I chronicles 5 commentary

I CHRONICLES 5 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Reuben
1 The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (he
was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father’s
marriage bed, his rights as firstborn were given to
the sons of Joseph son of Israel; so he could not be
listed in the genealogical record in accordance
with his birthright,
BARNES, "His birthright was given ... - In particular, the right of the first-born
to a double inheritance Deu_21:17 was conferred on Joseph, both by the expressed will
of Jacob Gen_48:22 and in the actual partition of Canaan Josh. 16–17. But though the
birthright, as respecting its material privileges, passed to Joseph, its other rights, those
of dignity and pre-eminence, fell to Judah; of whom came the chief ruler, an allusion
especially to David, though it may reach further, and include a glance at the Messiah, the
true “Ruler” of Israel Mic_5:2.
CLARKE, "The sons of Reuben the first-born - As Reuben was the eldest son of
Jacob, why was not his genealogy reviewed first? This verse answers the question; he
lost the birth-right because of the transgression mentioned Gen_35:22; Gen_49:4, and
the precedency was given to Judah; from him therefore came the chief ruler. This
appears to be the meaning of the place.
GILL, "Now the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel,.... Are as follow in 1Ch_
1

5:3 where the account begins; for what comes between this and that is in a parenthesis:
for he was the firstborn; of Jacob by his wife Leah; that must be owned, and Jacob
allows it, Gen_49:3 and yet the genealogy in this book begins not with him, as might on
that account be expected; the reason follows:
but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed: by lying with Bilhah his concubine:
his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; his beloved
son by his beloved wife Rachel and so had a double portion given him; his two sons
being equally ranked with the other sons of Jacob, and became distinct tribes, and each
had their lot in the land of Canaan, see Gen_48:5 compared with Deu_21:17.
and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright; or, "but the
genealogy", &c. (o); neither after the birthright of Reuben, which he had by nature, being
Jacob's firstborn; nor after the birthright of Joseph, which be had by his father's gift, as
it might be thought it should; the reason of which follows.
HENRY 1-3, "We have here an extract out of the genealogies,
I. Of the tribe of Reuben, where we have,
1. The reason why this tribe is thus postponed. It is confessed that Reuben was the
first-born of Israel, and, upon that account, might challenge the precedency; but he
forfeited his birthright by defiling his father's concubine, and was, for that, sentenced
not to excel, Gen_49:4. Sin lessens men, thrusts them down from their excellency.
Seventh-commandment sins especially leave an indelible stain upon men's names and
families, a reproach which time will not wipe away. Reuben's seed, to the last, bear the
disgrace of Reuben's sin. Yet, though that tribe was degraded, it was not discarded or
disinherited. The sullying of the honour of an Israelite is not the losing of his happiness.
Reuben loses his birthright, yet it does not devolve upon Simeon the next in order; for it
was typical, and therefore must attend, not the course of nature, but the choice of grace.
The advantages of the birthright were dominion and a double portion. Reuben having
forfeited these, it was thought too much that both should be transferred to any one, and
therefore they were divided. (1.) Joseph had the double portion; for two tribes
descended from him, Ephraim and Manasseh, each of whom had a child's part (for so
Jacob by faith blessed them, Heb_11:21; Gen_48:15, Gen_48:22), and each of those
tribes was as considerable, and made as good a figure, as any one of the twelve, except
Judah. But, (2.) Judah had the dominion; on him the dying patriarch entailed the
sceptre, Gen_49:10 Of him came the chief ruler, David first, and, in the fulness of time,
Messiah the Prince, Mic_5:2. This honour was secured to Judah, though the birthright
was Joseph's; and, having this, he needed not envy Joseph the double portion.
JAMISON, "1Ch_5:1-10. The line of Reuben.
Now the sons of Reuben — In proceeding to give this genealogy, the sacred
historian states, in a parenthesis (1Ch_5:1, 1Ch_5:2), the reason why it was not placed
first, as Reuben was the oldest son of Jacob. The birthright, which by a foul crime he had
2

forfeited, implied not only dominion, but a double portion (Deu_21:17); and both of
these were transferred to Joseph, whose two sons having been adopted as the children of
Jacob (Gen_48:5), received each an allotted portion, as forming two distinct tribes in
Israel. Joseph then was entitled to the precedency; and yet, as his posterity was not
mentioned first, the sacred historian judged it necessary to explain that “the genealogy
was not to be reckoned after the birthright,” but with a reference to a superior honor and
privilege that had been conferred on Judah - not the man, but the tribe, whereby it was
invested with the pre-eminence over all the other tribes, and out of it was to spring
David with his royal lineage, and especially the great Messiah (Heb_7:14). These were
the two reasons why, in the order of enumeration, the genealogy of Judah is introduced
before that of Reuben.
K&D 1-3, "The families of the tribe of Reuben. - 1Ch_5:1, 1Ch_5:2. Reuben is called
the first-born of Israel, because he was the first-born of Jacob, although, owing to his
having defiled his father's bed (Gen_49:4), his birthright, i.e., its privileges, were
transferred to the sons of Joseph, who were not, however, entered in the family register
of the house of Israel according to the birthright, i.e., as first-born sons. The inf. ‫שׂ‬ ֵ‫ַח‬‫י‬ ְ‫ת‬ ִ‫ה‬
with ְ‫ל‬ expresses “shall” or “must,” cf. Ew. §237, e., “he was not to register,” i.e., “he was
not to be registered.” The subject is Joseph, as the Rabbins, e.g., Kimchi, have perceived.
The clauses after ‫הוּא‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ form a parenthesis, containing the reason of Reuben's being
called ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ִ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫כ‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ which is still further established by its being shown (in 1Ch_5:2)
how it happened that Joseph, although the birthright was given to him, according to the
disposition made by the patriarch (Gen_48:5.), yet was not entered in the family
registers as first-born. The reason of this was, “for Judah was strong among his
brethren, and (one) from him became the Prince;” scil. on the strength of the patriarchal
blessing (Gen_49:8-12), and by means of the historic fulfilment of this blessing. The
“prevailing” of Judah among his brethren showed itself even under Moses at the
numbering of the people, when the tribe of Judah considerably outnumbered all the
other tribes (cf. t. i. 2, S. 192). Then, again, it appeared after the division of the land of
Canaan among the tribes of Israel, Judah being called by a declaration of the divine will
to be the vanguard of the army in the war against the Canaanites (Jdg_1:1.); and it was
finally made manifest by the ‫יד‬ִ‫ָג‬‫נ‬ over Israel being chosen by God from the tribe of
Judah, in the person of David (cf. 1Ch_28:4 with 1Sa_13:14; 1Sa_25:30). From this we
gather that the short, and from its brevity obscure, sentence ‫וּ‬ִ‫נ‬ ֶ‫מּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫יד‬ִ‫ָג‬‫נ‬ ְ‫וּל‬ bears the
signification we have given it. “But the birthright was Joseph's;” i.e., the rights of the
progenitor were transferred to or remained with him, for two tribal domains were
assigned to his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, according to the law of the first-born
(Deu_21:15-17).
After this parenthetic explanation, the words “the sons of Reuben, the first-born of
Israel,” 1Ch_5:1, are again taken up in 1Ch_5:3, and the sons are enumerated. The
names of the four sons correspond to those given in Gen_46:9; Exo_6:14, and Num_
26:5-7.
3

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:1. The son of Israel — This is added emphatically,
because the sons of Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim were treated as if they had
been the immediate sons of Jacob. The genealogy is not to be reckoned after the
birthright — This is the second reason which showeth both why Reuben’s genealogy
was not first mentioned, and if another tribe was to be ranked before it, why that
was Judah, and not Joseph, because the order of their genealogy was not to be ruled
by the birthright, but by a higher privilege, which was given to Judah.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he
[was] the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was
given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be
reckoned after the birthright.
Ver. 1. But, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed.] {See Trapp on "Genesis
35:22"}
But, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed.] He might well say as Lysimachus did,
when for a draught of water he had parted with his kingdom, Ah, for how short a
(sinful) pleasure, how great privileges and blessings have I forfeited!
His birthright.] That is, His double portion of inheritance: as for the dignity due to
him, it was given to Judah.
Joseph the son of Israel,] i.e., His best beloved son.
COFFMAN, ""And the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-
born; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given to
Joseph the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the prince; but the
birthright was Joseph's), the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel: Hanoch, and
Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi. The sons of Joel: Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shemei
his son, Micah his son, Reaiah his son, Baal his son, Beerah his son, whom Tilgath-
pilneser king of Assyria carried away captive: he was prince of the Reubenites. And
his brethren by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was
reckoned: the chief Jeiel, and Zechariah, and Bela the son of Azaz, the son of
Shema, the son of Joel, who dwelt in Aroer, even unto Nebo, and Baal-meon: and
eastward he dwelt even unto the entrance of the wilderness from the river
4

Euphrates, because their cattle were multiplied in the land of Gilead. And in the
days of Saul they made war with the Hagrites, who fell by their hand; and they
dwelt in their tents throughout all the land east of Gilead."
POOLE, "1 CHRONICLES CHAPTER 5
The line of Reuben unto the captivity: their war against the Hagarites, 1 Chronicles
5:1-10. The chief men and habitation of Gad, 1 Chronicles 5:11-17. The number of
the Reubenites, Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh, that marched against the
Hagarites, and overcame them, 1 Chronicles 5:18-24. They are all carried captive
into Assyria, 1 Chronicles 5:25,26.
For he was the first-born: these and the following words 1 Chronicles 5:3, which are
enclosed within a parenthesis, seem to be inserted here as an answer to a secret
objection, or as a reason why Reuben’s genealogy was not set down first, but
Judah’s was put before it, which is double; the first follows immediately, the other is
in the last clause of this verse. His birthright, i.e. the right of the first-born, which,
although it contain in it something of dominion, Genesis 27:1,32, which Joseph had
in his own person, Ge 49; yet principally consisted in having a double portion, as
appears from Deuteronomy 21:17, which Joseph enjoyed both in his person and in
his posterity, which had two parts of twelve in Canaan. And it is Joseph’s posterity
which is here considered.
Unto the sons of Joseph; Ephraim and Manasseh, each having a distinct portion.
The sons of Israel: this is added emphatically, because they were reputed and
treated as if they had been the immediate sons of Jacob; of which see Genesis 48:5.
The genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright: this is the second reason,
which showeth both why Reuben’s genealogy was not first mentioned; and if
another tribe was to be ranked before it, why that was Judah, and not Joseph, as it
might seem most fit for the former reason; because, saith he, the order of their
genealogy was not to be ruled by the birthright but by a higher privilege, which was
given to Judah, and which here follows.
5

ELLICOTT, "Verse 1
I.—THE REUBENITES (1 Chronicles 5:1-10).
(1) Reuben the firstborn of Israel.—See Genesis 49:3 : “Reuben, my firstborn thou!
my strength, and firstfruits of my manhood;” also Genesis 29:32.
For he was the firstborn.—The parenthesis is an assertion of the legitimacy of the
Davidic monarchy, as against the fact that both Reuben and Joseph had claims
prior to those of Judah.
He defiled his father’s bed.—Genesis 49:4, Jacob’s curse: “Bubbling like the waters,
excel thou not! For thou wentest up thy father’s couches. Then thou defiledst my
bed” (See Genesis 35:22).
His birthright was given to the sons of Joseph.—The reading of some MSS., and the
Syriac and Arabic, “to Joseph,” is probably original. This transfer of the rights of
primogeniture is not elsewhere mentioned. It is, however, a fair inference from
Jacob’s curse, and from the special blessing of Joseph (Genesis 49:22-26) and of his
two sons (Genesis 48:15-20), considered in the light of historical fulfilment. Ephraim
was always a leading tribe (Judges 2:9; Judges 4:5; Judges 5:14; Judges 8:1-2;
Judges 12:1; Judges 12:15).
And the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.—Rather, though he
was not to be registered as firstborn (literally, according to the primogeniture). The
subject is Joseph or the sons of Joseph, who received the forfeited rights of Reuben,
but not the first place in lists of the tribes. What those rights were is defined by
Deuteronomy 21:15-17, which rules that the son of a hated wife—if he be firstborn
(the case of Reuben, son of Leah), shall inherit a double portion, “for he is the
firstfruits of his strength, the right of the firstborn is his;” words obviously referring
to Genesis 49:4-5.
6

PARKER, "Verses 1-26
Gaps In History—Painful Memories—Agonistic Prayer—intellectual Sins
1 Chronicles 5
This chapter treats of the tribes east of Jordan, Reuben, Gad, and half Prayer of
Manasseh , with short notices of their conquest and their final captivity. At the very
opening of the chapter we come upon the well-assured doctrine, that the highest
privileges may be transferred to other than the original and legitimate lines. Men
hold their great influence only so long as they continue their noble behaviour.
Reuben was the firstborn, and therefore entitled to honours and enjoyments of a
peculiar kind, but because of a great sin, he dispossessed himself of the rights of the
firstborn, and those rights were transferred to Joseph as to their substantial value.
Joseph, or the sons of Joseph, did not occupy the first place in the lists of the tribes,
but they succeeded to all that was really valuable in the primogeniture. What that
was is clearly set forth in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. The incident is worth dwelling
upon, only because it elucidates a special phase of divine government. God is not
bound by arbitrary laws. Primogeniture can be changed in the court of heaven.
Reuben may have said that whatever events transpired, he would still be the
firstborn of Israel; believing this he might give rein to his passions, and withhold
nothing from the flame of his desire; but God distinctly taught him that there is a
law above law, that all human institutions are subject to the law and criticism of
righteousness, and that conduct is the only absolute guarantee of real and enduring
primogeniture. A melancholy thing indeed that Reuben should be the firstborn, and
yet that one born after him should bear the blessing which was due to the eldest son.
In this case Reuben had a right to a double inheritance, but that right was
transferred to Joseph. There is a theory which expresses itself in the much-abused
words, "Once in grace, always in grace." That may be a glorious truth, but
everything depends upon what is meant by being "in grace." They are not all Israel
that are called Israel. A momentary experience of the goodness of God may not be
regarded as constituting newness of spirit and of life. We can only prove that we
were once in grace by continually living in grace. Any vital breach in the
continuance will throw discredit upon the supposed reality of the origin. Connected
7

with such transfers of dignity and power, there cannot but be a measure of
melancholy in the experience of those who are called upon to sustain the lapse of
primogeniture. Joseph and Judah, who divided between them the pre-eminence and
the rights of Reuben, cannot but have felt that their honour was due to their
brother"s disgrace. Elisha took up a mantle that had never been stained, but, alas!
many are called upon to succeed Iscariots in the noblest apostleships of life. But
whilst there is a measure of melancholy, it should be balanced by increase of
spiritual vigilance. "Be sober and watch unto the end." "Let him that thinketh he
standeth, take heed lest he fall." "Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe."
In the eighth verse we come upon the name of Bela, whose descent is traced like that
of Berrah, but through fewer names. This circumstance is only worthy of notice
because intermediate names are often omitted in genealogies. A notable example is
given in the book of Joshua ( Joshua 7:18); we read—"Achan, the son of Carmi, the
son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah"—but in verse twenty-four we simply read—"Achan
the son of Zerah." Here we are reminded that there are many gaps in history. As
much may be learnt from omissions as from distinctly registered particulars. Often
in history we seem to step from one mountain top to another without taking note of
the localities which lie between. Even the life of a man may be summarised by two
or three striking events. On many a tombstone, indeed, the longest life is simply
indicated by the words "born" and "died." What then can be made of history? As a
matter of fact, history can never be exhaustively written. It may be questioned
whether any man who has lived a long and active life can really write his whole
biography. Let him take what pains he may he will be conscious that much has been
left out; even where a diary has been sedulously kept, it can tell but little of motive,
purpose, desire, and all the mysterious operations of the soul; the spirit will not be
imprisoned in words; after the words have expended their whole strength in
embodying life there is something in life which will not condescend to be
represented in symbols or uttered in signs. Let us continually remind ourselves of
the lesson we have had so much occasion to set forth, that two or three famed sons in
a family do not blot out all the sweet life, the gentle piety, the unobtrusive industry,
and the anxious prayers of many an unknown member of the household. We belong
to one another. We cannot always trace the influences which have culminated in
eminence and power. Be assured that how famous soever any man may be there is a
vital defect in his character in so far as he fails to remember all that made his home
the beginning of his greatness.
8

In the ninth verse we come upon the subject of painful memories—
"And eastward he inhabited unto the entering in of the wilderness from the river
Euphrates; because their cattle were multiplied in the land of Gilead." ( 1
Chronicles 5:9).
As their flocks and herds increased the Reubenites extended eastward even to the
great desert lying between the Euphrates and Syria. This desert was inscribed all
over with recollections which could not but be painful to the restored exiles. This
desert has been described as a vast wedge interposed between the valley of the
Euphrates and the fertile strip of coast along the Mediterranean which effectually
shuts off Palestine from the rest of western Asia. The point to be remembered is that
the desert had been the theatre of inexpressible suffering. Do we not ourselves often
come upon old places, old acquaintanceships which reminds us of desert
experiences, of graves dug in our hearts, of losses which no prosperity can repair?
To some of us the world is full of frightful places. We remember where the holy vow
was broken, where our best strength utterly gave way, where the word of blasphemy
was forced out of our lips, where we were tempted to give up faith in prayer. On the
other hand, there are places clothed with immortal beauty, and upon these our
memory should dwell with holy delight. We remember the very spot at which we
gave up our whole heart to the Son of God: we see quite vividly the green field or
the flowery lane where we plighted the word of troth which only death can violate:
we see the old quiet grey homestead associated with joy, festival, and gladness of
every tone and hue: sometimes we long to go back to these old places which now by
their very venerableness have become personal sanctuaries. Blessed be God, it is
even now in the power of every man to create one holy place in the desert of life, for
at this very moment the sinner may repent, and in this very place he may begin to
pray. Do not let us yield to the temptation always to be dwelling upon the deserts,
the churchyards, the stony places of the past; such exercises of memory may but
becloud and discourage the heart: rather turn to the brighter scenes and take
courage to regard them as merely symbolical of a greater glory yet to come. Truly to
some travellers the way seems to have been all wilderness, or the path has lain
through a very battlefield, so fierce has been life"s controversies and so many have
been life"s losses. This bitter experience is never to be ignored, for by ignoring we
should simply lose influence with those whom we attempt to comfort: better show
that we are fully aware of the extent and desolateness of the desert before we point
9

out the beauty and the accessibleness of the garden of God.
In verse twenty we see an instance of what may be described as agonistic prayer:
"And they were helped against them, and the Hagarites were delivered into their
hand, and all that were with them: for they cried to God in the battle, and he was
intreated of them; because they put their trust in him." ( 1 Chronicles 5:20).
It is beautiful to notice how in Bible times natural events were regarded as closely
associated with the hand of God. Nothing was looked upon as unrelated or self-
contained. On the contrary, everything was traced to the immediate action and
purpose of God. Here we have men of valour, bearing shield and sword and
drawing bow, and trained warfare, nearly fifty thousand strong, and yet they turn
the very battlefield into a house of prayer. Circumstances give to prayer its real
significance. Sometimes too we can only pray in mere words, for our feeling is not
always excited and ardent. Sabbath after Sabbath we may assemble together, and in
quietness hardly distinguishable from indifference, we may go through our religious
exercises; but suddenly there comes an epidemic, a war, a family bereavement, a
national crisis, or some other event which profoundly affects our feeling, then the
very words which but a week ago were uttered without emotion express the keen
agony of our souls. For our comfort let us remember that God knows all the
circumstances under which we pray, and that the quietness of our utterance need
not in any degree impair the earnestness of our meaning. On the other hand, do not
let us suppose that indifference is a sign of piety. So prone is the heart to forget God,
and to turn away from the discipline of life, that we need continual exhortation not
to yield to the sleep which would first overcome us, and then deepen into death.
Verse twenty-five relates to the transgressions of the people against God, whose
hearts went out after the idols of the land. If we turn to the Book of Kings, we shall
be surprised to find how the fatal sin of Israel was often of an intellectual kind, as
distinguished from the baser iniquities, which corrupt and overthrow the soul.
There were three instances in which the intellectual sin of Israel was conspicuous:
(1) in the worship of the holy places; (2) in adoration of the heavenly bodies, and the
productive powers of nature; (3) in the practice of magic and divination. Here we
10

find nothing of adultery, drunkenness, theft, or licentiousness of any kind. Here,
indeed, is a species of intellectual elevation and refinement; certainly there is
nothing coarse and brutish in the usual sense of the terms. Instances of this kind
have surely a direct bearing upon ourselves. There are sins and sins. One man is
simply a sinner of the coarse type, a criminal seen and known of all men and cast
out by society; another man sins intellectually, that is to say, he mentally deposes
God, and more or less secretly endeavours to live without him; never breaking any
of the great social commandments, and thereby forfeiting social confidence, yet all
the while committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. In this way men write their
own bibles, invent their own deities, banish from the mind all the old orthodoxies,
and in hidden vanity walk after the counsel of their own hearts. In all these matters
God alone can judge; we only know crime, we have not penetration keen enough to
penetrate the disguises of sin. We may however exhort one another to be careful lest
we indulge sin under the pretence that we cannot justly be charged with crime. The
whole question in its highest aspect relates to the condition of the heart. "The Lord
looketh on the heart." "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he." "Create in me a
clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." "God be merciful to me a
sinner." O thou that lookest upon the heart and from whom nothing can be hidden,
enter not into judgment with us, for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified:
show us our sin until we be ashamed of it, and lead us to the cross of thy Song of
Solomon , there to begin in brokenheartedness, the better, the eternal life.
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 5:1-10
THE SONS OF REUBEN. The tribe of Reuben is now taken third in order by the
compiler, though Reuben was the first of all the sons of Israel. The distinct
statements of 1 Chronicles 5:1 and 1 Chronicles 5:2, respecting the degradation of
Reuben and his loss of the rights of primogeniture, are not to be understood,
however, as mentioned in any way to account for his standing third here. That
Judah takes in any genealogy the first place needs no other apology than that
contained in this passage, "Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the
chief ruler" (i.e. David, and in him "David's greater Son and Lord"). And that
Simeon is taken immediately after Judah was natural enough, both because the
second place belonged to him, and because his tribe, in journeying, in settlement,
and in acknowledged friendship, was so nearly related to that of Judah. It is as an
important historical fact, a lesson and stern memento of crime, that the tale of
Reuben is here as elsewhere told. Indeed, in the remarkably exalting language
11

applied to Reuben (Genesis 49:3) by the dying father in those "blessings" of his sons
which were so marvellously living with prophecy, that "blessing" see. reed weighted
with hard reality, and may really carry this meaning: "O Reuben I though thou art
my firstborn, though my might and the beginning of my strength, though the
excellency of dignity and the excellency of power," yet, because of thy boiling lust
(Genesis 35:22) "thou shall not excel." In that endowing charter of the patriarch's
death-bed, the birthright of Reuben is not in so many words given to Joseph and his
sons, but what is given to Joseph is so abundant above the lot of all the others, that
we find no difficulty in accepting the formal statement of the fact here first found in
this passage. The large measure of promise meted to Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) rests,
no doubt, upon the title already referred to. There would seem to be also a righteous
moral reason in Joseph after all becoming heir to the birthright, inasmuch as he was
the eldest child of her who was Israel's real love, and who, but for deception and
sharp practice, would have been his first wife. How he remembered her, and with
what determined practical consequence, the affecting passage, Genesis 48:1-7,
Genesis 48:16, Genesis 48:21, Genesis 48:22, sufficiently reveals; yet comp.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17. The meaning of the last clause of Deuteronomy 21:1 is
evidently that, though thus Reuben was the natural firstborn, and Joseph had really
the birthright, the registration did not proceed in this instance (probably partly for
the very reason of the ambiguity) by the order of birthright, but everything yielded
to the special call for precedence on the part of Judah (Deuteronomy 21:2).
BI 1-2, "Now the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel.
Reuben’s rights transferred to Joseph
This incident is worth dwelling upon, only because it elucidates a special phase of the
Divine government. God is not bound by arbitrary laws. Primogeniture can be changed
in the court of heaven. Conduct is the only absolute guarantee of real and enduring
primogeniture. “Once in grace, always in grace,” may be a glorious truth, but everything
depends upon what is meant by being “in grace.” They are not all Israel that are called
Israel. We can only prove that we were once in grace by continually living in grace. Any
vital breach in the continuance will throw discredit upon the supposed reality of the
origin. (J. Parker, D. D.)
1 Chronicles 5:2
And of him came the Chief Ruler.
The Chief Ruler
I read of “the rulers of the darkness of this world”; “the rulers of synagogues”; the rulers
12

that “set themselves against the Lord and against His Anointed”; but none of them are
“Chief.” Christ is the “Chief Ruler.”
I. His appointment to office (Pro_8:22-31; Psa_2:6-9).
1. He rules in the Church.
2. He rules in the hearts of His people.
II. His essential qualifications for that office.
1. Infinite wisdom.
2. Invincible power.
3. Order.
III. The mercies unfolded in it.
1. By it is maintained the truth of God.
2. His empire is secured through it. He must rule until every enemy submits (Psa_
72:11; Isa_11:7).
3. Triumphs are secured to us and repeatedly realised by our Chief Ruler.
(1) Over temptations (1Co_10:13).
(2) Over every difficulty in providence (Isa_13:16). (Joseph Irons.)
2 and though Judah was the strongest of his
brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of
the firstborn belonged to Joseph)—
CLARKE, "And of him came the chief ruler - This is, by both the Syriac and
Arabic, understood of Christ: “From Judah the King Messiah shall proceed.” The
Chaldee paraphrases the verse thus: “Seeing Judah prevailed over his brethren, so the
kingdom was taken from Reuben and given to Judah; and because he was strong, so was
his kingdom. Levi also was godly, and did not transgress in the matter of the golden calf;
therefore the high priesthood was taken away from the children of Reuben, and on their
account from all the first-born, and given to Aaron and his sons. The custody of the
13

sanctuary belonged to the Levites, but the birthright to Joseph.” - T.
GILL, "And of him came the chief ruler - This is, by both the Syriac and Arabic,
understood of Christ: “From Judah the King Messiah shall proceed.” The Chaldee
paraphrases the verse thus: “Seeing Judah prevailed over his brethren, so the kingdom
was taken from Reuben and given to Judah; and because he was strong, so was his
kingdom. Levi also was godly, and did not transgress in the matter of the golden calf;
therefore the high priesthood was taken away from the children of Reuben, and on their
account from all the first-born, and given to Aaron and his sons. The custody of the
sanctuary belonged to the Levites, but the birthright to Joseph.” - T.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:2. For Judah — Not the person, (for in person Joseph
prevailed,) but the tribe of Judah. Prevailed — Excelled the other tribes, especially
in the following privilege. And of him — Rather, For of him, as the Hebrew ‫,ו‬ vau, is
often used: this being a reason of the foregoing assertion, or declaration, showing
wherein he did prevail. Came the chief ruler — The government was, by God’s
promise and appointment, to be seated chiefly and most durably in that tribe, first
in David and his successors, and then in the Messiah, who sprang out of Judah,
(Hebrews 7:14,) which was a far greater privilege than the birthright. But, or
although, the birthright was Joseph’s — So this prevents or removes an objection to
Judah’s precedency taken from the birthright.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him
[came] the chief ruler; but the birthright [was] Joseph’s:)
Ver. 2. For Judah prevailed above his brethren.] As was foretold. [Genesis 49:8-10]
{See Trapp on "Genesis 49:8"} {See Trapp on "Genesis 49:9"} {See Trapp on
"Genesis 49:10"}
And of him came the chief ruler.] Jesus Christ especially. [Hebrews 7:14]
But the birthright was Joseph’s.] Quod ad fructum attinet.
COKE, "1 Chronicles 5:2. Of him came the chief ruler— The reader will observe,
that there is nothing for came in the original. There can be no doubt that the sacred
writer here refers to Jacob's prophesy in Genesis 49:10. See the note on that place.
The Syriac renders it, Christ the king; and the Arabic, Messiah the king.
14

POOLE, " Judah; not the person, (for so Joseph prevailed,) but the tribe of Judah.
Prevailed above his brethren; excelled the other tribes in number and power, and
especially in the following privilege.
And of him, or for of him, as the Hebrew vau is oft used; this being a reason of the
foregoing assertion, or a declaration wherein he did prevail.
Came the chief ruler; the government was by God’s promise and appointment to be
seated chiefly and most durably in that tribe, first in David and his successors, and
then in the Messiah, who sprang out of Judah, Hebrews 7:14, which was a far
greater privilege than the birthright. Or, as to the ruler, (i.e. as to the point of
dominion,) he was more than he, or preferred before him, i.e. before Joseph, who is
named in the very next clause, the pronoun being referred unto the following noun,
which is frequent among the Hebrews, as Psalms 87:1 105:19.
But the birthright; or,
although, as vau is oft used; so this prevents or removes an objection against
Judah’s precedency taken from his birthright.
ELLICOTT, " (2) For Judah prevailed above his brethren.—Literally, was mighty
among his brethren. Comp. Jacob’s blessing (Genesis 49:8-10): “Judah, thou—thy
brethren shall praise thee, Thy hand shall be on the neck of thy foes, Thy father’s
sons shall bow before thee. Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor doom-staff
from between his feet,” &c. (See also Judges 1:1-2, where Judah is divinely
commissioned to lead the attack upon the Canaanites.) At the census of Moses,
Judah greatly outnumbered any other single tribe (Numbers 1:27).
And of him came the chief ruler.—“And from him (one was to become) prince.”
Literally, and for a prince—out of him. (Comp. Micah 5:1.) LXX., εἰς ἡγούμενον ἐξ
αὐτοῦ. David is meant, as in 1 Samuel 13:14. We may also remember the word of the
apostolic writer: “It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah” (Hebrews 7:4).
The prophecy concerning the royal dignity of Judah is only thus exhausted of its
meaning.
15

But the birthright was Joseph’s, who actually received the “double portion” in the
two tribal domains of Ephraim and Manasseh.
3 the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel:
Hanok, Pallu, Hezron and Karmi.
GILL, "The sons, I say, of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, were, Hanoch, and
Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi. As in Gen_46:9.
ELLICOTT, " (3) Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi.—So Genesis 46:9;
Exodus 6:14; Numbers 26:5-7. Considering the prominence of Hezron and Carmi
among the clans of Judah, it is remarkable to find their names recurring among the
main branches of Reuben.
PULPIT, "The four sons of Reuben here given are first enumerated in Genesis 46:9;
then in Exodus 6:14; and again in Numbers 26:5-7, where are also found the
corresponding chief families of the tribe, the total of their fighting numbers
amounting to 43,730, compared with 46,500 at the time of the Sinai census
(Numbers 2:11), a diminution due to the plague for the idolatry of Baal-peor
(Numbers 25:9).
4 The descendants of Joel:
16

Shemaiah his son, Gog his son,
Shimei his son,
BARNES, "The sons of Joel - The line of succession here given must be broken by
one great gap or several smaller ones, since nine generations before Tiglath-pileser
would carry us back no further than the reign of Rehoboam.
GILL, "The sons of Joel,.... Who was either the son of Carmi last mentioned, or
rather of Hanoch, Reuben's firstborn, since the descendants of him were the princes of
the tribe: his posterity in succession were, Shemaiah, Cog, Shimei, Micah, Reaia, Baal,
Beerah; of whom we know no more than their names, and by these the descent is carried
down to the captivity by Tiglathpileser, as follows.
HENRY 4-17, " The genealogy of the princes of this tribe, the chief family of it (many,
no doubt, being omitted), to Beerah, who was head of this clan when the king of Assyria
carried them captive, 1Ch_5:4-6. Perhaps he is mentioned as prince of the Reubenites at
that time because he did not do his part to prevent the captivity.
3. The enlargement of the coasts of this tribe. They increasing, and their cattle being
multiplied, they crowded out their neighbours the Hagarites, and extended their
conquests, though not to the river Euphrates, yet to the wilderness which abutted upon
that river, 1Ch_5:9, 1Ch_5:10. Thus God did for his people as he promised them: he cast
out the enemy from before them by little and little, and gave them their land as they had
occasion for it, Exo_23:30.
II. Of the tribe of Gad. Some great families of that tribe are here named (1Ch_5:12),
seven that were the children of Abihail, whose pedigree is carried upwards from the son
to the father (1Ch_5:14, 1Ch_5:15), as that 1Ch_5:4, 1Ch_5:5, is brought downwards
from father to son. These genealogies were perfected in the days of Jotham king of
Judah, but were begun some years before, in the reign of Jeroboam II, king of Israel.
What particular reason there was for taking these accounts then does not appear; but it
was just before they were carried away captive by the Assyrians, as appears 2Ki_15:29,
2Ki_15:31. When the judgments of God were ready to break out against them for their
wretched degeneracy and apostasy then were they priding themselves in their
genealogies, that they were the children of the covenant; as the Jews, in our Saviour's
time, who, when they were ripe for ruin, boasted, We have Abraham to our father. Or
there might be a special providence in it, and a favourable intimation that though they
17

were, for the present, cast out, they were not cast off for ever. What we design to call for
hereafter we keep an inventory of.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:4 The sons of Joel; Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei
his son,
Ver. 4. The sons of Joel.] Who was Hanoch’s son, likely.
POOLE, " Joel was the son either of Carmi last mentioned; or rather of Hanoch,
Reuben’s first-born, because he and his were successively princes of this tribe, as
may be gathered from 1 Chronicles 5:6.
ELLICOTT, " (4) The LXX. read: “Sons of Joel Shemaiah, and Banaia (Benaiah)
his son; and sons of Gog, son of Shemaiah, his son Micah,” &c.
Verses 4-6
(4-6) The sons of Joel.—The connection of this leading house with one of the four
sons just mentioned, is implied but not stated. The line of Joel is traced through
seven generations to Beerah, who was transported to Assyria by Tiglath Pileser. II.,
734 B.C., in the reign of Pekah, king of Israel. Supposing there are no gaps in the
series, Joel flourished 280 years (7 x 40) before that date; that is, about 1014 B.C.,
under David and Solomon.
From which of the four sons of Reuben the line came in which Joel would appear,
we do not know. Juntas and Tremellius say Hanoch, others Carmi, while the Syriac
Version has Carrot vice Joel. It is to be remarked that in Numbers 26:8-10 a line of
descent through Pallu is given, but reaching only to the second generation, Beerah
in the present list will be only ninth at furthest from Reuben, so that it is evident
that it is a very fragmentary genealogy, whether the hiatus be only one, viz. between
Reuben's son and Joel, or whether both there and elsewhere also. Of none of the
eight persons beginning with Joel and ending with Beerah is anything else known,
unless either Shemaiah or Shimei may be identical with the Shema of verse 8, in
which case it might be also that the Joel of verse 8 is identical with that of verse 4. In
this passage and 1 Chronicles 8:30 Baal appears as the name of a man. In this
passage, and in 1 Chronicles 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 28:20, we have a different form
in each part of the word, of the Tiglath-pileser of 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 16:7. These
18

slight differences in the position of the radicals, with the introduction or omission of
the , ‫א‬ make as many as four different readings in the Hebrew. Tiglath-pileser, the
second Assyrian king who came into conflict with the Israelites, reigned about B.C.
727-747 . Gesenius thinks that the former half of the word is the same as Diglath, i.q.
Tigris; and that the latter, a root occurring also in the name Nabo-pola-saris, is
from an Assyrian verb meaning "to guard." He translates the word as "Lord of the
Tigris." The Assyrian reproduction of the name is Tigulti-pal-tsira (Smith's 'Bible
Dictionary'), or Tukulti-pal-zara ('Speaker's Commentary,' in loc.). The Captivity is
spoken of further in the last verse of this chapter and in 2 Kings 31-15:27 . The
Septuagint reads 2 Kings 15:4 and 2 Kings 15:5 differently: "The sons of Joel, Semei
and Banaea his son; and the sons of Gog the son of Semei," etc; and this in all three
editions—Vatican, Alexandrine, and Aldine.
5 Micah his son,
Reaiah his son, Baal his son,
ELLICOTT, "(5) Baal.—Compare the names of Saul’s posterity Eshbaal and
Meribbaal; and David’s son Beeliada (Heb., Baalyada).
6 and Beerah his son, whom Tiglath-Pileser[a]
king of Assyria took into exile. Beerah was a
leader of the Reubenites.
CLARKE, "Beerah his son - After their separation from the house of David the ten
tribes continued to have princes of the tribes; and this continued till the time that
19

Tiglath-pileser carried them captives into Assyria. At that time Beerah was their prince
or chief; and with him this species of dominion or precedency terminated. According to
the Targum, Beerah was the same as Baruch the prophet.
GILL, "Beerah his son,.... The last of Joel's posterity, who, according to the Targum
and other Jewish writers (q) was a prophet, and the father of Hosea, see Hos_1:1 but
neither the name, title, time, nor tribe, agree:
whom Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria carried away captive; the same with
Tiglathpileser by a transposition of letters, 2Ki_15:29 and is read the same here in the
Greek, Syriac, and Arabic versions:
he was prince of the Reubenites; at that time; that is, Beerah was.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:6 Beerah his son, whom Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria
carried away [captive]: he [was] prince of the Reubenites.
Ver. 6. He was prince of the Reubenites.] But not the father of the prophet Hosea, as
some have held. (a)
7 Their relatives by clans, listed according to their
genealogical records:
Jeiel the chief, Zechariah,
GILL, "And his brethren by their families,.... Either the brethren of Beerah, or the
rest of the posterity of Reuben:
(when the genealogy of their generations was reckoned;) either in the times of
Jotham and Jeroboam, 1Ch_5:17 or at the time of their captivity, as in the preceding
verse:
were the chief, Jehiel, and Zechariah; these were the principals or heads of their
20

families.
K&D 7-8, "“And his brothers,” (each) according to his families in the registration,
according to their descent (properly their generations; vide for ‫ת‬ ‫ד‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫תּ‬ on Gen_2:4), are
(were) the head (the first) Jeiel and Zechariah, and Bela, ... the son of Joel,” probably the
Joel already mentioned in 1Ch_5:4. “His (i.e., Beerah's) brothers” are the families
related to the family of Beerah, which were descended from the brothers of Joel. That
they were not, however, properly “brothers,” is clear from the fact that Bela's descent is
traced back to Joel as the third of the preceding members of his family; and the
conclusion would be the same, even if this Joel be another than the one mentioned in
1Ch_5:4. The singular suffix with ‫יו‬ ָ‫ת‬ֹ‫ח‬ ְ‫פּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ is to be taken distributively or ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ may be
supplied before it in thought; cf. Num_2:34; Num_11:10. The word ‫ֹאשׁ‬ ‫,ר‬ “head,” for the
first-born, stands here before the name, as in 1Ch_12:3; 1Ch_23:8; elsewhere it stands
after the name, e.g., 1Ch_5:12 and 1Ch_9:17. The dwelling-places of Bela and his family
are then given in 1Ch_5:8, 1Ch_5:9. “He dwelt in Aroer,” on the banks of the brook
Arnon (Jos_13:9; Jos_12:2), now the ruin Araayr on the northern bank of the Mojeb
(vide on Num_32:34). “Until Nebo and Baal-meon” westward. Nebo, a village on the hill
of the same name in the mountains of Abarim, opposite Jericho (cf. on Num_32:38).
Baal-meon is probably identical with the ruin Myun, three-quarters of an hour south-
east from Heshbon.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:7-8. And his brethren — The other sons of Reuben, and
their posterity. Were the chief — Hebrew, the head: each was the head of his family.
Who dwelt in Aroer, even, &c. — Namely, the Reubenites, all those here before
mentioned, as appears, both by the following verses, which relate to the whole tribe,
and by the agreement of this description of their inheritance with that Joshua
13:15-16.
POOLE, " His brethren, i.e. the other sons of Reuben, and their posterity.
The chief, Heb. the head; each was the head of his family.
ELLICOTT, " (7) And his brethren by their families.—“And his fellow-tribesmen,
each after his clan (Numbers 2:34), in the registration after their pedigrees, were the
chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah.” Jeiel was the chief of the second Reubenite clan, as
Beerah of the first. Zechariah and Bela were heads of the other chief houses. It
appears that these four chieftains correspond to the four divisions of Reuben
mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:3. Numbers 26:7 says expressly that “the Hanochite,
21

the Palluite, the Hezronite, and the Carmite” were “the clans of the Reubenite.”
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 5:7, 1 Chronicles 5:8
Of Jeiel, Zechariah, Bela, and Asaz nothing further is known. Shema and Joel may
be those of verse 4, as above. The expression, his brethren, i.e. the brethren of
Beerah, must be read generally. The intimation, when the genealogy of their
generations was reckoned, is probably explained by the contents of verse 17 (of
which hereafter). Aroer ( ‫ר‬ֵ‫ﬠ‬ֹ‫ֲר‬‫ﬠ‬ or ‫ר‬ֵ‫רוֹﬠ‬ ְ‫;)ﬠ‬ a place east of the Jordan, overhanging the
torrent of Arnon, which was a boundary between Moab and the Amorites, and
afterwards between Moab and Reuben. There is little doubt that Burckhardt has
identified the ruins of Aroer (see Numbers 32:38; Deuteronomy 2:24, Deuteronomy
2:36; Deuteronomy 3:8, Deuteronomy 3:12, Deuteronomy 3:16; Joshua 12:1, Joshua
12:2; Joshua 13:9, Joshua 13:16; 11:13, 11:26, where note transposition of letters in
the Hebrew; 2 Kings 10:33). Moab seems to have regained it later (Jeremiah
47-48:1 ; see interesting arts. "Amen" and "Areer," Smith's' Bible Dictionary').
Nebo and Baal-meon are also mentioned together in Numbers 32:38; and Baal-meon
with Moab in Ezekiel 25:9. This Nebo, the town, is distinct from Mount Nebo. It is
remarkable that it is not mentioned, unless under one of the "changed" names
(Numbers 32:38), in the list of the towns of Reuben (Joshua 23-13:15 ). Nebo was the
name of a heathen deity, known among the Chaldeans (Isaiah 46:1), Babylonians,
and Assyrians; and this constituted one reason, if not the reason, for changing its
name when it had been affixed to the Moabite city.
8 and Bela son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son
of Joel. They settled in the area from Aroer to
Nebo and Baal Meon.
CLARKE, "Who dwelt in Aroer - This town was situated on the river Arnon; and
Nebo was both a city and a mountain in the same country. They both lay on the other
22

side of Jordan.
GILL, "And Bela the son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Joel,.... The
pedigree of Bela, another principal man in the tribe of Reuben, is traced up to Joel the
father of Shema; the same with Shemaiah, according to Kimchi and Ben Melech, 1Ch_
5:4
who dwelt in Aroer; which belonged to the tribe of Gad, and was rebuilt by them,
Num_32:34 wherefore Kimchi observes, it may be interpreted, either from Aroer, or on
the border of it, Bela dwelt:
even unto Nebo, and Baalmeon; of which See Gill on Num_32:38.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:9. And eastward he inhabited — That is, the tribe of
Reuben. Unto the entering in of the wilderness, &c. — From Jordan and the
wilderness, beyond it unto Euphrates. Or, of the wilderness, which lies toward, or
reacheth to the river Euphrates — Namely, the great wilderness of Kedemoth,
(Deuteronomy 2:26,) which was extended far and wide toward Euphrates: for that
was the eastern border of Reuben’s possession, and not Euphrates, to which their
habitation never reached. Because their cattle were multiplied — Which forced
them to enlarge their habitation as far as they could toward Euphrates.
POOLE, "Who dwelt, to wit, the Reubenites, all these here before mentioned, as
appears both by the following verses, which relate to the whole tribe; and by the
agreement of this description of their inheritance with that, Joshua 13:15,16.
ELLICOTT, " (8) Bela.—His descent is traced, like that of Beerah. but through
fewer names. This does not necessarily imply that Bela and Beerah were not
contemporaries. Intermediate names are often omitted in genealogies. (See Joshua
7:18 : “Achan son of Carmi son of Zabdi son of Zerah,” and 1 Chronicles 5:24,
“Achan son of Zerah,” and the different lengths of the pedigrees of Heman, Asaph,
and Ethan in 1 Chronicles 6:33-47.) It is not likely that the Joel of 1 Chronicles 5:8
is the same as the Joel of 1 Chronicles 5:4, in spite of the further coincidence of
Shema-Shemiah.
Who dwelt.—He was dwelling, that is, he and his clan.
23

Aroer.—Now Arâ’ir, on the north bank of the Arnon (Joshua 12:2).
Nebo, a place on the famous mount Nebo, in the region east of the Dead Sea (now
Jebel Neba, Deuteronomy 34:1), over against Jericho (Numbers 32:38).
Baal-meon.—Or, Beth-bqal-meon, now Ma’in, about two miles south-east of
Heshbon. Aroer gives the southern Nebo, and Baalmeon the northern, limits of the
tribe. All three places are mentioned on the Stone of Mesha, kings of Moab (2 Kings
3:4-27).
9 To the east they occupied the land up to the edge
of the desert that extends to the Euphrates River,
because their livestock had increased in Gilead.
BARNES, "He inhabited - i. e. Reuben. Eastward the Reubenites inhabited as far as
the commencement of the great Syrian Desert, which extended all the way from the river
Euphrates to their borders.
GILL, "And eastward he inhabited,.... Either Bela, or the tribe of Reuben:
unto the entering in of the wilderness; the wilderness of Kedemoth, which was
near to Sihon king of Heshbon, whose land the Reubenites inhabited, Deu_2:26.
from the river Euphrates; a learned man (r) thinks that this river Phrat was different
from the Euphrates near Babylon, which was northward, since this was to the east or
southeast:
because their cattle were multiplied in the land of Gilead; therefore their
habitation was extended further, even to the river Euphrates, as in the days of David and
Solomon, 2Sa_8:3.
24

JAMISON, "Eastward he inhabited unto the entering in of the wilderness
from the river Euphrates — The settlement was on the east of Jordan, and the
history of this tribe, which never took any part in the public affairs or movements of the
nation, is comprised in “the multiplication of their cattle in the land of Gilead,” in their
wars with the Bedouin sons of Hagar, and in the simple labors of pastoral life. They had
the right of pasture over an extensive mountain range - the great wilderness of
Kedemoth (Deu_2:26) and the Euphrates being a security against their enemies.
K&D, "“Eastward to the coming to the desert (i.e., till towards the desert) from the
river Euphrates,” i.e., to the great Arabico-Syrian desert, which stretches from the
Euphrates to the eastern frontier of Perea, or from Gilead to the Euphrates. Bela's family
had spread themselves so far abroad, “for their herds were numerous in the land of
Gilead,” i.e., Perea, the whole trans-Jordanic domain of the Israelites.
POOLE, " He inhabited, i.e. the tribe of Reuben.
From the river Euphrates; from Jordan and the wilderness beyond it unto
Euphrates. Or,
of the wilderness, which lies towards or reacheth to the river Euphrates, namely, the
great wilderness of Kedemoth, Deuteronomy 2:26, which was extended far and wide
towards Euphrates; for that was the eastern border of Reuben’s possession, and not
Euphrates, to which their habitation never reached.
Their cattle were multiplied; which forced them to enlarge their habitation as far as
they could eastward towards Euphrates.
ELLICOTT, " (9) And eastward he inhabited unto the entering in of the
wilderness.—As their flocks and herds increased, the Reubenites gradually spread
eastward, to the great desert lying between the Euphrates and Syria. This desert
was a painful memory to the restored exiles. Ezra took four months to cross it (Ezra
7:9; Ezra 8:22). The form of the expression, “unto the entrance into the wilderness
from the river Euphrates,” seems to indicate that this account was written originally
in Babylonia.
Because their cattle were (had) multiplied in the land of Gilead.—Gilead, in Old
Testament usage, means all Israelite territory east of the Jordan.
25

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 5:9
Keil and others refer this verse to the people of Bela; yet others apply it to Joel It
would seem nearest the facts to apply it to the main subject of the paragraph—
Reuben. Gilead (Deuteronomy 3:12-16) had for its boundaries, on the north Bashan,
on the south Moab, on the east the Arabian desert. Its situation evidently exposed it
to Assyrian invasion and frequent encounter with desert tribes (Joshua 17:1;
Numbers 26:29, Numbers 26:30).
10 During Saul’s reign they waged war against the
Hagrites, who were defeated at their hands; they
occupied the dwellings of the Hagrites throughout
the entire region east of Gilead.
BARNES, "The “Hagarites” or “Hagarenes” are generally regarded as descendants of
Hagar, and a distinct branch of the Ishmaelites 1Ch_27:30-31; Psa_83:6. They appear to
have been one of the most wealthy 1Ch_5:21 and widely-spread tribes of the Syrian
Desert, being found on the side of the Euphrates in contact with the Assyrians, and also
in the Hauran, in the neighborhood of Palestine, in contact with the Moabites and
Israelites. If identical with the Agraei of the Classical writers, their name may be
considered as still surviving in that of the district called Hejer or Hejera in northeastern
Arabia, on the borders of the Persian Gulf. A full account of the war is given in 1Ch_
5:18-22.
CLARKE, "And they dwelt in their tents - The Hagarites were tribes of Nomade,
or Scenite, Arabs; people who lived in tents, without any fixed dwellings, and whose
property consisted in cattle. The descendants of Reuben extirpated these Hagarites,
seized on their property and their tents, and dwelt in their place.
26

GILL, "And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites,.... Not with
the Hungarians, as the Targum, a people not then in being; but the Ishmaelites, so called
because they descended from Hagar (s), Sarah's maid; the same that are placed by Pliny
(t) and Ptolemy (u) in Arabia, near the Batanaeans, or inhabitants of Bashan; with those
the Reubenites made war, in conjunction with the Gadites and half tribe of Manasseh,
1Ch_5:18, perhaps this war might be much about the time Saul relieved Jabeshgilead,
and beat the Ammonites, 1Sa_11:1 by which the tribes on that side Jordan might be
encouraged to it:
who fell by their hand; were worsted and conquered by them:
and they dwelt in their tents; in which the Arabians used to dwell, because of their
flocks; hence some of them were called Scenites:
throughout all the east land of Gilead; or rather throughout all the land of the
Hagarites, which lay to the east of Gilead, as the Vulgate Latin version; or otherwise the
land of Gilead itself was their original possession.
K&D, "“In the days of Saul they made war upon the Hagarites, and they fill into their
hands, and they dwelt in their tents over the whole east side of Gilead.” The subject is
not determined, so that the words may be referred either to the whole tribe of Reuben or
to the family of Bela (1Ch_5:8). The circumstance that in 1Ch_5:8 and 1Ch_5:9 Bela is
spoken of in the singular (‫ב‬ֵ‫שׁ‬ ‫י‬ ‫הוּא‬ and ‫ב‬ַ‫ָשׁ‬‫י‬), while here the plural is used in reference to
the war, is not sufficient to show that the words do not refer to Bela's family, for the
narrative has already fallen into the plural in the last clause of 1Ch_5:9. We therefore
think it better to refer 1Ch_5:10 to the family of Bela, seeing that the wide spread of this
family, which is mentioned in 1Ch_5:9, as far as the desert to the east of the inhabited
land, presupposes the driving out of the Hagarites dwelling on the eastern plain of
Gilead. The notice of this war, moreover, is clearly inserted here for the purpose of
explaining the wide spread of the Belaites even to the Euphrates desert, and there is
nothing which can be adduced against that reference. The ‫יו‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫א‬ in 1Ch_5:7 does not, as
Bertheau thinks probable, denote that Bela was a contemporary of Beerah, even if the
circumstance that from Bela to Joel only three generations are enumerated, could be
reconciled with this supposition. The spread of Bela's family over the whole of the
Reubenite Gilead, which has just been narrated, proves decisively that they were not
contemporaries. If Bela lived at the time of the invasion of Gilead by Tiglath-pileser,
when the prince Beerah was carried away into exile, it is certainly possible that he might
have escaped the Assyrians; but he could neither have had at that time a family “which
inhabited all the east land,” nor could he himself have extended his domain from “Aroer
and Nebo towards the wilderness,” as the words ‫ב‬ֵ‫שׁ‬ ‫י‬ ‫,הוּא‬ 1Ch_5:8, distinctly state. We
therefore hold that Bela was much older than Beerah, for he is introduced as a great-
grandson of Joel, so that his family might have been as widely distributed as 1Ch_5:8,
1Ch_5:9 state, and have undertaken and carried out the war of conquest against the
27

Hagarites, referred to in 1Ch_5:10, as early as the time of Saul. Thus, too, we can most
easily explain the fact that Bela and his brothers Jeiel and Zechariah are not mentioned.
As to ‫ים‬ ִ‫ע‬ ִ‫ר‬ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫,ה‬ cf. on 1Ch_5:19.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:10. In the days of Saul they made war — The Gadites
and Manassites joining with them in the war, 1 Chronicles 5:18-19. With the
Hagarites — The Ishmaelites who dwelt in Arabia Deserta. They dwelt in their
tents — The Israelites took possession of their lands, and tents or houses, which lay
eastward from the land of Gilead. Thus God fulfilled his promise to his people: he
cast out the enemy from before them by little and little, and gave them their land as
they had occasion for it.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:10 And in the days of Saul they made war with the
Hagarites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the
east [land] of Gilead.
Ver. 10. They made war with the Hagarites,] i.e., Ishmaelites inhabiting Arabia
deserta. These, ashamed of their mother Hagar the handmaid, would afterwards
need for honour’s sake be called Saracens, by the name of Sarah the mistress, as
saith Sozomen. (a) This so pleased the rest of the Arabians, that they would all be
called Saracens. Mohammed their general grew famous in the days of Heraclius the
emperor, and subdued many countries. Now they are called Turks, &c.
And they dwelt in their tents.] Few countries but have changed their inhabitants:
such is the vanity of all here below. The Athenians vaunted, but vainly, that they
were αυτοχθονες, bred out of the land they lived upon, as so many mushrooms or
grasshoppers.
POOLE, " They made war; the Gadites and Manassites joining with them in the
war, 1 Chronicles 5:18,19.
With the Hagarites; the Ishmeelites, who dwelt in Arabia the Desert.
They dwelt in their tents; the Israelites took possession of their lands, and tents or
houses.
Throughout all the east land of Gilead; which lay eastward from the land of Gilead.
28

ELLICOTT, " (10) And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites.—
The great extension of the tribe in an easterly direction took place in the reign of
Saul, the first king of Israel. Bela and his clan victoriously fought with the Hagarites
(Heb., Hagri’im) or Hagarenes (see Psalms 83:7, Hagrim), that is, the sons of Hagar,
for possession of the pasture-grounds east of Gilead. This Arab nation is mentioned
in the Assyrian inscriptions. (The LXX. has τοὺς παροίκους, i.e., haggârîm, u
sojourners,” “nomads.”)
They dwelt in their tents.—This phrase first occurs in Genesis 9:27. The Belaites
occupied the territory of the Hagarites.
Throughout all the east land of Gilead.—Rather, on the whole eastern side or
border of Gilead. This includes the new settlements of Bela beyond the border.
Among such conflicts, one with a people descended presumably from Hagar or
Ishmael (though 1 Chronicles 27:30, 1 Chronicles 27:31, and Psalms 70:1-5 : Psalms
13:6 are somewhat needlessly interpreted to be opposed to this) is here alluded to. It
takes us to the time of Saul, and from that time up to the time of "the Captivity" (1
Chronicles 5:22) the victorious Reubenites, Gadites, and people of the half-tribe
Manasseh had the benefit of enlarged domain at their expense: "They dwelt in their
steads," after seizing great spoil. It is exceedingly likely that we have the
perpetuation of the name Hagarenes in the Agraeei (modern Hejer) of Strabo,
16:767; Pliny, 'Hist. Nat.,' 6:32; Dionysius, 'Perieg.,' 956; Pt. 5:2 (see art.
"Hagarenes" in Smith's 'Bible Dictionary').
Gad
11 The Gadites lived next to them in Bashan, as
far as Salekah:
29

BARNES, "From this passage and from the subsequent account of the Manassites
1Ch_5:23-24, the Gadites extended themselves to the north at the expense of their
brethren, gradually occupying a considerable portion of the tract originally allotted to
the “half tribe.”
GILL, "And the children of Gad dwelt over against them,.... Or by them, the
Reubenites; and one part of Gilead was given them between them, and the other to the
half tribe of Manasseh:
in the land of Bashan, unto Salcah; for though all Bashan is said to be given to the
half tribe of Manasseh, Deu_3:13 yet that is to be understood of the greater part of it; all
of that which belonged to Og, but what did not, the Gadites, either from the first, or in
later times, inhabited even as far as Salcah, which was one of the cities of Og, Deu_3:10
and which Benjamin of Tudela (w) makes mention of, being called by the same name in
his days.
JAMISON 11-1, "1Ch_5:11-26. The line of Gad.
the children of Gad dwelt over against them — The genealogy of the Gadites
and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1Ch_5:24) is given along with that of the Reubenites, as
these three were associated in a separate colony.
K&D, "The families of the tribe of Gad, and their dwelling-places. - 1Ch_5:11. In
connection with the preceding statement as to the dwelling-places of the Reubenites, the
enumeration of the families of Gad begins with a statement as to their dwelling-places:
“Over against them (the Reubenites) dwelt the Gadites in Bashan unto Salcah.” Bashan
is used here in its wider signification of the dominion of King Og, which embraced the
northern half of Gilead, i.e., the part of that district which lay on the north side of the
Jabbok, and the whole district of Bashan; cf. on Deu_3:10. Salcah formed the boundary
towards the east, and is now Szalchad, about six hours eastward from Bosra (see on
Deu_3:10).
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:11 And the children of Gad dwelt over against them, in the
land of Bashan unto Salchah:
Ver. 11. In the land of Bashan.] Bashan was the name both of the whole country and
30

the chief city; like as Muscovia is at this day.
COFFMAN, ""And the sons of Gad dwelt over against them, in the land of Bashan
unto Salecah: Joel the chief, and Shapham the second, and Janai, and Shaphat in
Bashan. And their brethren of their fathers houses: Michael, and Meshullam, and
Sheba, and Jorai, and Jacan, and Zia, and Eber, seven. These were the sons of
Abihail, the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Mishael, the
son of Jeshishai the son of Hahdo, the son of Buz; Ahi the son of Abdiel, the son of
Guni, chief of their fathers' houses. And they dwelt in Gilead in Bashan, and in its
towns, and in all the suburbs of Sharon, as far as their borders. All these were
reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of
Jeroboam king of Israel."
ELLICOTT, "Verses 11-17
(11-17) THE SONS OF GAD, THEIR CLANS, TERRITORY, AND
REGISTRATION.
(11) And the children of Gad dwelt over against them.—That is, adjoining them on
the east of Jordan.
In the land of Bashan unto Salcah.—(Joshua 13:11.) Bashan, the ancient dominion
of the giant Og (Numbers 21:33-35; Deuteronomy 3:1-12). Salcah now Sulkhad, on
the south-east slope of Jebel Hauran in the extreme east of Gilead.
(12) Joel the chief (or, first; literally, head), and Shaphan the next (or second.)—
Genesis 46:15 enumerates seven sons of Gad, a number corresponding with the
clans of 1 Chronicles 5:13; but none of the names are the same.
In Bashan.—This expression goes to prove that clans, not individuals, are intended.
31

Joel is also the head Reubenite house (1 Chronicles 5:4).
(13) And their brethren of the house of their fathers.—And their kinsmen (fellow-
tribesmen), according to their father-houses (clans). The verse names seven inferior
clans of the Gadites, whose seats are assigned in 1 Chronicles 5:16.
These, viz., the clans of 1 Chronicles 5:13, were sons of Abihail, whose line is
retraced through seven generations to Buz, of whom nothing further is known. The
name has occurred Genesis 22:21 as that of a son of Nahor; and Job 32:2, as that of
the clan of Elihu the Buzite.
(15) Ahi the son of Abdial, the son of Guni (was) head of their clans. Perhaps Ahi
was chieftain or prince of the sons of Abihail at the time when this register was
drawn up (1 Chronicles 5:17).
(16) And they dwelt in Gilead.—The seats of the Gadites of 1 Chronicles 5:13 were
in the country east of Jordan.
In Bashan, defines the locality more precisely. It was the northern region of Gilead.
And in her towns.—Heb., her daughters.
And in all the suburbs of Sharon.—Rather, pasture-grounds or sheep-walks.
Sharon.—The well-known plain of this name lay west of Jordan, between Carmel
and Joppa, along the coast of the Great Sea. The old conjecture that Shirion, i.e.,
mount Hermon (Deuteronomy 3:9; Psalms 29:6) should be read, is probably right.
32

Upon their borders.—That is, their extremities (Numbers 34:4-5). The Gadites fed
their flocks in the glens opening out at the foot of the mountains, here called their
exits or outlets.
(17) All these.—That is, the Gadite clans.
Were reckoned by genealogies (or registered) in the days of Jotham king of Judah,
i.e., after 757 B.C., according to Biblical chronology.
And in the days of Jeroboam (the second), king of Israel, who reigned from 825-784,
according to the data of Kings. Clearly, therefore, more than one registration is the
basis of the above statistics. That of Jeroboam was the earlier in point of time; but
the chronicler names the king of Judah first honoris causa. Jeroboam II., a vigorous
king, who “restored the border of Israel from the entry of Hamath to the sea of the
Arabah” (2 Kings 14:25), may have taken this census of the tribes east of Jordan,
with a view to fiscal purposes. Jotham or his father, the great Uzziah, appears to
have recovered Gad for Judah during the anarchy that succeeded the fall of Jehu’s
dynasty in the northern kingdom.
The tribe of Gad is taken next, and occupies but few lines. Gad was born seventh in
order of all the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:9-12), and first of the children of Leah's
maid Zilpah. The compiler seems to pass easily on to Gad, from the mere
circumstance of the name of the tribe being so constantly linked with that preceding,
in the matter of local settlement on the east of Jordan, after the journeyings of the
wilderness (Joshua 13:7, Joshua 13:8). The geography in 1 Chronicles 5:11 and 1
Chronicles 5:16 offers very little difficulty. Compared with the time of the first
settling of the Gadites (Deuteronomy 3:10-13; Joshua 13:25, Joshua 13:30), it is
evident that they had pushed their borders further to the north, trenching
somewhat upon the lot of the half-tribe Manasseh, as they also in turn extended
their limits northward to Hermon (verse 23). This reconciles Joshua 13:30 with the
33

present passage. Salcah, or (Authorized Version) Salchah (Deuteronomy 3:10;
Joshua 13:11), is probably to be identified as the modern Sulkhad, at the extreme
eastern point of the plain Hauran, which is bordered by the desert. "In Gilead in
Bashan" may be read, with some, as two coordinate places, separating them by a
stop; or may point to a time when Bashan included the upper half of Gilead.
Sharon, which Keil, quoting Reland, 'Pal. Ill.,' 370, would make the well-known
Sharon of Carmel and the Mediterranean, is, though unmentioned elsewhere,
probably distinguished sufficiently from it by the absence of the article, which is
invariably prefixed to the other. Stanley's suggestion would seem exceedingly apt,
that it is one in fact, as one in derivation and meaning, with the Mishor (i.e. "level ]
ands," "table-land") of Gilead and Bashan. With this explanation, however, the
term "suburbs" does not so well agree. Upon the other side, distant as the well-
known Sharon is, a link of connection might be found with it, in that the other
Manasseh half-tribe stretched into its plains; and in that case the last word of the
verse, ‫ם‬ ָ‫אוֹת‬ ְ‫,תּוֹﬠ‬ might mean (Joshua 17:9 ) "the outgoings" of the land or regions in
question to the "sea"-coast.
12 Joel was the chief, Shapham the second, then
Janai and Shaphat, in Bashan.
CLARKE, "Joel the chief - “Joel, prince of the Sanhedrin; and Shapham, master of
the college; and Jaanai and Shaphat, judges in Mathnan.” - T.
GILL, "Joel the chief,.... In this and the following verse are reckoned up the principal
men in the tribe of Gad, and the chief of all was Joel, another from him in the tribe of
Reuben, 1Ch_5:4.
and Shapham the next; the second chief man, from whom, Reland (x) conjectures,
Shophan, a city in the tribe of Gad, had its name, Num_32:35.
34

and Jaanai; from whom Danjaan might be called, as Michaelis intimates, 2Sa_24:6.
and Shaphat in Bashan; not Shaphat the father of Elisha, according to a tradition of
the Jews, mentioned by Kimchi; which is not at all probable.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:12. Joel the chief — The prince of the tribe, or, at least,
of the family, when they were numbered, namely, in the days of Jotham, 1
Chronicles 5:17. In Bashan — That is, either who dwelt in the city of Bashan, or
who abode in Bashan to defend the city and country, when their brethren went out
to war against the Hagarenes, 1 Chronicles 5:19.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:12 Joel the chief, and Shapham the next, and Jaanai, and
Shaphat in Bashan.
Ver. 12. And Jaanai and Shaphat in Bashan.] Or, Abode in Bashan to defend their
country, while their brethren were warring abroad. (a)
POOLE, " The chief; the prince of the tribe, or at least of his family, when they
were numbered, to wit, in the days of Jotham, 1 Chronicles 5:17.
Shaphat in Bashan, i.e. who dwelt in the city of Bashan. Others thus, Who abode in
Bashan to defend the city and country, when their brethren went out to war against
the Hagarites, 1 Chronicles 5:18,19.
The four proper names in this verse are not known in connection with the same
persons elsewhere. The Septuagint translates Shaphat as "the scribe," applying the
description to the foregoing Jaanai.
13 Their relatives, by families, were:
Michael, Meshullam, Sheba, Jorai, Jakan, Zia and
Eber—seven in all.
35

CLARKE, "And their brethren - This verse is wanting both in the Syriac and in
the Arabic.
GILL, "And their brethren of the house of their fathers,.... Who were also men
of eminence and note in them:
were, Michael, and Meshullam, and Shebai, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia,
and Heber, seven; so they are as here mentioned by name.
And their brethren. This chapter (see 1 Chronicles 5:7) seems to introduce the use of
this word, which must be understood generically. The seven persons are nowhere
else mentioned.
14 These were the sons of Abihail son of Huri, the
son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of
Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the
son of Buz.
GILL, "These are the children of Abihail the son of Huri,.... That is, the seven
before mentioned; they were the posterity of Abihail, whose pedigree is traced from his
father Huri to Buz, the intermediate progenitors being Jaroah, Gilead, Michael,
Jeshishai, Jahdo.
BENSON, "Verse 14-15
36

1 Chronicles 5:14-15. These are the children of Abihail — These seven last named.
Ahi, chief of the house of their fathers — Ahi was the head or chief of the houses or
families of those seven named 1 Chronicles 5:13.
These are the children of Abihail; i.e. the seven "brethren" of the preceding verse. A
rapid line of descent, or rather of ascent, consisting of ten generations, from Abihail
to Guni, here follows. The division between these verses has unfortunately cut in
half one name, i.e. Buzaki. The translators of the Septuagint saw that the two verses
composed one line of ascent, but instead of piecing "Aki" to "Buz," translated it as"
brother." Though this line takes us some way back, we find nowhere else any clue
or identification of any of these ten persons. Of the twenty-one persons in all,
therefore, named as belonging to the tribe of Gad, nothing else is known; and we
have nothing to guide us to connect them with any one rather than another of the
original" sons of Gad" (Genesis 46:16; Numbers 16:15-18).
15 Ahi son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, was head of
their family.
GILL, "Ahi the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of the house of their
fathers. Which Ahi was a principal man in the families the seven above men belonged
to; besides them, or those three, were everyone of them heads of families.
POOLE, " This Ahi was the head or chief of the houses or families, either,
1. Of those seven named 1 Chronicles 5:13; or,
2. Of Abdiel and Guni last named, and of their fifties.
37

The very form of the language of this verse would indicate that two genealogies are
intended. This quite tallies with the fact that there were two chronicles, one for each
division of the nation, i.e. "the chronicles of the kings of Judah" (2 Kings 15:6) and
"the chronicles of the kings of Israel" (2 Kings 15:11), in which same chapter both
Jeroboam (II.) of Israel and Jotham of Judah are spoken of, the latter beginning to
reign in Judah some twenty years (the exact chronology is very confused here) after
the death of the former. Although presumably it would be an object of closer
interest with Israel than with Judah to effect the registration of the Gadite
genealogy, yet it was most just that Judah should do so as well. This would both
vindicate Judah's own right place and be a happy omen of the continued
predominance of her position compared with that of Israel. Independently of the
question of effecting the actual registration, however, it is quite possible that, so long
as history ran by the side of history. Israel would gather and keep all it could of
Judah, and Judah all it could of Israel.
16 The Gadites lived in Gilead, in Bashan and its
outlying villages, and on all the pasturelands of
Sharon as far as they extended.
CLARKE, "The suburbs of Sharon - There were three places of this name: that
mentioned here was a district in the country of Bashan beyond Jordan, (see Jos_12:18);
there was another that lay between Caesarea of Palestine and Joppa; and there was a
third between Mount Tabor and the Sea of Tiberias. See Calmet.
GILL, "And they dwelt in Gilead,.... In that part of it which belonged to the tribe of
Gad:
in Bashan, and in her towns; See Gill on 1Ch_5:11,
38

and in all the suburbs of Sharon, upon their borders; there were two Sharons,
one to the west of the land of Israel near the Mediterranean sea, which is mentioned in
Act_9:35 as near Lydda and Joppa; and the other to the east or northeast, beyond
Jordan, which is here meant.
JAMISON, "Sharon — The term “Sharon” was applied as descriptive of any place of
extraordinary beauty and productiveness. There were three places in Palestine so called.
This Sharon lay east of the Jordan.
upon their borders — that is, of Gilead and Bashan: Gilead proper, or at least the
largest part, belonged to the Reubenites; and Bashan, the greatest portion of it, belonged
to the Manassites. The Gadites occupied an intermediate settlement on the land which
lay upon their borders.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:16. They dwelt in Gilead — That is, the children or tribe
of Gad inhabited a part of Gilead, the Reubenites and Manassites dwelling in other
parts of it, Deuteronomy 3:12. In Bashan — In the land of Bashan, as is said, 1
Chronicles 5:11. And in her towns — In some of her cities and towns. In all the
suburbs of Sharon — Not that Sharon in Canaan, but that to the east of Jordan,
namely, in the fields and pasture-grounds of it. Upon their borders — The borders
of Gilead and Bashan. For Gilead, properly so called, or the greatest part of it,
belonged to the Reubenites, and the greatest part of Bashan to the Manassites; and
the Gadites, whose habitation was between these two tribes, had those parts of both
these countries which lay toward their borders.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:16 And they dwelt in Gilead in Bashan, and in her towns,
and in all the suburbs of Sharon, upon their borders.
Ver. 16. Suburbs of Sharon.] Which was ager pascuosissimus, a place of fat feeding,
[1 Chronicles 27:29] situate under the hill of Lebanon; coupled with Carmel for
"excellency"; [Isaiah 35:2] not more a field than "a fold for flocks." [Isaiah 65:10]
Upon their borders.] Heb., Their outgoings.
POOLE, " They dwelt, i.e. the children or tribe of Gad.
In Gilead, i.e. in part of Gilead; for the Reubenites and Manassites dwelt in other
parts of it, Deuteronomy 3:12,13,16.
39

In Bashan; in the land of Bashan, as it is said, 1 Chronicles 5:11.
Quest. How come the Gadites to dwell in Bashan, when all Bashan is expressly said
to be given to the half tribe of Manasseh, Deuteronomy 3:13 Joshua 13:29,30?
Answ. All Bashan is put for the greatest part of it by a synecdoche, very frequent in
Scripture and all authors; and so the Gadites might possess a part of it. And thus
both Bashan and Gilead are used for parts of them, Joshua 17:1, where it is said of
Machir a Manassite, that he had Gilead and Bashan. And as it is unquestionably
true that Gilead is taken sometimes more largely for all the land of the Israelites
beyond Jordan, sometimes more strictly for that part of it which borders upon
Mount Gilead; of which See Poole "Joshua 17:1"; the like may be presumed
concerning Bashan; and so in its strictest sense it might be all given to the
Manassites, and yet in its largest sense might comprehend a part of the land
belonging to the Gadites.
In her towns, i.e. in some of her cities and towns.
In all the suburbs, i.e. in its fields and pasture grounds, 1 Chronicles 27:29. Of
Sharon; not that within Jordan, Isaiah 35:2, but another without Jordan.
Upon their borders, to wit, of Gilead and Bashan; for Gilead properly so called, or
the greatest part of it, belonged to the Reubenites; and Bashan, or the greatest part
of it, to the Manassites; and so the Gadites (whose habitation was between the
Reubenites and Manassites) had those parts of both their countries which were
towards their borders. Or,
unto their borders, i.e. as far as the suburbs or fields of Sharon, which were last
mentioned, were extended.
17 All these were entered in the genealogical
records during the reigns of Jotham king of Judah
and Jeroboam king of Israel.
40

BARNES, "The writer refers here to two registrations, one made under the authority
of Jeroboam II when he was king and Israel flourishing, the other made under the
authority of Jotham, king of Judah, during the troublous time which followed on the
great invasion of Tiglath-pileser. There is nothing surprising in a king of Judah having
exercised a species of lordship over the trans-Jordanic territory at this period.
GILL, "All these were reckoned by genealogies,.... All before mentioned:
in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of
Israel; not that those two kings reigned at the same time, and one and the same
reckoning is meant; but, as Dr. Lightfoot (y) observes, there were two reckonings; his
words are,"in the days of Jotham there was an account taken of the families of Reuben,
Gad, and half Manasseh, 1Ch_5:17 and so had there been in the days of Jeroboam the
second; then at their restoring by Jeroboam out of the hands of Hamath and Syria, and
now at their arming against the Assyrian, under whom they fell in the time of Pekah, and
are never again restored to Israel.''
JAMISON, "All these were reckoned ... in the days of Jotham — His long
reign and freedom from foreign wars as well as intestine troubles were favorable for
taking a census of the people.
and in the days of Jeroboam — the second of that name.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:17. In the days of Jotham king of Judah — Who,
reigning long, partly in his father’s days, and partly by himself, and being at leisure
from wars and troubles, thought this a fit season to examine the state of his people.
And in the days of Jeroboam — Probably Jeroboam the second, of whom see 2
Kings 13:13-14. This does not imply that Jotham and Jeroboam reigned at the same
time; but only that in their several reigns this account was taken.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:17 All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of
Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel.
Ver. 17. In the days of Jeroboam,] i.e., Jeroboam the second, who ruled over them.
POOLE, " In the days of Jotham king of Judah; who reigning long, partly in his
father’s days, and partly by himself, 2Ki 15, and being at leisure as to wars or
41

troubles, thought this a fit season to examine the state of his people.
In the days of Jeroboam; either the second of that name, of whom see 2 Kings 13:13.
Or rather the first Jeroboam; partly because he is called simply Jeroboam, without
any addition; which shows that he speaks of the most famous of the two; and partly
because this work of taking an account of the people doth far better agree to the
times of Jeroboam the First, when the kingdom of Israel was first erected and
established, and broken off from that of Judah, when it was necessary for Jeroboam
to know his own strength, and the numbers of his people, than to the times of
Jeroboam the Second, when the kingdom of Israel was broken, and near to its ruin.
18 The Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe
of Manasseh had 44,760 men ready for military
service—able-bodied men who could handle shield
and sword, who could use a bow, and who were
trained for battle.
GILL, "The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and half the tribe of
Manasseh,.... These all joined together, living together on the one side of Jordan:
of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow,
and skilful in war; strong able bodied men; and not only able to bear and carry arms,
sword in one hand, and shield in another; but were men of valour and courage, and had
military skill, and knew how to handle their arms to advantage:
were four and forty thousand seven hundred and threescore, that went out
to the war: that used to go out when there was occasion, and did at this time.
HENRY, "The heads of the half-tribe of Manasseh, that were seated on the other side
Jordan, are named here, 1Ch_5:23, 1Ch_5:24. Their lot, at first, was Bashan only; but
42

afterwards they increased so much in wealth and power that they spread far north, even
unto Hermon. Two things only are here recorded concerning these tribes on the other
side Jordan, in which they were all concerned. They all shared,
I. In a glorious victory over the Hagarites, so the Ishmaelites were now called, to
remind them that they were the sons of the bond-woman, that was cast out. We are not
told when this victory was obtained: whether it be the same with that of the Reubenites
(which is said 1Ch_5:10 to be in the days of Saul), or whether that success of one of
these tribes animated and excited the other two to join with them in another expedition,
is not certain. It seems, though in Saul's time the common interests of the kingdom were
weak and low, some of the tribes that acted separately did well for themselves. We are
here told,
1. What a brave army these frontier-tribes brought into the field against the Hagarites,
44,000 men and upwards, all strong, and brave, and skilful in war, so many effective
men, that knew how to manage their weapons, 1Ch_5:18. How much more considerable
might Israel have been than they were in the time of the judges if all the tribes had acted
in conjunction!
JAMISON 18-22, "Hagarites — or, “Hagarenes,” originally synonymous with
“Ishmaelites,” but afterwards applied to a particular tribe of the Arabs (compare Psa_
83:6).
Jetur — His descendants were called Itureans, and the country Auranitis, from
Hauran, its chief city. These, who were skilled in archery, were invaded in the time of
Joshua by a confederate army of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, who,
probably incensed by the frequent raids of those marauding neighbors, took reprisals in
men and cattle, dispossessed almost all of the original inhabitants, and colonized the
district themselves. Divine Providence favored, in a remarkable manner, the Hebrew
army in this just war.
K&D 18-22, "War of the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel with Arabic tribes. - As the
half-tribe of Manasseh also took part in this war, we should have expected the account of
it after 1Ch_5:24. Bertheau regards its position here as a result of striving after a
symmetrical distribution of the historical information. “In the case of Reuben,” he says,
“the historical information is in 1Ch_5:10; in the case of the half-tribe of Manasseh, in
1Ch_5:25, 1Ch_5:26; as to Gad, we have our record in 1Ch_5:18-22, which, together
with the account in 1Ch_5:25, 1Ch_5:26, refers to all the trans-Jordanic Israelites.” But
it is much more likely that the reason of it will be found in the character of the
authorities which the author of the Chronicle made use of, in which, probably, the notes
regarding this war were contained in the genealogical register of the Gadites.
1Ch_5:18
‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬ ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ן־בּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ belongs to the predicate of the sentence, “They were the sons of Valour,”
i.e., they belonged to the valiant warriors, “men bearing shield and sword (weapons of
offence and defence), and those treading (or bending) the bow,” i.e., skilful bowmen.
‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫מוּד‬ ְ‫,ל‬ people practised in war; cf. the portrayal of the warlike valour of Gad and
43

Manasseh, 1Ch_12:8, 1Ch_12:21. “The number 44,760 must be founded upon an
accurate reckoning” (Berth.); but in comparison with the number of men capable of
bearing arms in those tribes in the time of Moses, it is somewhat inconsiderable: for at
the first numbering under him Reuben alone had 46,500 and Gad 45,650, and at the
second numbering Reuben had 43,730 and Gad 40,500 men; see on Num 1-4 (1:2, S.
192).
BENSON, "Verses 18-20
1 Chronicles 5:18-20. The sons of Reuben, &c. — These three tribes, or at least so
many of them as made a great army, joined their forces together, consisting of their
best soldiers, to invade the country of the Hagarites. They were helped against
them — Against the Hagarites, who, it seems, fought stoutly; but God assisted the
Israelites, enduing them with extraordinary courage and success, in consequence of
their crying to him, and putting their trust in him, in his power, mercy, and
faithfulness to his promise.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:18 The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and half the tribe
of Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with
bow, and skilful in war, [were] four and forty thousand seven hundred and
threescore, that went out to the war.
Ver. 18. Men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow.] These
weapons were much in use till guns were invented; to the destruction, not of the
inventor only - who was therefore hanged they say - but of many other brave
marshals.
COFFMAN, ""The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of
Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with
bow, and skilled in war, were forty and four thousand seven hundred and
threescore, that were able to go forth to war. And they made war with the Hagrites,
with Jetur, and with Naphish, and Nodab. And they were helped against them, and
the Hagrites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with them; for they
cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust
in him. And they took away their cattle; and of their camels fifty thousand, and of
sheep two hundred and fifty thousand, and of asses two thousand, and of men a
hundred thousand. And there fell many slain, because the war was of God. And they
44

dwelt in their stead until the captivity."
ELLICOTT, "Verses 18-22
(18-22) A war of conquest between the three tribes east of Jordan, and their Arab
neighbours. The date is not given.
(18) Of valiant men.—“All that were valiant men, bearing shield and sword, and
drawing bow, and-trained in warfare, were 44,760, going out in the host” Comp.
what is said in 1 Chronicles 12:8; 1 Chronicles 12:21, of the Gadites and Manassites,
who joined fortunes with David. The number of the warriors of the three tribes
nearly corresponds to the number (40,000) assigned in Joshua 4:13. It evidently
rests upon some official census, of which the chronicler had the record or among his
authorities. The data of the Pentateuch (Numbers 1, 26) are quite different,
(19) Hagarites.—See 1 Chronicles 5:10.
Jetur, and Nephish, and Nodab.—In 1 Chronicles 1:31, Jetur, Naphish, and
Kedemah are the last three of the twelve tribes of Ishmael. As Nodab is mentioned
nowhere else, the word may be a corruption of Kedemah, or rather Kedem. The
first two letters might have been mistaken for h, the d is common to both words, and
b and m are often confused in Hebrew writing. Jetur is the original of the classical
name Ituraea, the modern El-Jedur.
(20) And they were helped against them.—The same word recurs in 1 Chronicles
15:26 : “And when God helped the Levites that bare the Ark.” In both places
strictly natural events are regarded as providential. Here the Divine hand is
recognised as controlling the issues of an invasion; there as permitting the Ark to be
successfully removed from its temporary resting place.
For they cried to God in the battle.—No doubt the Arab warriors also cried to their
45

gods in the fierce struggle for life; and their faith, such as it was, gave them strength
for the battle. (Comp. Psalms 18:3-6 and Psalms 18:41.) The whole sentence to the
end of the verse looks like a reason added to the narrative by the chronicler himself.
(21) And they took away their cattle.—The numbers are large, but not at all
incredible. Flocks and herds naturally constituted the chief wealth of these nomade
tribes. Comp. the annual tribute in kind paid by Mesha, king of Moab, to Ahab of
Israel (2 Kings 3:4): “a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams in
fleeces.”
Sheep.—The Heb. word denotes both sheep and goats; pecora.
Of men an hundred thousand.—And persons (soul of man, a collective expression) a
hundred thousand. In Numbers 31:32-35 the booty taken from Midian is far
greater, but only 32,000 virgins were saved from the general slaughter of the
vanquished. The number here may be corrupt, but we do not know enough about
the numerical strength of the Arabian peoples to be able to decide. The captives
would be valuable as slaves. Sennacherib boasts that he took 200,150 persons “small
and great, male and female,” from the cities of Judah.
(22) There fell down many slain.—Hence the richness of the plunder. The warriors
of the Arabian allies were probably exterminated.
The war was of God.—Comp. 2 Chronicles 25:20. This accounts for the
completeness of the Arabian overthrow. It is a human instinct to see tokens of
Divine activity in great national catastrophes, as well as in the more awful
phenomena of nature. In prophetic language, a “day of the Lord” had overtaken the
sons of Hagar and their kindred.
And they dwelt in their steads until the captivity.—When they were carried away to
Assyria by Tiglath-Pileser, 1 Chronicles 5:6; 1 Chronicles 5:26.
46

These verses appear to be the fuller development of the war in Saul's time,
mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:10—the account apparently there delayed till the
genealogy of the tribe of Gad had been given, and which still seems premature till
the contents of 1 Chronicles 5:23 and 1 Chronicles 5:24 should have been given.
19 They waged war against the Hagrites, Jetur,
Naphish and Nodab.
BARNES, "Jetur no doubt gave his name to the important tribe of the Ituraeans who
inhabited the region southwest of the Damascene plain, between Gaulonitis (Jaulan) and
the Ledjah. This tribe was noted for its thievish habits, and was regarded as savage and
warlike.
CLARKE, "They made war with the Hagarites - This is probably the same war
that is mentioned 1Ch_5:10. Those called Hagarites in the text are everywhere
denominated by the Targum ‫הונגראיי‬ Hongaraai, Hongarites.
GILL, "And they made war with the Hagarites,.... Before mentioned, 1Ch_5:19.
with Jetur, and Nephish: with the posterity of these men, who were sons of Ishmael,
Gen_25:15 and so was Nodab; perhaps the same with Kedemah, mentioned along with
the other two there; so Hillerus (z) thinks.
K&D, "1Ch_5:19
47

“They made was with the Hagarites and Jethur, Nephish and Nodab.” So early as the
time of Saul the Reubenites had victoriously made war upon the Hagarites (see 1Ch_
5:10); but the war here mentioned was certainly at a later time, and has no further
connection with that in 1Ch_5:10 except that both arose from similar causes. The time of
the second is not given, and all we know from 1Ch_5:22 is that it had broken out before
the trans-Jordanic Israelites were led captive by the Assyrians. ‫ים‬ ִ‫יא‬ ִ‫ר‬ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫,ה‬ in Psa_83:7
contracted into ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫,ה‬ are the Ἀγραῖοι, whom Strabo, xvi. p. 767, introduces, on the
authority of Eratosthenes, as leading a nomadic life in the great Arabico-Syrian desert,
along with the Nabataeans and Chaulotaeans. Jetur, from whom the Itureans are
descended, and Nephish, are Ishmaelites; cf. on Gen_25:15. Nodab, mentioned only
here, is a Bedouin tribe of whom nothing more is known.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:19 And they made war with the Hagarites, with Jetur, and
Nephish, and Nodab.
Ver. 19. And they made war with the Hagarites.] See 1 Chronicles 5:10.
POOLE, "i.e. With the posterity of Jetur, &c., who were Ishmeelites, as appears
from Genesis 25:15.
PULLPIT, "1 Chronicles 5:19
The name of Nodab we have not elsewhere; but those of Jetur and Nephish are
names from the very origin of the tribe of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13-16; 1 Chronicles
1:29-31). It would be possible to consider them here as in apposition with the
description, the Hagarites (respecting whom see note on 1 Chronicles 5:10); but they
may more probably be regarded as favourite names, still repeated in the
descendants of the tribe. The people of Nephish have not made their mark deep on
the page of ethnographic history; but the people of Jetur have done so. Their stinted
territory appears in the name Ituraea (Luke 3:1). Their people reappear also. Nor is
it an unnoticeable contribution to the truth of our history here to put, side by side
with the description of the qualities and of the arms and weapons of warfare of the
Manassites and their helpers of Reuben and Gad (1 Chronicles 5:18), those of the
Ituraeans, their antagonists (Virgil, 'Georg.,' 2:448; Cicero, 'Philippians,' 2:44;
Luean, 'Pharsalia,' 7:230; see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' 1:905).
48

20 They were helped in fighting them, and God
delivered the Hagrites and all their allies into
their hands, because they cried out to him during
the battle. He answered their prayers, because
they trusted in him.
CLARKE, "They put their trust in him - Or, as the Targum says, “Because they
trusted ‫במימריה‬ bemeymriah, in his Word.”
GILL, "And they were helped against them,.... The Israelites were helped against
the Ishmaelites, to fight with them, and overcome them; either by their brethren of the
house of Israel, as the Targum, those on this side Jordan; or rather by the Lord, to whom
they cried, and who was entreated by them as follows:
and the Hagarites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with
them; they and their confederates and auxiliaries, the Ituraeans, &c.
for they cried to God in the battle; which at first seems to have gone against them;
and they prayed to God, as the Targum, while they were fighting, that he would appear
for them, and give them victory:
and he was entreated of them; he received their prayer, as the same paraphrase; he
heard them, and answered them:
because they put their trust in him; in his power and providence, and not in their
own strength, courage, and military skill; the Targum is,"because they trusted in his
word.''
HENRY, "2. What course they took to engage God for them: They cried to God, and
put their trust in him, 1Ch_5:20. Now they acted as Israelites indeed. (1.) As the seed of
believing Abraham, they put their trust in God. Though they had a powerful army, they
relied not on that, but on the divine power. They depended on the commission they had
49

from God to wage war with their neighbours for the enlarging of their coasts, if there was
occasion, even with those that were very far off, besides the devoted nations. See Deu_
20:15. They depended on God's providence to give them success. (2.) As the seed of
praying Jacob, they cried unto God, especially in the battle, when perhaps, at first, they
were in danger of being overpowered. See the like done, 2Ch_13:14. In distress, God
expects we should cry to him; he distrains upon us for this tribute, this rent. In our
spiritual conflicts, we must look up to heaven for strength; and it is the believing prayer
that will be the prevailing prayer.
K&D, "1Ch_5:20
The Israelites, with God's help, gained the victory. ‫רוּ‬ְ‫ז‬ָֽ‫ֵע‬‫י‬, “it was helped to them,” i.e.,
by God “against them” - the Hagarites and their allies. ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ִ‫ע‬ֶ‫שׁ‬ contracted from ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ִ‫ע‬
‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬. ‫ר‬ ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ַע‬‫נ‬ is not an uncommon form of the perf. Niph., which would not be suitable in
a continuous sentence, but the inf. absol. Niph. used instead of the third pers. perf. (cf.
Gesen. Heb. Gramm. §131, 4): “and (God) was entreated of them, because they trusted in
Him.” From these words we may conclude that the war was a very serious one, in which
the possession of the land was at stake. As the trans-Jordanic tribes lived mainly by
cattle-breeding, and the Arabian tribes on the eastern frontier of their land were also a
shepherd people, quarrels could easily arise as to the possession of the pasture grounds,
which might lead to a war of extermination.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:20 And they were helped against them, and the Hagarites
were delivered into their hand, and all that [were] with them: for they cried to God
in the battle, and he was intreated of them; because they put their trust in him.
Ver. 20. And they were helped against them.] Helped from heaven, by means of
some manifest miracle.
For they cried to God in the battle.] So did Jabez; [1 Chronicles 4:10] Jehoshaphat;
[2 Chronicles 20:3] the thundering legion; the late king of Sweden, whose prayer
before the great battle of Lutzen - where he fell, - was, "Jesus, vouchsafe this day to
be my strong helper; and give me courage to fight for the honour of thy name."
Prayer alone he held the surest piece of his whole armour.
POOLE, " They were helped against them, to wit, by God, 1 Chronicles 5:22, who
gave them extraordinary courage and success.
All that were with them; their friends and allies in this war.
50

21 They seized the livestock of the Hagrites—fifty
thousand camels, two hundred fifty thousand
sheep and two thousand donkeys. They also took
one hundred thousand people captive,
CLARKE, "They took away their cattle - This was a war of extermination as to
the political state of the people, which nothing could justify but an especial direction of
God; and this he could never give against any, unless the cup of their iniquity had been
full. The Hagarites were full of idolatry: see 1Ch_5:25.
GILL, "And they took away their cattle,.... Which they brought with them, and
they found in their camp when they fled, or in their fields:
of their camels fifty thousand; with which Arabia abounded, and were fit to travel
with in those hot and desert countries, being strong to carry burdens, and able to bear
much thirst. The Arabians, as Diodorus Siculus (a) reports, brought up camels, for
almost all the uses of life; as for the sake of their milk and flesh to feed upon, as well as
for carrying burdens in common; and which in time of war they loaded with provisions
for the army, and fought upon, one of them carrying two archers with their backs to each
other, the one to meet the enemy in front, the other to annoy those that pursued them;
and so the Parthians made use of camels both to fight on, and to carry provisions for
their soldiers (b):
and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand; which these Hagarites kept both
for food and clothing, and some of them might be now taken with them to supply their
army; the Spartans carried sheep with them in their expeditions, as sacrifices to their
gods (c); but it need not be supposed that these creatures, and those that follow, were in
such large numbers with the Hagarites in the battle, but were afterwards found, partly in
their camp, and partly in the places inhabited by them:
and of asses two thousand; used to ride on, and carry loads, and also to plough with;
and in all these lay the wealth of men in those times and countries, see Job_1:1.
51

and of men one hundred thousand; so that they took captive above as many more
as their army consisted of.
K&D, "1Ch_5:21
The conquerors captured a great booty in herds, 50,000 camels, 250,000 head of
small cattle (sheep and goats), 2000 asses, and 100,000 persons - all round numbers; cf.
the rich booty obtained in the war against the Midianites, Num_31:11, Num_31:32.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:21. Of their camels fifty thousand — For camels were
very numerous in Arabia, being used in war and for burdens, &c., and being very
patient of thirst, and therefore most fit for those hot and dry countries. Of men a
hundred thousand — Whom they took prisoners, and either used as slaves, or sold
them for such.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:21 And they took away their cattle; of their camels fifty
thousand, and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand, and of asses two thousand,
and of men an hundred thousand.
Ver. 21. Of their camels, fifty thousand.] These creatures were much set by in those
eastern parts; as for their usefulness to bear great burdens, so for their
unthirstiness, for they will travel three or four days together and not care to drink.
Implentur cameli, cum bibendi est occasio, et in praeteritum, et in futurum, saith
Pliny (a) They drink when they do, both for the time past and for the time to come.
And of sheep.] Good et ad esum, et ad usum.
And of asses two thousand.] Little set by, and therefore a less number.
POOLE, " Of their camels fifty thousand; for camels were very numerous in
Arabia, being used in war, and for burdens, &c., and being very patient of thirst,
and therefore most fit for those hot and dry countries.
Of men an hundred thousand; whom they took prisoners, and either used as slaves,
or sold them for such.
52

22 and many others fell slain, because the battle
was God’s. And they occupied the land until the
exile.
CLARKE, "For there fell down many slain - The hundred thousand men
mentioned above were probably made slaves, and were not slain. The Targum says, one
hundred thousand souls of men.
The war was of God - The Targum says, the war was ‫דיי‬ ‫מימרא‬ ‫מן‬ min meymera
dayai, “from the Word of the Lord.”
GILL, "For there fell down many slain,.... Many were killed in the battle, besides
the great number of prisoners made, so that the army the Ishmaelites brought into the
field was very great:
because the war was of God; or from the Word of the Lord, as the Targum; he
stirred up the Israelites to it, directed, assisted, and succeeded them, that vengeance
might be taken on this wicked and idolatrous people:
and they dwelt in their stead until the captivity; the Targum adds, of Sennacherib
king of Assyria; but this captivity of the tribes referred to was not by him, but by
Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, 1Ch_5:26 and they dwelt not in the country of the Arab-
hagarites, or Ishmaelites in their stead there, but in Gilead, as in 1Ch_5:10 which
belonged to the Gadites and Reubenites originally, but had been dispossessed of it, or
however distressed in it by these Hagarites, which they now drove out, and dwelt in their
stead; for as for the Scenite-arabs or Ishmaelites, they never were conquered and
brought into subjection by any people, but always maintained their independency (d);
and lived upon the plunder of their neighbours, pitching their tents here and there for
their convenience, which in these parts were at this time spoiled.
HENRY, " We are told what success they had: God was entreated of them, though
need drove them to him; so ready is he to hear and answer prayer. They were helped
against their enemies; for God never yet failed any that trusted in him. And then they
routed the enemy's army, though far superior in number to theirs, slew many (1Ch_
53

5:22), took 100,000 prisoners, enriched themselves greatly with the spoil, and settled
themselves in their country (1Ch_5:21, 1Ch_5:22), and all this because the war was of
God, undertaken in his fear and carried on in a dependence upon him. If the battle be
the Lord's, there is reason to hope it will be successful. Then we may expect to prosper in
any enterprise, and then only, when we take God along with us.
K&D, "1Ch_5:22
This rich booty should not surprise us, “for there fell many slain,” i.e., the enemy had
suffered a very bloody defeat. “For the war was from God,” i.e., conducted to this result:
cf. 2Ch_25:20; 1Sa_17:47. “And they dwelt in their stead,” i.e., they took possession of
the pasture grounds, which up to that time had belonged to the Arabs, and held them
until they were carried away captive by the Assyrians; see 1Ch_5:26.
BENSON, "Verse 22
1 Chronicles 5:22. For there fell down many slain — Besides those taken captive, a
great number were slain in the battle. Because the war was of God — Undertaken in
his fear, and carried on in a dependance on him. Then we may expect to prosper in
any enterprise, and then only, when we take God along with us. And they dwelt in
their steads — Most or all of those valiant men who were engaged in this war, who
were forty-four thousand seven hundred and sixty, (1 Chronicles 5:18,) settled
themselves in the country which they had conquered, and remained there until the
captivity, of which see 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 17:6.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:22 For there fell down many slain, because the war [was]
of God. And they dwelt in their steads until the captivity.
Ver. 22. Because the war was of God,] i.e., It was just and necessary; God also
fought therein, as it were personally, against those idolatrous wretches.
POOLE, " The war was of God; God put them upon it, and mightily assisted them
in it.
They dwelt, i.e. that party of these tribes which went out to this war, being 44,760
men; or part of them by the consent of the rest.
Until the captivity; of which 2 Kings 15:29 17:6.
54

PARKER, ""For there fell down many slain, because the war was of God."— 1
Chronicles 5:22.
We should trace the explanation of victories.—There are victories which are but
glittering defeats.—No victory is worth having that is not won by moral means, or
that does not express a moral right.—Here we have the explanation in the words
"the war was of God"; that is to say, it was a good war, or a war on behalf of right
principles and right claims; a war which God approved, if not as to its method yet as
to its end.—In the Old Testament the Lord is "a man of war."—Sometimes the
people went to battle without him, and then they returned without spoil or song of
joy; on other occasions they went with him and at his bidding, and they brought
back with them banners unstained and spoil to which they were entitled.—All this is
happily changed; war is becoming increasingly hated and dreaded. But there is
another war which may be described as a war of God.—We wrestle against spiritual
enemies; we are set in battle array against the highest forces of darkness.—If we
have invented our own armour, or have manufactured our own piety, or have
ordered the battle according to our own supposed genius in war, the eventide will
find us overthrown, humiliated, and hopeless.—Are we going a-warfare at our own
charges? Then verily we shall play the fool and bring home with us a fool"s
reward.—When a man fights against himself, in his lusts, passions, and
unauthorised aspirations, he fights a war approved of God, and if he fight that war
in the name of God he shall be none other than a victor at the close. When a man
fights for the poor, the oppressed, the helpless, he is engaged in a battle over which
God holds the banner, and the holding of that banner is the guarantee of triumph,
and in that triumph there shall be no stain of malice or selfishness or earthly-
mindedness.—We must not limit our wars to ourselves.—There are wars in which
we can render valuable assistance in which other men are engaged.—Let the rich
man go to the side of the poor man in fighting a battle with poverty, and help him to
win in the strife.—We can easily find out wars in which we can render assistance if
we look for them, and give ourselves zealously to the cause of human service.—They
that be with us when we are good are more than all that can be against us.—If we
fight in our own strength our endeavours will be wasted, but if we deliver every
blow in the name and strength of God many will be slain.—Slay your sins, your
passions, your animosities, your under-selves, and rise to the dignity to which God
has called you as his soldiers.—Endure hardness as a good soldier: fight the good
fight of faith: be not afraid of the enemy.—O thou poor struggler, God will bring
55

thee to victory, to honour, and to rest, if thou wilt put thy cause into his hands.
The Half-Tribe of Manasseh
23 The people of the half-tribe of Manasseh were
numerous; they settled in the land from Bashan to
Baal Hermon, that is, to Senir (Mount Hermon).
BARNES, "“Baal-Hermon,” “Senir” Deu_3:9, and “Mount Hermon,” are here not so
much three names of the one great snow-clad eminence in which the Anti-Lebanon
terminates toward the south, as three parts of the mountain - perhaps the “three
summits” in which it terminates.
GILL, "And the children of the half tribe of Manasseh dwelt in the land,....
Not in the land of the Hagarites, but in the land of Gilead and Bashan beyond Jordan,
given them by Moses. The writer, having reckoned the genealogies of some of the
principal men of Reuben and Gad, proceeds to give a short account of some principal
men in this half tribe:
they increased from Bashan; where they first settled, and extended their
possessions:
unto Baalhermon and Senir, and unto Mount Hermon; mountains which lay to
the north of the land of Canaan, and are what geographers call Antilibanus.
K&D, "The families of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, and the leading away
of the East-Jordan Israelites into the Assyrian exile. - 1Ch_5:23. The half-tribe of
Manasseh in Bashan was very numerous (‫בוּ‬ ָ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ֵ‫,)ה‬ “and they dwelt in the land of
Bashan (i.e., the Bashan inhabited by Gad, 1Ch_5:12) (northwards) to Baal Hermon,” -
i.e., according to the more accurate designation of the place in Jos_12:7 and Jos_13:5, in
the valley of Lebanon under Mount Hermon, probably the present Bânjas, at the foot of
56

Hermon (see on Num_34:8), - “and Senir and Mount Hermon.” ‫יר‬ִ‫נ‬ ְ‫,שׂ‬ which according
to Deu_3:9 was the name of Hermon or Antilibanus in use among the Amorites, is here
and in Eze_27:5 the name of a part of those mountains (vide on Deu_3:9), just as
“mount Hermon” is the name of another part of this range.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:23. The half-tribe of Manasseh — Having spoken of the
Reubenites, (1 Chronicles 5:3-10,) and next of the Gadites, (1 Chronicles 5:11, &c.,)
he now comes to the Manassites. Dwelt in the land — In the same country with the
Reubenites and Gadites, on the other side of Jordan, namely, in the northern part of
that land.
COFFMAN, ""And the children of the half-tribe of Manesseh dwelt in the land:
they increased from Bashan unto Baal-hermon and Senir and mount Hermon. And
these were the heads of their fathers' houses: even Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and
Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and Jahdiel, mighty men of valor, famous
men, heads of their fathers' houses."
POOLE, " Having discoursed of the Reubenites, 1 Chronicles 5:3, &c., and next of
the Gadites, 1 Chronicles 5:11, &c., he now comes to the Manassites.
In the land, i.e. in their land, to wit, in the northern part of the land beyond Jordan.
ELLICOTT, " (23) Baal-hermon.—Perhaps the same as Baal-gad (Joshua 12:7;
Joshua 13:5), the modern town of Banias.
Senir.—The Amorite name of the range of Hermon (Deuteronomy 3:9). The
principal summit is now called Jebel esh-Sheikh, “hill of the chief,” and Jebel eth-
Thelj, “Snow Hill.”
Verse 23-24
(23, 24) The sons of half-Manasseh “in the land” east of Jordan. The translation
57

should be: “And the children . . . dwelt in the land, from Bashan unto Baal-hermon
and Senir and mount Hermon. These were many.” Their territory extended from
“Bashan,” the domain of Gad, in the south, to the mountains of Hermon, or
Antilibanus, in the north.
Baal-hermon, etc. These three names need scarcely be read as different names for
exactly the same region, but as designating different sides or heights of what was
essentially one and the same well-known mountain district, with which would agree
Psalms 43:1-5 :6, "Therefore will I remember thee from the land of Jordan and of
the Hermonites, from the hill Mizar.' So Deuteronomy 3:8-10 tells us that Hermon
was called Sirion by the Sidonians; Shenir, i.q. Senir ( ‫יר‬ִ‫נ‬ ְ‫,שׂ‬ exactly the same word
in the Hebrew text in all the four places of its occurrence —So Deuteronomy 4:8 ;
Ezekiel 27:5), by the Amorites. And the suggestion of Grove is likely enough, that
Baal-hermon was the Phoenician cast of the name. If any point were to be gained by
reading the names, however, as intended to cover exactly the same tract, it may be
noted
"The half-tribe of Manasseh" is here very briefly treated of. Manasseh and his
brother Ephraim stand in the place of Joseph, both the children of Joseph's
Egyptian wife, Asenath, and born before the famine. Though Manasseh was the
elder, Jacob gave the chief blessing (Genesis 48:10-22) to Ephraim. The Manassites
were descended from Manasseh through his son Machir, born of a Syrian
concubine. Machir evidently was spes gregis (though apparently not the only son,
for see Asriel, or Ashriel, in above references), and is repeatedly mentioned with his
son Gilead. It is probable that the division of the tribe was determined partly
according to the energy of those who composed it at the time of division—the more
warlike being more adapted to the east of Jordan. Nevertheless Machir is distinctly
mentioned westward, as well as with Gilead eastward (comp. 5:14-17; Joshua
13:29-31). (For the further prosecution of this part of the subject, see Exposition, 1
Chronicles 7:14-19.)
58

24 These were the heads of their families: Epher,
Ishi, Eliel, Azriel, Jeremiah, Hodaviah and
Jahdiel. They were brave warriors, famous men,
and heads of their families.
GILL, "And these were the heads of the house of their fathers,.... Some of the
principal men of this half tribe:
even Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah,
and Jahdiel; but of none of these we read elsewhere, excepting Hepher and Azriel,
Num_26:31.
mighty men of valour, famous men, and heads of the house of their fathers;
men that obtained a name for their strength, courage, and valour, and military exploits,
and were the chiefs of the families in this half tribe, and by whom they were
denominated; so from Hepher were the family of the Hepherites, and from Azriel the
family of the Azrielites, as in the place before quoted.
K&D, "1Ch_5:24
Seven heads of fathers'-houses of the half-tribe of Manasseh are enumerated, and
characterized as valiant heroes and famous men. The enumeration of the names begins
strangely with ‫ו‬ (‫ר‬ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫;)ו‬ perhaps a name has fallen out before it. Nothing has been
handed down as to any of these names.
ELLICOTT, " (24) And these were the heads . . . (name lost) Epher, and Ishi . . .—
Of these seven “valiant warriors, men of renown, heads for their clans” nothing
further is recorded. The meagre memorial of their names has at least this value: it
proves that abundant materials for the history of Israel once existed, of which our
canonical books have preserved authentic fragments.
59

Epher; same root with Ophrah ( 6:11, 6:15). Of the seven heads of this half-tribe
here quoted, no individual mention is made elsewhere. 1 Chronicles 12:19-22
confirms their renown for valour.
25 But they were unfaithful to the God of their
ancestors and prostituted themselves to the gods
of the peoples of the land, whom God had
destroyed before them.
CLARKE, "The gods of the people of the land - We see the reason why God
delivered the Hagarites into the hands of these tribes; they were abominable idolaters,
and therefore God destroyed them.
GILL, "And they transgressed against the God their fathers,.... Against his law,
will, word, and ordinances, not only the half tribe of Manasseh, hut the Reubenites and
Gadites also:
and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God
destroyed before them; that is, committed idolatry, which is spiritual fornication or
whoredom; worshipped the idols either of the Amorites, who were destroyed by the Lord
to make way for their first settlement; or of the Ishmaelites, whom they conquered, and
whose land they dwelt in to the captivity.
HENRY, " They shared, at length, in an inglorious captivity. Had they kept close to
God and their duty, they would have continued to enjoy both their ancient lot and their
new conquests; but they transgressed against the God of their fathers, 1Ch_5:25. They
60

lay upon the borders, and conversed most with the neighbouring nations, by which
means they learned their idolatrous usages and transmitted the infection to the other
tribes; for this God had a controversy with them. He was a husband to them, and no
marvel that his jealousy burnt like fire when they went a whoring after other gods.
Justly is a bill of divorce given to the adulteress. God stirred up the spirit of the kings of
Assyria, first one and then another, against them, served his own purposes by the
designs of those ambitious monarchs, employed them to chastise these revolters first,
and, when that humbled them not, then wholly to root them out, 1Ch_5:26. These tribes
were first placed, and they were first displaced. They would have the best land, not
considering that it lay most exposed. But those who are governed more by sense than by
reason or faith in their choices may expect to fare accordingly.
K&D, "1Ch_5:25-26
1Ch_5:25 and 1Ch_5:26 form the conclusion of the register of the two and a half
trans-Jordanic tribes. The sons of Manasseh are not the subject to ‫ֲלוּ‬‫ע‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬, but the
Reubenites and Manassites, as is clear from 1Ch_5:26. These fell away faithlessly from
the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land,
whom God had destroyed before them, i.e., the Amorites or Canaanites. “And the God of
Israel stirred up the spirit of the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-pilneser, and he (this
latter) led them away captives to Halah and Habor,” etc. ַ‫ת־רוּח‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ר‬ַ‫ָע‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬, Lavater has
rightly rendered, “in mentem illis dedit, movit eos, ut expeditionem facerent contra
illos;” cf. 2Ch_21:16. Pul is mentioned as being the first Assyrian king who attacked the
land of Israel, cf. 2Ki_15:19. The deportation began, however, only with Tiglath-pileser,
who led the East-Jordan tribes into exile, 2Ki_15:29. To him ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ְ‫ַג‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ sing. refers. The
suffix is defined by the following acc., ‫וגו‬ ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ ֵ‫רעוּב‬ָ‫;ל‬ ְ‫ל‬ is, according to the later usage, nota
acc.; cf. Ew. §277, e. So also before the name ‫ח‬ַ‫,חֲל‬ “to Halah,” i.e., probably the district
Καλαχήνη (in Strabo) on the east side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north of
Nineveh, on the frontier of Armenia (cf. on 2Ki_17:6). In the second book of Kings
(1Ch_15:29) the district to which the two and a half tribes were sent as exiles is not
accurately determined, being only called in general Asshur (Assyria). The names in our
verse are there (2Ki_17:6) the names of the districts to which Shalmaneser sent the
remainder of the ten tribes after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. It is therefore
questionable whether the author of the Chronicle took his account from an authority
used by him, or if he names these districts only according to general recollection, in
which the times of Shalmaneser and of Tiglath-pileser are not very accurately
distinguished (Berth.). We consider the first supposition the more probable, not merely
because he inverts the order of the names, but mainly because he gives the name ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ה‬
instead of “the cities of Media,” as it is in Kings, and that name he could only have
obtained from his authorities. ‫ר‬ ‫ב‬ ָ‫ח‬ is not the river Chaboras in Mesopotamia, which
falls into the Euphrates near Circesium, for that river is called in Ezekiel ‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ְ‫,כּ‬ but is a
district in northern Assyria, where Jakut mentions that there is both a mountain
Χαβώρας on the frontier of Assyria and Media (Ptolem. vi. 1), and a river Khabur
Chasaniae, which still bears the old name Khâbur, rising in the neighbourhood of the
upper Zab, near Amadijeh, and falling into the Tigris below Jezirah. This Khâbur is the
river of Gozan (vide on 2Ki_17:6). The word ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫ה‬ appears to be the Aramaic form of the
61

Hebrew ‫ר‬ ָ‫,ה‬ mountains, and the vernacular designation usual in the mouths of the
people of the mountain land of Media, which is called also in Arabic el Jebâl (the
mountains). This name can therefore only have been handed down from the exiles who
dwelt there.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:25. They transgressed against the God of their fathers —
Had they kept close to God and their duty, they would have continued to enjoy both
their ancient lot and their new conquests; but lying upon the borders, and
conversing with the neighbouring nations, they learned their idolatrous usages, and
transmitted the infection to the other tribes: and for this God had a controversy
with them.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:25 And they transgressed against the God of their fathers,
and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God destroyed
before them.
Ver. 25. And they transgressed against the God of their fathers.] Who had so
renowned and prospered them. See their sin largely set forth, 2 Kings 17:7-8, &c.
And went a-whoring after the gods.] Idolaters are adulterers and adulteresses in
sundry respects. They "forsake" God, "the guide of their youths," lavish gold out of
the bag, take great pains and long journeys, plead for their sin, are impatient of
reproof, careless of their credit, endless in plodding of their paramours, &c.
COFFMAN, ""And they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and played the
harlot after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed before them.
And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and of Tilgath-
pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the
Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor,
and to the river Gozan, unto this day."
"Of him came the prince" (1 Chronicles 5:2). Despite the fact of the double portion,
normally the right of the first-born, having been transferred to Joseph, "The
Chronicler thought that the birthright of Joseph was nullified by the apostasy of
North Israel,"[1] and that the blessing of the leadership of God's people was
transferred to Judah.
"Pul, and Tilgath-pilneser" (1 Chronicles 5:6,26). The name of this ruler is given as
62

Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kings 15:29. The variation in name could have come about by
different pronunciations in diverse languages, or by difficulties some copyist might
have found in copying it! If the latter had anything to do with it, this writer can
identify with the problem; because copying all of these names has been indeed a
painstaking and difficult assignment! "Pul and Tilgath-pilneser are the same man,
Pul being his personal name which he retained as king of Babylon, and Tiglath-
pileser his throne name as king of Assyria."[2]
"The Hagrites" (1 Chronicles 5:10). "These were the same as the Arabs."[3]
"Jeroboam" (1 Chronicles 5:17). "This was Jeroboam II."[4]
1 Chronicles 5:18-22 record an important victory over their enemies by the trans-
Jordanic tribes, no record of which is found elsewhere in the Bible. This should
warn us against assuming that the Bible records any such thing as a complete
history of God's people. "There may be many other gaps in Samuel and Kings
which Chronicles does not fill."[5]
Many of the events mentioned in this chapter are recorded in Genesis 25; Genesis
35; and Genesis 49; Exodus 6; Joshua 22:11, and in Numbers 1:20; 26:5.[6] See our
comments under those references in our commentaries.
"The king of Assyria ... carried them away" (1 Chronicles 5:26). This was the
captivity of the tribes of Israel which inhabited the country east of Jordan. `It took
place eleven years prior to the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.), that is, in 733 BC."[7]
ELLICOTT, " (25) They transgressed against the God of their fathers.—Rather,
were faithless or untrue to Him (Joshua 7:1, “committed a trespass”).
Went a whoring after the gods of the people (peoples).—Jehovah was the true Lord
(Ba’al) and Husband (Ish) of Israel. Apostasy from Him is, in the prophetic
language, whoredom. (See Hos. 1 Chronicles 1, 2, especially , and 1 Chronicles 3)
According to Kings 50100 the fatal sin of Israel evinced itself: (1) in the worship of
the high places; (2) in adoration of the heavenly bodies, and the productive powers
of nature; (3) in the practice of magic and divination.
The people of the land, whom God had destroyed before them.—Comp. Numbers
21:21-35, and Joshua 12:6; Psalms 135:10-12. The reduction of the Canaanites was,
63

to the mind of the chronicler, a Divine work. He is not thinking only of such
extraordinary events as were told of the battle of Beth-boron (Joshua 10:11-14). All
the incidents of the conquest were the Lord’s doing, whether He acted through the
agency of sun and moon, or storm and tempest, or the good swords of Joshua and
his warriors. From the same standpoint, he ascribes the Assyrian invasions to a
direct impulse from the God of Israel (1 Chronicles 5:26). The Assyrian kings
themselves were wont to regard their campaigns as a fulfilment of the bidding of
their Divine protectors, Istar, Bel, and other imaginary beings. It was not given to
them to attain to the higher vision of the Hebrew prophets and priests, who saw but
one guiding and controlling power at the summit of the world. (Comp. Isaiah
10:5-15.)
ELLICOTT, "Verse 25-26
(25, 26) The captivity of the three eastern tribes. A fuller account may be read in 2
Kings 17:6-18.
The "transgressors" here described include manifestly not this half-tribe Manasseh
alone, but the other tribes of Israel of whom this chapter has treated.
1 Chronicles 5:25
And they went a-whoring ( ‫ְנוּ‬‫ז‬ַ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ ); so 2 Chronicles 21:11, 2 Chronicles 21:13. This
verb, in one form of its root or another, occurs as many as ninety-seven times in the
Pentateuch, Judges, Joshua, Psalms, Proverbs; and prophets, for only twice in Kings
and four times in Chronicles, in all the rest of the Old Testament writings.
PULPIT, "Pul and Tilgath-pilneser. These two were chosen ministers of God's will,
if not ministers of himself. We can identify the date of this punishment which befell
the transgressing Israelites east of the Jordan. The visit of the former, in the reign of
Menahem (2 Kings 15:15-20), may be interpreted and might have operated as a
lesson and a warning. He was bought off with a thousand talents of silver. It seems
64

to be said with significance," So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not
there in the land." It was in the reign of Pekah, the usurping successor of
Menahem's son Pekahiah, that the completer punishment fell, and Tilgath-pilneser
effected the captivity spoken of here and in 2 Kings 15:27-29. The name Pul cannot,
it would appear, be a pure Assyrian name, and there is reason to think it may be
identified with Vul-lush (grandson of the Shalmaneser who warred with Benhadad,
etc.), a name found on Assyrian monuments, and belonging to a king who reigned at
Calah, B.C. 8004750 (see art. "Pul," Smith's 'Bible Dictionary'). Tilqath-pilneser
(see notes on 2 Kings 15:6) was probably the founder of the lower dynasty of
Assyria, and first king of the new empire. His first invasion was one chiefly of Israel
and Samaria (2 Kings 15:29; Isaiah 9:1). His second was of a much more significant
character. Called in to aid Judah under Ahaz against Pekah of Israel and Rezin of
Syria in alliance, he both conquered these latter and brought into vassalage Judah
itself (2 Kings 15:37; 2 Kings 16:9, 2 Kings 16:10; 2 Chronicles 28:6-8; Isaiah 9:1).
Halah; Habor Hara; Gozan. This enumeration exceeds that of 2 Kings 17:6 by the
addition of Hara, important as helping with consistent witness to the antiquity of the
region described. Halah (not the "Calah" of Genesis 10:11) is believed to be
identifiable with Chalcitis, its verbal resemblance to which comes out a little more
evidently in its Hebrew form ( ‫ַח‬‫ל‬ֲ‫ח‬ ). A trace of it possibly remains in the name of a
hill, Gla, on the Khabour, i.q. Habor of this passage, an important tributary of the
Euphrates, and not the "Chebar" of Ezekiel. This name Khabour is found in an
Assyrian inscription dating upwards of eight centuries before Christ. The mention
of Habor in 2 Kings 17:6 and 2 Kings 18:11 is, in the Authorized Version, made to
convey the impression of a place "by" the "river of Gozan," instead of being, what
the Hebrew says, "the river of Gozan." Here, on the other hand, Gozan is, in the
Authorized Version, incorrectly translated as a river itself, instead of the region of a
river. It is, according to the testimony of Layard, a remarkably fertile tract, being
the Gauzanitis of Ptolemy, and substantially the Mygdonia of Polybius and Strabo.
Hara; ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ָ‫,ח‬ with little doubt, the same as ‫ן‬ ָ‫ר‬ָ‫,ח‬ Haran, or Charran (Genesis 11:31 ),
the ancient adopted home of Abraham, in Padan-aram, in Mesopotamia, on the
Belik, a small tributary of the Euphrates. It is the Greek Carrhae of Strabo and
Polybius. These four names purport to give us, probably in brief, the information
that those of the Captivity here alluded to were divided—some to settle at Halab on
one river, some in Hara on another, and the rest in the district called Gauzanitis.
The region called Halah and that called Gau-zanitis, however, were both watered by
the Khabour, and therefore the insertion of the name Haran where it is inserted
occasions some difficulty.
65

BI, "And they transgressed against the God of their fathers.
The transgressions of the people
I. If we turn to the Book of Kings we shall be surprised to find how the fatal sin of Israel
was often of an intellectual kind, as distinguished from the baser iniquities which
corrupt and overthrow the soul. There were three instances in which the intellectual sins
of the people were conspicuous—
1. In the worship of the holy places.
2. In adoration of the heavenly bodies.
3. In the practice of magic and divination.
There we find nothing of adultery, drunkenness, theft, or licentiousness of any kind.
There are sins and sins. One man is simply a sinner of the coarse type, a criminal seen
and known of all men and cast out by society; another man sins intellectually—that is to
say he mentally deposes God, and more or less secretly endeavours to live without Him,
never breaking any of the great social commandments, and thereby forfeiting social
confidence, yet all the while committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. In this way men
write their own bibles, invent their own deities, banish from the mind all the old
orthodoxies, and in hidden vanity walk after the council of their own hearts. (J. Parker,
D. D.)
26 So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul
king of Assyria (that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of
Assyria), who took the Reubenites, the Gadites
and the half-tribe of Manasseh into exile. He took
them to Halah, Habor, Hara and the river of
Gozan, where they are to this day.
BARNES, "“Habor” here seems to be a city or a district, and not a river, as in
marginal reference There is some reason to believe that districts among the Assyrians
were occasionally named from streams.
Hara is probably the same as “Haran” Gen_11:31; 2Ki_19:12; Eze_27:23, being a
softening down of the rugged original “Kharan.”
66

CLARKE, "Tilgath-pilneser - Many MSS. have ‫תגלת‬ Tiglath instead of ‫תלגת‬
Tilgath. The Syriac, the Septuagint, and the Chaldee, have the same reading as in 2Ki_
15:29, etc.
Brought them unto Halah - See the notes on 2Ki_17:6 (note), and 2Ki_18:11
(note), for many particulars of these wars, and consequent captivity. It is a pity that
some method were not found out to harmonize the books of Kings with the books of
Chronicles, that the variations might be seen at one view.
GILL, "And the God of Israel,.... The Targum is,"the word of the God of Israel:"
stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria: in the times of Menahem king of Israel:
and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser; in the times of Pekah king of Israel, to invade the
land, and make war in it:
and he carried them away: not the former, but the latter:
even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh; these
entirely together, with some other parts of the land, see 2Ki_15:29.
and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan;
to the very same places where afterwards Salmaneser carried the ten tribes, or what
remained of them, see 2Ki_17:6.
unto this day; the times of Ezra, the writer of this book, after the tribe of Judah
returned from the captivity of Babylon; but the ten tribes remained where they were
carried, and have not returned even to this day.
JAMISON, "the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul — the Phalluka of the
Ninevite monuments (see on 2Ki_15:19).
and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser — the son of the former. By them the trans-
jordanic tribes, including the other half of Manasseh, settled in Galilee, were removed to
Upper Media. This was the first captivity (2Ki_15:29).
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 5:26. The God of Israel — Who had been a husband to
Israel, and whose jealousy burned like fire, when Israel went a whoring after other
gods. Stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, &c. — That is, so governed his
counsels and affections, that he brought his forces against this people rather than
others. God served his own purposes by the designs of those ambitious monarchs,
employed them first to chastise those revolters, and when that did not reduce them,
67

wholly to root them out. These tribes were first placed, and they were first
displaced. They would have the best land, not considering that it lay most exposed.
They who are governed more by sense than by reason or faith in their inclinations
and choices, may expect to fare accordingly.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 5:26 And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of
Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away,
even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought
them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.
Ver. 26. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul.] "Howbeit he meant not
so, neither was it in his heart to think so," - viz., that God set him on, - "but it was in
his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few." [Isaiah 10:7]
King of Assyria.] Though the Assyrians took their names from Ashur, son of Shem,
[Genesis 10:22 1 Chronicles 1:17] yet the kingdom seemeth, saith one, to be raised
amongst them by the prosperity of Cush, the son of Ham. [Genesis 10:6-11]
COKE, "1 Chronicles 5:26. Unto this day— And there they were unto this day.
Houbigant.
REFLECTIONS.—The half tribe of Manasseh is here mentioned, who with Reuben
and Gad living together, separate from their brethren, by the river Jordan, were
particularly associated together both in their victories and their captivity.
1. With an army of 44,760 chosen men, they invaded the Hagarites, and, trusting
more in the blessing of God than the sword and spear, they prayed as they fought,
and God gave them a distinguished victory with immense spoils, and enlarged their
borders with the extensive country of their vanquished enemies; for the war was of
God, undertaken at his command, and prosecuted under his blessing. Note; (1.)
When we cry to God, then shall our spiritual enemies be put to flight. (2.) Every
success should be gratefully ascribed, not to the arm of flesh, but to the help of God.
2. By the king of Assyria they were led away captive together, as the just
punishment of their revolt from God's worship and service, and their ungrateful
returns of the divine mercy. God first stirred up one king to chastise them; and,
when they were incorrigible, another to destroy them; and from their captivity they
never returned. Note; Incorrigible offenders, who are cut off in their sins, perish in
68

them for ever. When death has seized the impenitent, there is no more hope.
POOLE, "Stirred up the spirit; he so governed his counsels and affections, that he
should bring his forces against this people rather than others. Of Halah, Habor, &c.,
see 2 Kings 17:6 18:11.
ELLICOTT, " (26) Stirred up (or woke) the spirit.—So 2 Chronicles 21:16, and
Ezra 1:1; Ezra 1:5. For the thought, Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1-13.
Pul king of Assyria, and . . . Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria.—No trace of Pûl as
distinct from Tiglath-pileser has been found in the Assyrian monuments, which, it
must be remembered, are contemporary. In 2 Kings 15:19 we read that, “Pul king of
Assyria came against the land,” in the reign of Menahem, who recognised the
Assyrian monarch as his suzerain, and paid a tribute of 1,000 talents of silver. Now
Tiglath-pileser II. actually claims to have received tribute of Menahem
(Menahimmu). Pûl appears to have been the original name of Tiglath-pileser, which,
upon his accession to the throne of Assyria (745 B.C.), he discarded for that of the
great king who had ruled the country four centuries before his time. The name Pûl
has been identified by Dr. Schrader with the Porus of Ptolemy’s Canon, Pôr being
the Persian pronunciation of Pûl. The Syriac here omits “Pûl king of Assyria.” The
LXX. (Vat.) has χαλαχ, and the Arabic Bãlaq. Perhaps the chronicler meant to
indicate the identity of Pûl and Tiglath: “The spirit of Pul and (= that is) the spirit
of Tiglath, and he carried them away.”
And he carried them away.—Tiglath-pileser is meant. (See 2 Kings 15:29 : “In the
days of Pekah king of Israel, came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon,
and Abel-beth-maachah . . . and Gilead, and Galilee . . . and carried them captive to
Assyria.”) From the Assyrian records we learn that (circ. 734–732 B.C.) Tiglath-
pileser received the homage of Ahaz (Yahu-haçi, Jeho-ahaz), king of Judah, slew
Rezin (Raçunni) of Damascus, and reduced Pekah (Paqahú), king of Samaria, to
vassalage. This supplements the Biblical account. Gilead, in 2 Kings 15:29,
represents the trans-Jordanic tribes. (See 1 Chronicles 5:10; 1 Chronicles 5:16
above.) The transportation of entire populations was a common practice with the
Assyrian kings. Assurbanipal (Sardanapalus) removed the men of Karbit from the
mountains east of Assyria, and settled them in Egypt.
69

Brought them unto Halah, and Habor . . .—The same localities are mentioned (2
Kings 17:6) as those to which Shalmaneser IV., or rather his successor Sargon,
transported the other tribes of the northern kingdom (circ. 721 B.C.). There is
nothing unlikely in the statement of either text. Sargon might have thought fit to
strengthen the Israelite settlements in Northern Assyria by sending thither the new
bodies of compulsory colonists. It is arbitrary to suppose that two different events
have been confounded by the sacred annalists.
Halah.—See Note on 2 Kings 17:6.
Habor.—Probably a district of North Assyria, not far from Halah, named after the
river Habûr which rises near the upper Zab and falls into the Tigris.
Hara.—Kings, l.c., “cities of Media.” Hara here is perhaps an Aramaic name for the
Median high lands, but more probably the reading is a relic of “the mountains of
Media” [hârê Mâdai); comp.the LXX. at 2 Kings 17:6. The Syriac here has “cities of
Media;” the LXX. omits the word.
The river Gozan.—Rather, the river of Gozan. Shalmaneser mentions the country
Guzana in Mesopotamia, the Greek Gauzanitis. An Assyrian list connects it with
Naçibina (Nisibis). The “river of Gozan” is the Habur.
Footnotes:
70

1 Chronicles 5:6 Hebrew Tilgath-Pilneser, a
variant of Tiglath-Pileser; also in verse 26
71

I chronicles 5 commentary

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to I chronicles 5 commentary

More from GLENN PEASE

Recently uploaded

I chronicles 5 commentary