of Scripture are almost all brief, many of them are very brief. But I pass on to make one or two general observations arising from the subject. 1. I should think it very likely that Jabez owed a good deal of his religion to his mother. 2. We learn also, that piety towards God, the possession of the principles and the manifestation of Scriptural religion, is in the sight of God essential to the possession of a true and honourable character. The terms "honourable" and "honourable character" have very different senses among men. That which is highly approved among men in this respect is often an abomination in the sight of God. There is many a man distinguished by this epithet in society that is loathed in the society of heaven. A merely honourable character in society means often nothing but a man of integrity. He is honourable in the relations of common life. Under the influence of their principle men are led to pay debts which they have contracted by vice, but to starve and to crush the honest tradesman, and neglect to pay other debts which they have accumulated upon themselves. And yet they are "honourable men!" Such are the perversions abroad in the world and the absurdities in society. 3. Another thought is impressed upon us by the passage: the importance that God attaches to faith and piety, and the character that flows from it. The importance that God attaches to it is proved by the very circumstance of there being this abrupt introduction of the character of Jabez in the midst of this dry genealogical detail. It reminds one of a similar passage in Genesis 5 ., "Enoch walked with God"; impressing a glory and distinction upon the character of the man, and making it stand out prominently from the midst of those with which it is connected. Now if your genealogies were made out would the scribe have to pause at your name? Is there anything about you of this character and these principles that in a similar scroll or writing to this there may be this reason to pause and to dwell upon you? 4. Another thing which you may draw from this subject is the possibility of the combination of secular enterprise and activity with eminent piety. I think these seem to be indicated as having met in the character of Jabez. This piety towards God; his faith, his devotion, the time that he gave for prayer, did not render it impossible with him to give time to active duty. Perhaps, so to speak, he had a sanctified ambition to combine both activity and enterprise with religion. And both these may be combined — diligence in business with fervour of spirit, activity in the fulfilment of the duties of everyday life, in connection with the cultivation of those principles and feelings which keep us near to God, and which sanctify the activity and direct it. Now I think it is likely that Jabez was a young man when this prayer was offered; that there was this formation of his character comparatively early; that he thus started in life, that he thus acted. 5. Another remark we make is this, that certainly one of the best ways to preserve your speculations, your pursuits, your secular activity and enterprise from being offensive to God and injurious to yourselves, is to enter upon none, and to engage in none, but such as you can bring, like Jabez, and lay at the footstool of the throne of God, and ask God to bless. 6. In the last place, let us learn from this subject the gratitude that we ought to feel for the clear discovery that we have in Scripture of God's covenant relation to His children; that we can go to Him, not merely as the God of Israel, but the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in Him reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. ( T. Binney. ) Jabez A. Roberts. The very situation of this text is worth remarking. It stands in the very midst of genealogies. Why those names are so particularly put upon record, or why nothing more besides the name, is not very easy to discover. Perhaps it was to let us see that multitudes of persons live upon the earth of whom, when you have told the name, you have told all that is worth mentioning. Great men they might be in their generations, men of renown in an earthly point of view, and yet, in the sight of God, insignificant and worthless. But, however this may be, here is one person, at least, whom the Word of God is not content with barely mentioning. It is said of him that he was "more honourable than his brethren." In whatever other points he was so, in this especially, that, whereas the Holy Spirit barely runs over the names of others, and tells us nothing else of them, when He comes to Jabez He stops short. Something He relates concerning Jabez which He evidently holds forth to our praise and imitation. What is the fact in the history of Jabez which the Holy Ghost hath thought worthy of record? Is it any battle that he fought, or any exploit he performed? is it any proof he gave of earthly wisdom or of earthly policy? No; these are indeed the things which dazzle human eyes and which please the pens of human writers. But not so the great God. The events He dwells on in the history of Jabez is one which many earthly penmen would have scorned to write of. He takes us to this good man's closet, and tells us of a prayer he offered there. All l amidst the multitude of things which are going on upon this earth, amidst the manifold events which man calls great, there is nothing in God's sight half so considerable as the prayer of a poor humble soul for mercy and acceptance. The prayer of a Paul, of a Cornelius, of a Jabez — "What trifling matters," saith the world, "are these!" But look into God's Book and only see the notice which is taken of these prayers by Him who made us. Pray like Jabez. Pray, if not in his words, yet in his spirit, and you shall speed like him. I. We are to consider the IMPORT of the prayer — the nature, I mean, of the petition it contains. There is no doubt but that it issued from the heart, and that it was offered up with holy fervency of spirit. "Jabez called upon the God of Israel," such is the expression used. Something more, you see, he did than merely say the words of prayer. He called or "cried" unto his God. He put his heart into his words, as one in deep and holy earnest. There is a holy vehemence, too, in the very form of his address. "Oh," says he, "that Thou wouldest do this thing!" And this should be your way of praying. But to come to the language of the prayer. 1. What is the first petition of this earnest suitor at the throne of grace? "Oh," says he, "that Thou wouldest bless me indeed!" Now what sort of blessing does he mean? God hath many in His gift. Life itself is a blessing; health is a blessing; and so are food and raiment; so are the friends we mix with and the home which we inhabit. But it is clearly something beyond these which Jabez asks for. His language is emphatic: "Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed!" As much as to say, "Oh that Thou wouldest give me Thy best, Thy truest blessings!" And what are these? Not the short-lived blessings of the body, but the eternal blessings of the soul. The man is "blessed indeed," not who sits down to a full table and wears his purple and fine linen — but who can say with a good Scripture warrant, "Christ is mine and I am His." He is "blessed indeed" to whom the God of grace hath said, "I am thy salvation" — with whose spirit the Spirit itself beareth witness that he is a child of God" — and "who is kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." These are the choicest gifts of God. Other things are blessings; but they are the blessings of God's enemies as well as of His people. Other things are blessings, but they are temporal and transitory, and they "perish with the using." Grace to enjoy here and glory to expect hereafter — let a man have these and he hath all. Jabez wanted Jacob's blessing and not Esau's — the birthright, not the pottage. Sure I am, such is the choice of every poor awakened sinner. "Give me Christ and His Cross rather than the world and its crown!" 2. But what is the next thing in the prayer? what does the holy man next ask for? "That Thou wouldest enlarge my coast," says he. Perhaps this petition was of a temporal nature. Jabez, it is thought, was among those Israelites who went in with Joshua to the holy land and had a portion there assigned to him. If so, it is not unlikely that he was pressed and straitened by the Canaanites around him, and that he begs in this part of his prayer that God would clear the ground for him and give him room enough to dwell in. "Oh, Lord," we may well ask, "enlarge the coast of my poor narrow heart. Give to my thoughts and my desires a wider range." He grieves over the narrowness, the selfishness of his desires. He feels himself, as it were, pent in and circumscribed by things of this world. He is sensible that there is not room enough within him for his God and for his brethren. He longs, therefore, in all these respects to be enlarged to "reach forth unto the things which are before"; to "comprehend with all saints what is the length, and breadth, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge," and to be "filled with all the fulness of God." Again, here is another point of view in which the Christian seeks after enlargement. "Oh, Lord," he is ever ready to exclaim, "enlarge my usefulness. Make me a more active member of Christ's body; more abundant in the fruits of righteousness; more devoted to Thy work and service; more profitable to my brethren and fellow-creatures!" 3. But we pass on to the next petition in our text: "Oh," says Jabez, "that Thine hand might be with me!" And why does he ask this? Evidently because he was thoroughly persuaded that without the Lord he could do nothing. How exactly in this point do his feelings meet those of all real Christians in the present day! The worldly man goes out in his own strength and trusts in his own arm to help him. Seldom does he feel the need of looking higher than his own wisdom and sagacity and resolution. Whilst the believer thus "goes forth in the strength of the Lord" he can do wonders; but let him at any time forget thus to pray, he is soon made to feel that he is a "man who hath no strength." 4. To come now to the last petition of the prayer before us. How does the holy man conclude? Just as his Lord concludes in the prayer which He hath taught us to present to Him. "Deliver us from evil" is our last petition in that prayer. And what is the last request of Jabez? "That Thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me." "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." There is safety neither for the soul nor for the body except under the shadow of His wings. Apply this to spiritual evil, and it expresses what is true, what is most eminently true, of every real servant of the Lord — that sin is a thing which grieves him. Natural evil is painful and unwelcome; but the evil of the soul — the evil to which Satan tempts — this is the thing of all others which believers dread. A great deal of sin goes with the world under the name of "pleasure." "But all this," says the believer, "is not pleasure to my soul — it is pain and grief to me." II. The ANSWER which this prayer received. Answered it was, and answered to the full. "The Lord granted him that which he requested"; not a part, you observe, but the whole. "That which he requested" — that is to say, all that he requested was bestowed upon him. Now do think over his request. It was a very large one. It comprehended much. He had not trespassed on the Divine bounty which says, "Ask, and you shall have." Let us, then, admire the bountifulness, the abundant mercy of the God whom Jabez called upon. Surely He is a God of faithfulness and truth and love. When has any humble soul ever cried to Him in vain? When hath He ever said to the praying "seed of Jacob, Seek ye Me in vain"? To you who are really

Benson Commentary 1 Chronicles 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. 1 Chronicles 4:1 . The sons of Judah — The posterity: for only Pharez was his immediate son. But they are all mentioned here only to show Shobal’s descent from Judah. 1 Chronicles 4:2 And Reaiah the son of Shobal begat Jahath; and Jahath begat Ahumai, and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathites. 1 Chronicles 4:2-3 . The families of the Zorathites — So denominated, not from a man, but a place named Zoreah, ( 1 Chronicles 2:53 , and Joshua 15:33 ,) situated in the tribe of Judah. Here several families of that tribe settled; who were descended from Jahath, Ahumai, and Lahad, the sons and grandsons of Shobal. Of the father of Etam — Descended from the proprietor or chief man of a place, called Etam, which was in this tribe, 1 Chronicles 4:32 . 1 Chronicles 4:3 And these were of the father of Etam; Jezreel, and Ishma, and Idbash: and the name of their sister was Hazelelponi: 1 Chronicles 4:4 And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem. 1 Chronicles 4:4 . Penuel the father of Gedor — In 1 Chronicles 4:18 , Jered is said to be the father, that is, the founder or lord of Gedor. It is probable they were both concerned in building or governing it. The sons of Hur — By some other wife than her by whom he had the children, mentioned 1 Chronicles 2:20 . The father of Beth-lehem — In 1 Chronicles 2:51 , Salma is said to be the father of Beth-lehem. But this may be understood as in the foregoing clause of this verse. 1 Chronicles 4:5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. 1 Chronicles 4:6 And Naarah bare him Ahuzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. 1 Chronicles 4:7 And the sons of Helah were , Zereth, and Jezoar, and Ethnan. 1 Chronicles 4:8 And Coz begat Anub, and Zobebah, and the families of Aharhel the son of Harum. 1 Chronicles 4:9 And Jabez was more honourable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, Because I bare him with sorrow. 1 Chronicles 4:9 . Jabez was more honourable, &c. — For courage and fervent piety. His mother called his name Jabez — That is, sorrowful; saying, Because I bare him with sorrow — She had hard labour when she was in travail with him. She records this, that it might be a memorandum to herself, to be thankful to God as long as she lived, for bringing her through that sorrow: and a memorandum to him, that she bore him into a vale of tears, in which he might expect few days and full of trouble. And the sorrow implied in his name might serve to put a seriousness upon his spirit. 1 Chronicles 4:10 And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested. 1 Chronicles 4:10 . Jabez called on the God of Israel — The living and true God, who alone can hear and answer prayer: and in prayer he had an eye to him as the God of Israel, a God in covenant with his people, the God with whom Jacob wrestled and prevailed, and was thence called Israel. Saying, O that thou wouldest bless me indeed! — He did not say in what respect he desired God to bless him, but leaves that to God, giving him, as it were, a blank paper, that he might write what he pleased. Spiritual blessings are the best blessings, and those are blessed indeed, who are blessed with them. God’s blessings are real things, and produce real effects. We can but wish a blessing: he commands it. And enlarge my coast — Prosper my endeavours for the increase of what has fallen to my lot: drive out these Canaanites, whom thou hast commanded us to root out; and therefore I justly beg and expect thy blessing in the execution of thy command. That thy hand might be with me — The prayer of Moses for this tribe of Judah was, that his own hands might be sufficient for him; but Jabez expects not that, unless he have God’s hand with him, and the presence of his power. God’s hand with us to lead, protect, strengthen us, and to work all our works in and for us, is indeed a hand sufficient for us, yea, all-sufficient. And keep me from evil — The evil of sin, the evil of trouble; all the evil designs of my enemies, and all disastrous events. That it may not grieve me — That it may not oppress and overcome me. He uses this expression in allusion to his name, which signifies grief: as if he had said, Lord, let me not have that grief which my name implies, and which my sin deserves. God granted him that which he requested — Prospered him remarkably in his undertakings, in his worldly business, in his conflicts with the Canaanites, and his endeavours after knowledge, and holiness, and other spiritual blessings. 1 Chronicles 4:11 And Chelub the brother of Shuah begat Mehir, which was the father of Eshton. 1 Chronicles 4:12 And Eshton begat Bethrapha, and Paseah, and Tehinnah the father of Irnahash. These are the men of Rechah. 1 Chronicles 4:12-14 . These are the men of Rechah — From these sprung the inhabitants of Rechah, a town not mentioned elsewhere. The sons of Kenaz — Who was the son, either of Chelub, ( 1 Chronicles 4:11 ,) or of his son Eshton, ( 1 Chronicles 4:12 ,) and the father of Jephunneh, and consequently Caleb’s grandfather, ( 1 Chronicles 4:15 ,) whence Caleb is called a Kenezite, Numbers 32:12 . Hathath — Understand, and Meonothai, out of the beginning of the following verse, as in 1 Chronicles 4:7 , where Coz must be supplied from the next verse. And similar ellipses we meet with elsewhere. Joab, the father of the valley — Of the inhabitants of the valley. 1 Chronicles 4:13 And the sons of Kenaz; Othniel, and Seraiah: and the sons of Othniel; Hathath. 1 Chronicles 4:14 And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Seraiah begat Joab, the father of the valley of Charashim; for they were craftsmen. 1 Chronicles 4:15 And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah, even Kenaz. 1 Chronicles 4:16 And the sons of Jehaleleel; Ziph, and Ziphah, Tiria, and Asareel. 1 Chronicles 4:17 And the sons of Ezra were , Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon: and she bare Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa. 1 Chronicles 4:18 And his wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took. 1 Chronicles 4:18 . Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took — That is, married. But it is not likely that he married the daughter of the king of Egypt, unless some natural daughter; but rather of some other person called by that name, who might either be an Israelite, or one brought by force out of Egypt by way of spoil. 1 Chronicles 4:19 And the sons of his wife Hodiah the sister of Naham, the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maachathite. 1 Chronicles 4:20 And the sons of Shimon were , Amnon, and Rinnah, Benhanan, and Tilon. And the sons of Ishi were , Zoheth, and Benzoheth. 1 Chronicles 4:21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah were , Er the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea, 1 Chronicles 4:21 . The sons of Shelah — Having spoken of the posterity of Judah by Pharez, and by Zarah, he now comes to his progeny by Shelah. The families of them, that wrought fine linen — From him came all those families that were famous for weaving and working in fine linen; wherewith their kings and priests were clothed. 1 Chronicles 4:22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And these are ancient things. 1 Chronicles 4:22-23 . Who had the dominion in Moab — Which they ruled in the name and for the use of the kings of Judah, to whom Moab was subject from David’s time. Ancient things — The sense is, those blessed times are long since past. Our ancestors had the dominion over the heathen, but their degenerate posterity are slaves in Chaldea, where they are employed as potters or gardeners, or in other servile works These were — Or, rather, these are the potters, &c. — For he seems to oppose their present servitude to their former glory, and to show how low and mean they were in spirit, in that they would rather tarry among the heathen to do their drudgery than return to Jerusalem to serve God, and enjoy their freedom. There they dwelt — Or, rather, now dwell, when their brethren are returned: for Ezra seems to have written this, after leave was given by Cyrus for the return of the Jews. With the king for his work — The king of Persia, esteeming it a greater honour and happiness to serve that earthly monarch in the meanest employments, than the King of kings in his temple, and in his most noble and heavenly work. 1 Chronicles 4:23 These were the potters, and those that dwelt among plants and hedges: there they dwelt with the king for his work. 1 Chronicles 4:24 The sons of Simeon were , Nemuel, and Jamin, Jarib, Zerah, and Shaul: 1 Chronicles 4:24 . The sons of Simeon were Nemuel, &c. — These are here joined with Judah, because their possession was taken out of Judah’s portion, Joshua 19:1 . This account seems to differ from that in Genesis 46:10 , both in the number and names of the persons; which is not strange, considering how customary it was among the Hebrews for one person to have two or three names given to him upon different occasions. And for Ohad, he may be omitted here, because he left no posterity after him as the rest did. 1 Chronicles 4:25 Shallum his son, Mibsam his son, Mishma his son. 1 Chronicles 4:26 And the sons of Mishma; Hamuel his son, Zacchur his son, Shimei his son. 1 Chronicles 4:27 And Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters; but his brethren had not many children, neither did all their family multiply, like to the children of Judah. 1 Chronicles 4:27 . Neither did their family multiply like the children of Judah — The tribe of Simeon did not increase proportionably to the tribe of Judah in which they dwelt, as appears by those two catalogues, Numbers 1:22 ; Numbers 26:14 ; which is to be ascribed to God’s curse upon them, delivered by the month of holy Jacob, (Genesis 49.,) and signified by Moses’s neglect of them, when he blessed all the other tribes. 1 Chronicles 4:28 And they dwelt at Beersheba, and Moladah, and Hazarshual, 1 Chronicles 4:29 And at Bilhah, and at Ezem, and at Tolad, 1 Chronicles 4:30 And at Bethuel, and at Hormah, and at Ziklag, 1 Chronicles 4:31 And at Bethmarcaboth, and Hazarsusim, and at Bethbirei, and at Shaaraim. These were their cities unto the reign of David. 1 Chronicles 4:31 . These were their cities — Several of these cities, though given to Simeon by Joshua, yet, through the sloth or cowardice of that tribe, were not taken from the Philistines until David’s time, who took some of them, and, the Simeonites having justly forfeited their right to them by their neglect, gave them to his own tribe. For it is evident concerning Ziklag, one of them, that it was in the Philistines’ hands in David’s time, and by them given to him, and by him annexed to the tribe of Judah, 1 Samuel 27:6 . 1 Chronicles 4:32 And their villages were , Etam, and Ain, Rimmon, and Tochen, and Ashan, five cities: 1 Chronicles 4:33 And all their villages that were round about the same cities, unto Baal. These were their habitations, and their genealogy. 1 Chronicles 4:34 And Meshobab, and Jamlech, and Joshah the son of Amaziah, 1 Chronicles 4:35 And Joel, and Jehu the son of Josibiah, the son of Seraiah, the son of Asiel, 1 Chronicles 4:36 And Elioenai, and Jaakobah, and Jeshohaiah, and Asaiah, and Adiel, and Jesimiel, and Benaiah, 1 Chronicles 4:37 And Ziza the son of Shiphi, the son of Allon, the son of Jedaiah, the son of Shimri, the son of Shemaiah; 1 Chronicles 4:38 These mentioned by their names were princes in their families: and the house of their fathers increased greatly. 1 Chronicles 4:39 And they went to the entrance of Gedor, even unto the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks. 1 Chronicles 4:40 And they found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham had dwelt there of old. 1 Chronicles 4:40 . They found fat pasture, &c. — Those who thus dwelt (as we do) in a fruitful country, and whose land is wide, and quiet, and peaceable, have reason to own themselves indebted to that God, who appoints the bounds o four habitation. Of Ham — The Canaanites, who descended from Ham. And, accordingly, these words contain a reason why they went and possessed this place, because it was not in the hands of their brethren of Judah, but in the possession of that people which they had authority to expel. 1 Chronicles 4:41 And these written by name came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and smote their tents, and the habitations that were found there, and destroyed them utterly unto this day, and dwelt in their rooms: because there was pasture there for their flocks. 1 Chronicles 4:41 . These came in the days of Hezekiah — But a little before their captivity, which was in the sixth year of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 17. So their joy in their new, pleasant, and fruitful possessions, lasted but for a very little while. And smote their tents — The people dwelling in tents; in which, it seems, they continued to dwell for the convenience of pasturage. And destroyed them unto this day — So as that they could never after recover themselves. 1 Chronicles 4:42 And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and Neariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi. 1 Chronicles 4:43 And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day. 1 Chronicles 4:43 . They smote the rest of the Amalekites — Not destroyed by Saul, or David, or his successors. That dwelt there unto this day — Until the Babylonish captivity, or the time next after it, when these books were written. For, although the main body of the tribe of Simeon, dwelling in Canaan, were carried into captivity, yet this small remnant of them, having removed their dwellings, and being planted In mount Seir, which lay southward from Judah, might possibly be continued and preserved in those parts, when their brethren were gone into captivity. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

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