1 Chronicles 9:7
And of the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasenuah,
Jump to: BarnesBensonBICambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsJFBKDKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWParkerPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBWESTSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
(7) And of the sons of Benjamin.—The parallel passage (Nehemiah 11:7) starts with “Sallu the son of Me-shullam,” but continues, “the son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah,” and carries the ancestry four generations further back.

The son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasenuah.—Perhaps we should read “and Hodaviah,” instead of “son of Hodaviah.” (See Note on 1Chronicles 9:9-10.) The name Hodaviah, which occurred 1Chronicles 5:24, is a peculiar Aramaizing form of Hoduyah (“Thank the Lord”). Perhaps here the true reading is wîhudah. “and Judah.” Comp. Nehemiah 11:9, “Judah the son of Senuali” (Heb. ha-Senuah).

1 Chronicles 9:7. Sallu the son of Meshullam — Who is mentioned, but described by other parents, (Nehemiah 11:7,) or at least by persons under other names. Possibly these were his more immediate, and those his more remote parents: or he might be begotten by the one, and adopted by the other. For it is certain that men are sometimes, in Scripture, called the sons of those that adopted them, or whose right of inheritance fell to them.9:1-44 Genealogies. - This chapter expresses that one end of recording all these genealogies was, to direct the Jews, when they returned out of captivity, with whom to unite, and where to reside. Here is an account of the good state into which the affairs of religion were put, on the return from Babylon. Every one knew his charge. Work is likely to be done well when every one knows the duty of his place, and makes a business of it. God is the God of order. Thus was the temple a figure of the heavenly one, where they rest not day nor night from praising God, Re 4:8. Blessed be His name, believers there shall, not in turn, but all together, without interruption, praise him night and day: may the Lord make each of us fit for the inheritance of the saints in light.The correspondence and the diversity between the account here and in Nehemiah Neh. 11:4-19 are explained by the probability that both writers drew from a common and fuller document. They selected, in some instances, different names, or names which are now different through corruption; and they frequently expressed the genealogies of the same persons differently, both going on the principle of compression by means of omissions, but omitting from their lists different links of the chain. 2. the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions—This chapter relates wholly to the first returned exiles. Almost all the names recur in Nehemiah (Ne 11:1-36), although there are differences which will be explained there. The same division of the people into four classes was continued after, as before the captivity; namely, the priests, Levites, natives, who now were called by the common name of Israelites, and the Nethinims (Jos 9:27; Ezr 2:43; 8:20). When the historian speaks of "the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions," he implies that there were others who afterwards returned and settled in possessions not occupied by the first. Accordingly, we read of a great number returning successively under Ezra, Nehemiah, and at a later period. And some of those who returned to the ancient inheritance of their fathers, had lived before the time of the captivity (Ezr 3:12; Hag 2:4, 10). Salu the son of Meshullam, who is mentioned, but described by other parents, Nehemiah 11:7, or at least by persons under other names. Possibly these were his more immediate, and those his more remote parents; or he might be born of one, and adopted by another. For this is certain, men are sometimes in Scripture called the sons of those who adopted them, or whose right of inheritance fell to them. And of the sons of Benjamin,.... Who were of the tribe of Benjamin, and went with Judah into captivity, and returned with them, and such of them as dwelt in Jerusalem before that:

Sallu the son of Meshullam; whose pedigree is differently given, Nehemiah 11:7,

the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenaah; perhaps these men had two names, there called Joel and Pedaiah.

And of the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasenuah,
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
7–9 (cp. Nehemiah 11:7-9). The Sons of Benjamin

7. Sallu] His genealogy m differently stated in Nehemiah 11:7, but see next note.

the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hasenuah] Some critics would read “and Hodaviah the son of Hasenuah” and would identify this person with the “Judah the son of Has-senuah” of Nehemiah 11:9.Verses 7-9. - The corresponding passage (Nehemiah 11:7, 8) varies much in the names given, and adds up the number of Benjamite chief men to nine hundred and twenty-eight, instead of nine hundred and fifty-six. 1 Chronicles 9:1-3 form the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem in vv. 4-34.

1 Chronicles 9:1-2

"And all the Israelites were registered; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah was led away to Babylon for her transgressions." The lxx and Vulg. have erroneously connected ויהוּדה with the preceding words, and render, "in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah," and then have translated the following words וגו הגלוּ arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau's opinion, that Israel here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken of, for both reasons are quite worthless. "The book of the kings of Israel" is cited in 2 Chronicles 20:34 (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:18), and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the historical work cited as the "book of the kings of Israel and Judah" (2 Chronicles 27:7; 2 Chronicles 35:27; 2 Chronicles 36:8), or as the "book of the kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Chronicles 16:11; 2 Chronicles 25:26, and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened title, "book of the kings of Israel," that kings of the northern kingdom are spoken of? Then, as to the contrast between Israel and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in favour of taking the name in its narrower sense; but when we consider the grouping together in 1 Chronicles 9:10 of "Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim," we see clearly that Israel in 1 Chronicles 9:2 incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. In 1 Chronicles 9:1, Israel is used in the same sense as in 1 Chronicles 9:2; and the contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to the contrast "Judah and Jerusalem," i.e., Israel is a designation of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be understood to denote the whole covenant people. That 1 Chronicles 9:1 forms the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2-8, is so manifest that Bertheau cannot adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, that "the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning." For the assertion, "We recognise in it a short introduction to the historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites after the exile," cannot be adduced in support of his view, since it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the words of the verse.

(Note: Bertheau's further remark, "1 Chronicles 9:1 cannot have been written by our historian, because he did not consider it sufficient to refer his readers to the work he quotes from, but thought himself bound to communicate genealogical registers of the tribes of the northern kingdom (1 Chronicles 5-7), which he must have extracted from older registers prepared in the time of the kings (cf. 1 Chronicles 6:1), perhaps even out of the work here named," is quite incomprehensible by me. Notwithstanding repeated consideration of it clause by clause, I have not succeeded in comprehending the logic of this argument.)

The statement, "Judah was led captive to Babylon for her transgressions," corresponds to the statement 1 Chronicles 5:25., 1 Chronicles 6:15. But when, after this statement, our writer continues, "And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah," etc., the "former inhabitants" can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Nehemiah 11, - a similarity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vv. 2-34, to that in Nehemiah 11:3-24: "As the result of the comparison, we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents." The first point in this result has some foundation; for if we turn our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the registers in 1 Chronicles 9:4-17 of our chapter and in Nehemiah 11:3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chronicles 9:2-34 and Nehemiah 11:3-24, we see that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by the remark, 1 Chronicles 9:2, "The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests," etc., according to which the following words, 1 Chronicles 9:3, "And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah," etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, to Nehemiah 5:15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time of the former governors (הראשׁנים הפּחות), with whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily call his predecessors in the office "former governors;" while the inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From the fact that the inhabitants "of their cities" are not contrasted as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers and Bertheau from Nehemiah 11:1, that the "former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities" are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, is not tenable. In Nehemiah 11, on the contrary, the register is introduced by the remark, 1 Chronicles 9:3, "These are the heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests," etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities of Judah, at that time, i.e., at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been made out, as in vv. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are enumerated, and in 1 Chronicles 9:25-36 the inhabitants of the other cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 3-19a), while in vv. 19b-34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving upon the Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in their cities outside of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:2), because all that was necessary had been already communicated in the preceding genealogies (1 Chronicles 2-8).

Links
1 Chronicles 9:7 Interlinear
1 Chronicles 9:7 Parallel Texts


1 Chronicles 9:7 NIV
1 Chronicles 9:7 NLT
1 Chronicles 9:7 ESV
1 Chronicles 9:7 NASB
1 Chronicles 9:7 KJV

1 Chronicles 9:7 Bible Apps
1 Chronicles 9:7 Parallel
1 Chronicles 9:7 Biblia Paralela
1 Chronicles 9:7 Chinese Bible
1 Chronicles 9:7 French Bible
1 Chronicles 9:7 German Bible

Bible Hub






1 Chronicles 9:6
Top of Page
Top of Page