The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Chronicles — Section 109

genero.Uy tnken, and if the numbers of vers. were e.t that time, for manifest reasons of 2 and 4 o.re distinct, the be.lance needful inheritance and possession reckoned in this for ver. 5 will, of course, be twenty-eight tribe, though by blood 'or the tribe of thousand four hundred. It ce.unot be denied Benjsmin. This snbject is skilfally dis- that this view is fe.voll?ed by the speeia.l ?us_sed b_y . Lord , ~- C. Hervey (Smith's description applied to these Uzzites, or Btb\e D1ct1ona.ry, 1. 175). Lastly, Jediael Izrabiahites, as bands of soldiers for war; of this pa.Bl!llge and ver. 10 is not found in their disposition and their training con- Genesis, in Numbers, or in onr eh. viii. This stituting possibly the reason of their being name seems to have superseded in our singled out for further description from pe.sse.ge the name Ashbel in Genesis, thongh among the sons of Tola. The statement of it is impossible to speak certainly. It cannot the total number of the tribe of Issachar in be supposed to designate the same person, David's time is wonderfully corroborated but rather a descendant in the same branch, by the two censuses of Moses-Numb. i. 28, whose family had come to importance "in 20, fifty-four thousand four hundred; and the de.ye of David." Numb. xxvi. 23-25, sixty-four tho118and Ver. 7.-And the sons of Bela. The first three hundred. The total of Issache.r, four and le.at of the five ( de8cendants OT heads of score and seven thousand, is a good propor- families) here given, viz. Ezbon and lri, are tion of the aggregate total of e.11 the tribes, not found in previous places among Benje.- given (2 Sam. xxiv. 8, 9) es eight hundred mite families, but are found (Gen. xlvi. 16; thousand. Grove, however, adds all the Numb. xxvi. 16) among Gadite families. above numbers, and makes thereby Issache.r's It would seem that by David's time they total (see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' i had become in some aspects rflnked among 901 b) one hundred and forty-five thousand the Benje.mites, though not originally of six hundred, which seems disfavoured by them, the numbers at the second census of Moses. Ver. 8.-J'oash. This name, of whioh At the time of this census Issa.char came nothing else is known, is spelt with I\D third of all the tribes, only Judah and Dan ayin, not with e.n aleph, es e.re the names taking precedence. The bands of soldiera of the seven other persons ca.!led (Autho- for war. This expression culminates in rized Version) Joash. Jerimoth. This name the word (c•-:r,,?) "bands,'' which is applied is spelt with e. tsere, and not, es the Jerimoth (Gen. xlix. 19) to Gad, and almost invari- of ver. 7, with khiril,. All the names of ably to the irregular but special bodies of this verse must be regarded e.s those of fighting men of the nations round (Autho- heo.da of families, and not the literal sons rized Y ersion, eh. xii. 23 is incorrect, the of Becher. Hebrew word being diJferent). The examples Ver. 10.-Bilhe.n; .Teush. Both of these, ure too numerous to quote, but some of the e.s well o.s the no.me Belo., are of Edomitish more important instances are 2 Kings vi. origin (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 18, 27, 32). 23; xiii. 20; :xxiv. 2; Hosea vi 9; vii. I. Ver. 12.-Shuppi.m . . . and Xuppim. Ver. 6.-The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and These two, oo.lled (Numb, i:xxvi. 39) Beoher, and .Tediael, three. We have four "Shuphs.m and Hupham," and oh. viii. 5 p118sages for our authorities as to the sons " Shephuphe.n nnd Humm,'' a.re mentioned of Benjnmin, and it is not altogether easy (Gen. xlvi. 21) e.s among those who went to bring them into verbal harmony. They down with Jacob into Egypt, a.re called are Gen. xlvi. 21 ; Numb. xxvi 38-41 ; the "Muppim and Huppim," e.nJ a.re desoribed present passage; and eh. viiL Our present e.s " sons of Benjamin." They are here pnssage mentions threo sons, as though they described o.s sons of Iri, or Ir, which would wore nil, o.nd immcdio.tely proceeds 10 their mo.ke them great-grandsons of Benjamin, posterity. The list in Genesis mentions e. thing impossible. Xushi.m, the sons of ten, of whom, however, we know (Numb. Aher. Nothing can be said with conlidence xxvi. 40; eh. viii. 3, 4) that three, Nno.mnn, of either of these names. The Hushim of Ard, e.nd Gera, were gro.ndsons, being sons Gen. xlvi. 23 (called Shuharu, Numb. xi:vi. of Belo., under which circumstances the 42) are expressly given o.s e. family of Dan, order in which the two former stand in while the Hushim of oh. viii. 8, 11, is Genesis is remarkable. Again, while Becher mo.nifestly the nnme, not of o. family, but of is given e.s the second son iu both Genesis e.n individual,o.nd that o. womnn. llorthee.u ~nd our present place, he is not mentioned tukcs tho opportunity of urging, i11 connec- ID Nnmb. xxvi. :!8-41 e.nd in oh. viii. I. tion with this no.me, that Van is not entirely Ashbel, who in Genesis is given as the omitted in our work of Chronicles I But third, is expressly called the second sun. his foundation is surely far too slender to Among the Ephruimites, however (Numb. build upon. llcrlhoau e.nd Zi:ickler (in xxvi. :!5), o. Becher, with his descouclunts Lo.ngc, • Alt. 'l'cst.' J would trs.ush\to 7rii< ~he Bo.chrites, is mentioned, and it is uut "another" or "the other" 1 iustnncin~ not 1mprobablo t.ho.t, by mo.rrie.ge, the family very pcriincntly, Ezra ii. 31, u.nd ref~ring ~00 THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. [cH. vn. 1-40,