Original Meaning

Clans of Hur and Shobal (4:1–8)

THE INITIAL PORTION of the genealogical appendix to the tribe of Judah contains supplementary materials tracing the clans of Hur and Shobal to Perez. The lists appear to be a collection of fragments brought together for the sake of completing the genealogies of Hur and Shobal begun in 2:50, 52 (note the repeated formula “the sons/descendants of Hur” in 2:50a and 4:4b). Thompson correctly notes that this expansion of the Hur and Shobal genealogies was intended to explain the origins of the Zorathites.1 The village of Zorah is important to the Chronicler because it was resettled by Judeans after the Babylonian captivity (Neh. 11:29). This emphasis is in keeping with the Chronicler’s theme of establishing the continuity of the restoration community with past Israelite history. Zorah was one of several border cities fortified by Rehoboam when the Hebrew united monarchy split into the northern and southern kingdoms (2 Chron. 11:10).

The genealogy of Etam (4:3–4) appears to be an unrelated intrusion in the registers of Hur and Shobal (note the NIV follows the LXX and Vulgate and reads “sons of Etam” rather than the Heb. “father of Etam”). Braun has suggested that these verses preserve the names of the descendants of Hur’s third son Hareph (cf. 2:51).2 Like the city of Zorah, Etam (4:3) and Tekoa (4:5) were also among the cities of Judah “militarized” by Rehoboam when the Hebrew monarchy divided into rival kingdoms (2 Chron. 11:5–10). Perhaps these names are important to the Chronicler because of resettlement patterns noted in connection with Zorah.

The name Hazzelelponi (4:3) is a curiosity but should be retained as original to the text. Women (wives as well as sisters) are featured in the Chronicler’s genealogies, and the formula introducing the name of this “sister” has a parallel in 7:15 (“his sister’s name was Maacah”).

The expression “father of” common to the genealogies in this section (e.g., “Penuel was the father of Gedor,” 4:4) may be understood in the sense of ancestor and/or as “settler” or even “founding father” of a town or village. Thus it is possible that Penuel (4:4) and Jered (4:18) were cofounders of the city of Gedor (or Jedur?). The name Hushah is attached to the village of Hushan (some five miles west of Bethlehem), and two of the members of David’s elite guard are identified as “Hushathites” (2 Sam. 21:18; 23:27; cf. 1 Chron. 11:29; 20:4; 27:11). Again, the Chronicler’s selection of genealogical materials here seems to be motivated by his concern to establish continuity between the restoration community and earlier Israelite history.

The genealogy of the clans of Ashhur (4:4b–8) poses problems when compared to the genealogy of Caleb son of Hezron in 2:18–24. The former identifies Hur as the son of Caleb and Ashhur as the son of Hur (4:4–5), while the latter suggests Ashhur is the son of Hezron and Hur is the son of Caleb (2:19, 24). Most commentators accept the alteration “and Caleb married Ephrathah” for “Hezron died in Caleb Ephrathah” in 2:24 (in agreement with 2:19 and supported by the LXX and the Vulgate). This means Ashhur was the younger brother of Hur.

The descendants of Ashhur are listed according to his two wives, who are cited by name (Helah and Naarah, 4:5). The inclusion of the names of women in Old Testament genealogies is significant; unfortunately, it is impossible to ascertain the reason why their names are important to this genealogical record. The clan name Haahashtari is unusual in that the name carries the definite article (“the Ahashtarites”) and is widely recognized as a Persian loanword (cf. haʾaḥašteranim, Est. 8:10, 14).

Bridging Contexts

WE HAVE ALREADY observed that the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue has been written for the Hebrew restoration community. Broadly understood, the genealogies served to legitimize the restoration community as the heirs of God’s promises made to the patriarchs and kings of Israel and to bolster the morale of those resettling Judah. Beyond these general purposes, each section of the genealogical prologue contributes to a specific theme developed in the retelling of Israelite history. For instance, this particular section both fills the gaps and completes the genealogy of Judah begun in chapter 2. The emphasis on Judah in the genealogical prologue mirrors the centrality of Davidic kingship in the Chronicler’s account of Israelite history.

Equally important is the sensitivity the Chronicler subtly expresses to his target audience. Judah was preeminent among the tribes of Israel because this line would be the fountainhead for the institution of kingship and eventually the Messiah himself (Gen. 49:8–12). The ancestors and descendants of King David, however, represent only one family among the many clans in the tribe of Judah. Numerous non-Davidic families and clans of Judah are numbered among those Jewish expatriates who have made the journey back to Palestine from Babylonia. The Chronicler encourages certain of these “lesser clans” of the tribe of Judah by noting their resettlement patterns in his genealogical review. No doubt this strategy of personalizing the record by referencing particular clans and families who have resettled Judah after the Babylonian exile is aimed at achieving full participation in the restoration initiative.

In keeping with his previously established literary pattern, the Chronicler adds the dimension of personal story to the ledger of names in his genealogy by giving us occasional “snapshots” of life experiences for certain characters in the record. One vignette tells the story of a man named Jabez (“pain”), who is liberated from the neurosis of an ill-fated name by the power of prayer (4:9–10).13 A second preserves the record of an interracial marriage between Mered and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (4:17–18) According to Allen, this was the Chronicler’s way of raising a prophetic voice against the encroaching attitudes of “apartheid and xenophobia” in “isolationist” postexilic Judah.14 A third and recurrent narrative expansion in the section simply celebrates the virtue of labor by emphasizing crafts and guilds (4:14, 21, 23; perhaps an echo of the creation mandate to “subdue” the earth in the broadest sense of the word, Gen. 1:28). Wilcock aptly concludes that the entire passage (4:1–23) showcases the Chronicler’s concern to combine “practical facts” and “spiritual truths.”15

The one-line report of Mered’s marriage to Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, attests a significant Egyptian influence in this segment of the genealogy of Judah. This mixing of Hebrew and Egyptian populations is not surprising since historically the Judean Negev served as a buffer zone between the kingdom of Egypt and the Levant. That Bithiah is identified as a “daughter of Pharaoh” is so extraordinary that it is often dismissed by commentators as “extremely unlikely,” given Egyptian custom and biblical tradition.16 Others suggest that the use of the title “Pharaoh” is simply a later Hebrew euphemism for an “Egyptian lady.”17

A word of caution is in order here. There is no need to discount the authenticity of the Chronicler’s record. Like the nation of Judah, Egypt in the fifth century B.C. was not the empire it was prior to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As the political fortunes of kingdoms change, transformation of social customs and cultural traditions occurs as well. The marriage of Mered and Bithiah must be understood in this context, not the context of earlier Middle Kingdom Egypt.

Quite apart from the exact meaning of the phrase “daughter of Pharaoh,” it is clear that the name Bithiah (lit., “daughter [or worshiper] of Yahweh”) seems to designate a person who has converted to the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh. This fact may betray a decidedly “progressive” theological stance on the part of the Chronicler since there is no trace of the criticism of marriage to foreign wives characteristic of the response of Ezra and Nehemiah to interracial marriage (Ezra 10).

Wilcock interprets this genealogical footnote listing the children born of a non-Jewish mother as evidence of the Chronicler’s openness to relationships between Israel and other nations, thereby adding “an evangelistic breadth of vision” to his practicality and piety.18 Perhaps this is in reaction to the hardline attitudes toward interracial marriage adopted as a result of the earlier reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although these harsh social and religious reforms were necessary at the time, the Chronicler’s reference to interracial marriage may be a warning of sorts lest the unhealthy attitude of particularism crystallize in the restoration community.

It is possible to infer that the Chronicler takes the Abrahamic covenant and the words of the preexilic prophets to heart. Israel has been placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to bless the nations (Gen. 12:1–3) by sharing the light of God’s revelation with them (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 51:4). Later Jewish history suggests xenophobia eventually triumphed over the Chronicler’s subliminal appeal for evangelistic openness as a fervently nationalistic Judaism continued to develop through the intertestamental period. This would not be overturned until the ministry of Jesus Christ, who sought out men and women, sinners and saints, Jew and Samaritan and Gentile alike—the very people comprising his genealogical ancestry (cf. Matt. 1:2–17).

Contemporary Significance

A WIDENESS OF HEART. The Chronicler’s subtle exhortation to his postexilic audience for an “evangelistic openness” to relationships with non-Jews calls to mind the parable Jesus told about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The story is well known and often told. The question raised in applying the parable to the contemporary setting still haunts the Christian and the Christian church: “Who is my neighbor?”

The question posed by the thoughtful reading of the parable of the good Samaritan has been fittingly answered in recent years by any number of capable Christian thinkers and writers. For instance, John Stott has rightly emphasized imitating the compassion of Christ for people in need through responsible Christian social concern—doing good to the widest spectrum of human beings in urgent need.19 Terry Muck challenges the Christian to extend the principle of “loving one’s neighbor” to include the rapidly growing membership of the non-Christian religions in pluralistic North America.20 Finally, John Piper has reminded us that the parable of the good Samaritan is not about “self-esteem” as our narcissistic culture might suggest; rather, it is about “God-esteem” that enables the Christian to be devoted to pursuing the happiness of others.21

There may be, however, another way in which we might apply the question of befriending a neighbor raised by the parable of the good Samaritan. Leslie Allen has observed “the Chronicler had a wideness of heart which we do well to ponder and seek to emulate.”22 In fact, Allen challenges us to translate the Chronicler’s openness of mind and softness of heart into “multi-denominational awareness.”23 Given recent developments in evangelical Christianity, I might even extend Allen’s thesis to a “multitradition awareness”—that is, a wideness of heart and a spirit of charity among the major traditions of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox.

A new spirit of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation is emerging in Christianity as the church of Jesus Christ forges ahead into the new millennium.24 The dialogue between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians has been prompted by the “culture wars” of recent decades. The spiritual and moral decay of North American society—what has been called our culture of disbelief—is making allies of the three great Christian traditions.25 Christians have begun to recognize that the “fight” against the tide of godless secularism and pluralistic relativism precludes “fighting” against each other. Beyond this, the Christian church is in the midst of rediscovering and reclaiming important elements of its rich heritage, including music, prayer, spiritual formation, and worship, not to mention exciting new ventures of cooperation in matters of social concern, virtue and morality, and evangelism.26

Such dialogue is not without problems, especially as it relates to matters of sound biblical doctrine and the practice of Christian worship. Much work remains in establishing the common Christian ground held by the three great Christian traditions. Yet, given his concern for the socioeconomic and spiritual well-being of “all the tribes of Israel,” I believe the Chronicler would affirm these recent initiatives for dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, Paul exhorts Christians to “do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). There is also little doubt that the great cloud of witnesses that continues to assemble in the heavenly realm includes saints from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.

Original Meaning

Jabez (4:10–11)

THIS NOTE ON Jabez intrudes abruptly in the genealogy of Judah. The brief account is an independent literary unit and is theological in character. Nothing is known of his brothers, and there is no apparent connection between Jabez and the place Jabez mentioned in 2:55.3 There is a play on words with the name Jabez (yaʿbeṣ) as a result of the “pain” (beʿoṣeb) his mother endured during his birth. Jabez is remembered as an “honorable” man, more so than his brothers. Thompson is probably correct in connecting Jabez’s “honor” with his earnest prayers.

Given the ancient belief that one’s name represented an individual’s character and in some cases personal destiny, Jabez prayed that God would overturn any curse associated with his name into blessing (cf. Gen. 38:15).4 Two of his four petitions focus on physical circumstances (expanded territorial holdings and freedom from pain) and two deal with his relationship to God (blessing and protection). The efficacy of prayer to the God of Israel is an important theme in Chronicles (cf. 1 Chron. 5:20–22; 2 Chron. 20:6–12). The Chronicler seeks to remind his audience that God’s responsiveness to prayer in the past is an invitation to offer prayers addressing present needs and concerns.

Bridging Contexts

WE HAVE ALREADY observed that the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue has been written for the Hebrew restoration community. Broadly understood, the genealogies served to legitimize the restoration community as the heirs of God’s promises made to the patriarchs and kings of Israel and to bolster the morale of those resettling Judah. Beyond these general purposes, each section of the genealogical prologue contributes to a specific theme developed in the retelling of Israelite history. For instance, this particular section both fills the gaps and completes the genealogy of Judah begun in chapter 2. The emphasis on Judah in the genealogical prologue mirrors the centrality of Davidic kingship in the Chronicler’s account of Israelite history.

Equally important is the sensitivity the Chronicler subtly expresses to his target audience. Judah was preeminent among the tribes of Israel because this line would be the fountainhead for the institution of kingship and eventually the Messiah himself (Gen. 49:8–12). The ancestors and descendants of King David, however, represent only one family among the many clans in the tribe of Judah. Numerous non-Davidic families and clans of Judah are numbered among those Jewish expatriates who have made the journey back to Palestine from Babylonia. The Chronicler encourages certain of these “lesser clans” of the tribe of Judah by noting their resettlement patterns in his genealogical review. No doubt this strategy of personalizing the record by referencing particular clans and families who have resettled Judah after the Babylonian exile is aimed at achieving full participation in the restoration initiative.

In keeping with his previously established literary pattern, the Chronicler adds the dimension of personal story to the ledger of names in his genealogy by giving us occasional “snapshots” of life experiences for certain characters in the record. One vignette tells the story of a man named Jabez (“pain”), who is liberated from the neurosis of an ill-fated name by the power of prayer (4:9–10).13 A second preserves the record of an interracial marriage between Mered and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (4:17–18) According to Allen, this was the Chronicler’s way of raising a prophetic voice against the encroaching attitudes of “apartheid and xenophobia” in “isolationist” postexilic Judah.14 A third and recurrent narrative expansion in the section simply celebrates the virtue of labor by emphasizing crafts and guilds (4:14, 21, 23; perhaps an echo of the creation mandate to “subdue” the earth in the broadest sense of the word, Gen. 1:28). Wilcock aptly concludes that the entire passage (4:1–23) showcases the Chronicler’s concern to combine “practical facts” and “spiritual truths.”15

The one-line report of Mered’s marriage to Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, attests a significant Egyptian influence in this segment of the genealogy of Judah. This mixing of Hebrew and Egyptian populations is not surprising since historically the Judean Negev served as a buffer zone between the kingdom of Egypt and the Levant. That Bithiah is identified as a “daughter of Pharaoh” is so extraordinary that it is often dismissed by commentators as “extremely unlikely,” given Egyptian custom and biblical tradition.16 Others suggest that the use of the title “Pharaoh” is simply a later Hebrew euphemism for an “Egyptian lady.”17

A word of caution is in order here. There is no need to discount the authenticity of the Chronicler’s record. Like the nation of Judah, Egypt in the fifth century B.C. was not the empire it was prior to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As the political fortunes of kingdoms change, transformation of social customs and cultural traditions occurs as well. The marriage of Mered and Bithiah must be understood in this context, not the context of earlier Middle Kingdom Egypt.

Quite apart from the exact meaning of the phrase “daughter of Pharaoh,” it is clear that the name Bithiah (lit., “daughter [or worshiper] of Yahweh”) seems to designate a person who has converted to the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh. This fact may betray a decidedly “progressive” theological stance on the part of the Chronicler since there is no trace of the criticism of marriage to foreign wives characteristic of the response of Ezra and Nehemiah to interracial marriage (Ezra 10).

Wilcock interprets this genealogical footnote listing the children born of a non-Jewish mother as evidence of the Chronicler’s openness to relationships between Israel and other nations, thereby adding “an evangelistic breadth of vision” to his practicality and piety.18 Perhaps this is in reaction to the hardline attitudes toward interracial marriage adopted as a result of the earlier reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although these harsh social and religious reforms were necessary at the time, the Chronicler’s reference to interracial marriage may be a warning of sorts lest the unhealthy attitude of particularism crystallize in the restoration community.

It is possible to infer that the Chronicler takes the Abrahamic covenant and the words of the preexilic prophets to heart. Israel has been placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to bless the nations (Gen. 12:1–3) by sharing the light of God’s revelation with them (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 51:4). Later Jewish history suggests xenophobia eventually triumphed over the Chronicler’s subliminal appeal for evangelistic openness as a fervently nationalistic Judaism continued to develop through the intertestamental period. This would not be overturned until the ministry of Jesus Christ, who sought out men and women, sinners and saints, Jew and Samaritan and Gentile alike—the very people comprising his genealogical ancestry (cf. Matt. 1:2–17).

Contemporary Significance

A WIDENESS OF HEART. The Chronicler’s subtle exhortation to his postexilic audience for an “evangelistic openness” to relationships with non-Jews calls to mind the parable Jesus told about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The story is well known and often told. The question raised in applying the parable to the contemporary setting still haunts the Christian and the Christian church: “Who is my neighbor?”

The question posed by the thoughtful reading of the parable of the good Samaritan has been fittingly answered in recent years by any number of capable Christian thinkers and writers. For instance, John Stott has rightly emphasized imitating the compassion of Christ for people in need through responsible Christian social concern—doing good to the widest spectrum of human beings in urgent need.19 Terry Muck challenges the Christian to extend the principle of “loving one’s neighbor” to include the rapidly growing membership of the non-Christian religions in pluralistic North America.20 Finally, John Piper has reminded us that the parable of the good Samaritan is not about “self-esteem” as our narcissistic culture might suggest; rather, it is about “God-esteem” that enables the Christian to be devoted to pursuing the happiness of others.21

There may be, however, another way in which we might apply the question of befriending a neighbor raised by the parable of the good Samaritan. Leslie Allen has observed “the Chronicler had a wideness of heart which we do well to ponder and seek to emulate.”22 In fact, Allen challenges us to translate the Chronicler’s openness of mind and softness of heart into “multi-denominational awareness.”23 Given recent developments in evangelical Christianity, I might even extend Allen’s thesis to a “multitradition awareness”—that is, a wideness of heart and a spirit of charity among the major traditions of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox.

A new spirit of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation is emerging in Christianity as the church of Jesus Christ forges ahead into the new millennium.24 The dialogue between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians has been prompted by the “culture wars” of recent decades. The spiritual and moral decay of North American society—what has been called our culture of disbelief—is making allies of the three great Christian traditions.25 Christians have begun to recognize that the “fight” against the tide of godless secularism and pluralistic relativism precludes “fighting” against each other. Beyond this, the Christian church is in the midst of rediscovering and reclaiming important elements of its rich heritage, including music, prayer, spiritual formation, and worship, not to mention exciting new ventures of cooperation in matters of social concern, virtue and morality, and evangelism.26

Such dialogue is not without problems, especially as it relates to matters of sound biblical doctrine and the practice of Christian worship. Much work remains in establishing the common Christian ground held by the three great Christian traditions. Yet, given his concern for the socioeconomic and spiritual well-being of “all the tribes of Israel,” I believe the Chronicler would affirm these recent initiatives for dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, Paul exhorts Christians to “do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). There is also little doubt that the great cloud of witnesses that continues to assemble in the heavenly realm includes saints from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.

Original Meaning

Jabez (4:10–11)

THIS NOTE ON Jabez intrudes abruptly in the genealogy of Judah. The brief account is an independent literary unit and is theological in character. Nothing is known of his brothers, and there is no apparent connection between Jabez and the place Jabez mentioned in 2:55.3 There is a play on words with the name Jabez (yaʿbeṣ) as a result of the “pain” (beʿoṣeb) his mother endured during his birth. Jabez is remembered as an “honorable” man, more so than his brothers. Thompson is probably correct in connecting Jabez’s “honor” with his earnest prayers.

Given the ancient belief that one’s name represented an individual’s character and in some cases personal destiny, Jabez prayed that God would overturn any curse associated with his name into blessing (cf. Gen. 38:15).4 Two of his four petitions focus on physical circumstances (expanded territorial holdings and freedom from pain) and two deal with his relationship to God (blessing and protection). The efficacy of prayer to the God of Israel is an important theme in Chronicles (cf. 1 Chron. 5:20–22; 2 Chron. 20:6–12). The Chronicler seeks to remind his audience that God’s responsiveness to prayer in the past is an invitation to offer prayers addressing present needs and concerns.

Bridging Contexts

WE HAVE ALREADY observed that the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue has been written for the Hebrew restoration community. Broadly understood, the genealogies served to legitimize the restoration community as the heirs of God’s promises made to the patriarchs and kings of Israel and to bolster the morale of those resettling Judah. Beyond these general purposes, each section of the genealogical prologue contributes to a specific theme developed in the retelling of Israelite history. For instance, this particular section both fills the gaps and completes the genealogy of Judah begun in chapter 2. The emphasis on Judah in the genealogical prologue mirrors the centrality of Davidic kingship in the Chronicler’s account of Israelite history.

Equally important is the sensitivity the Chronicler subtly expresses to his target audience. Judah was preeminent among the tribes of Israel because this line would be the fountainhead for the institution of kingship and eventually the Messiah himself (Gen. 49:8–12). The ancestors and descendants of King David, however, represent only one family among the many clans in the tribe of Judah. Numerous non-Davidic families and clans of Judah are numbered among those Jewish expatriates who have made the journey back to Palestine from Babylonia. The Chronicler encourages certain of these “lesser clans” of the tribe of Judah by noting their resettlement patterns in his genealogical review. No doubt this strategy of personalizing the record by referencing particular clans and families who have resettled Judah after the Babylonian exile is aimed at achieving full participation in the restoration initiative.

In keeping with his previously established literary pattern, the Chronicler adds the dimension of personal story to the ledger of names in his genealogy by giving us occasional “snapshots” of life experiences for certain characters in the record. One vignette tells the story of a man named Jabez (“pain”), who is liberated from the neurosis of an ill-fated name by the power of prayer (4:9–10).13 A second preserves the record of an interracial marriage between Mered and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (4:17–18) According to Allen, this was the Chronicler’s way of raising a prophetic voice against the encroaching attitudes of “apartheid and xenophobia” in “isolationist” postexilic Judah.14 A third and recurrent narrative expansion in the section simply celebrates the virtue of labor by emphasizing crafts and guilds (4:14, 21, 23; perhaps an echo of the creation mandate to “subdue” the earth in the broadest sense of the word, Gen. 1:28). Wilcock aptly concludes that the entire passage (4:1–23) showcases the Chronicler’s concern to combine “practical facts” and “spiritual truths.”15

The one-line report of Mered’s marriage to Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, attests a significant Egyptian influence in this segment of the genealogy of Judah. This mixing of Hebrew and Egyptian populations is not surprising since historically the Judean Negev served as a buffer zone between the kingdom of Egypt and the Levant. That Bithiah is identified as a “daughter of Pharaoh” is so extraordinary that it is often dismissed by commentators as “extremely unlikely,” given Egyptian custom and biblical tradition.16 Others suggest that the use of the title “Pharaoh” is simply a later Hebrew euphemism for an “Egyptian lady.”17

A word of caution is in order here. There is no need to discount the authenticity of the Chronicler’s record. Like the nation of Judah, Egypt in the fifth century B.C. was not the empire it was prior to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As the political fortunes of kingdoms change, transformation of social customs and cultural traditions occurs as well. The marriage of Mered and Bithiah must be understood in this context, not the context of earlier Middle Kingdom Egypt.

Quite apart from the exact meaning of the phrase “daughter of Pharaoh,” it is clear that the name Bithiah (lit., “daughter [or worshiper] of Yahweh”) seems to designate a person who has converted to the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh. This fact may betray a decidedly “progressive” theological stance on the part of the Chronicler since there is no trace of the criticism of marriage to foreign wives characteristic of the response of Ezra and Nehemiah to interracial marriage (Ezra 10).

Wilcock interprets this genealogical footnote listing the children born of a non-Jewish mother as evidence of the Chronicler’s openness to relationships between Israel and other nations, thereby adding “an evangelistic breadth of vision” to his practicality and piety.18 Perhaps this is in reaction to the hardline attitudes toward interracial marriage adopted as a result of the earlier reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although these harsh social and religious reforms were necessary at the time, the Chronicler’s reference to interracial marriage may be a warning of sorts lest the unhealthy attitude of particularism crystallize in the restoration community.

It is possible to infer that the Chronicler takes the Abrahamic covenant and the words of the preexilic prophets to heart. Israel has been placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to bless the nations (Gen. 12:1–3) by sharing the light of God’s revelation with them (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 51:4). Later Jewish history suggests xenophobia eventually triumphed over the Chronicler’s subliminal appeal for evangelistic openness as a fervently nationalistic Judaism continued to develop through the intertestamental period. This would not be overturned until the ministry of Jesus Christ, who sought out men and women, sinners and saints, Jew and Samaritan and Gentile alike—the very people comprising his genealogical ancestry (cf. Matt. 1:2–17).

Contemporary Significance

A WIDENESS OF HEART. The Chronicler’s subtle exhortation to his postexilic audience for an “evangelistic openness” to relationships with non-Jews calls to mind the parable Jesus told about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The story is well known and often told. The question raised in applying the parable to the contemporary setting still haunts the Christian and the Christian church: “Who is my neighbor?”

The question posed by the thoughtful reading of the parable of the good Samaritan has been fittingly answered in recent years by any number of capable Christian thinkers and writers. For instance, John Stott has rightly emphasized imitating the compassion of Christ for people in need through responsible Christian social concern—doing good to the widest spectrum of human beings in urgent need.19 Terry Muck challenges the Christian to extend the principle of “loving one’s neighbor” to include the rapidly growing membership of the non-Christian religions in pluralistic North America.20 Finally, John Piper has reminded us that the parable of the good Samaritan is not about “self-esteem” as our narcissistic culture might suggest; rather, it is about “God-esteem” that enables the Christian to be devoted to pursuing the happiness of others.21

There may be, however, another way in which we might apply the question of befriending a neighbor raised by the parable of the good Samaritan. Leslie Allen has observed “the Chronicler had a wideness of heart which we do well to ponder and seek to emulate.”22 In fact, Allen challenges us to translate the Chronicler’s openness of mind and softness of heart into “multi-denominational awareness.”23 Given recent developments in evangelical Christianity, I might even extend Allen’s thesis to a “multitradition awareness”—that is, a wideness of heart and a spirit of charity among the major traditions of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox.

A new spirit of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation is emerging in Christianity as the church of Jesus Christ forges ahead into the new millennium.24 The dialogue between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians has been prompted by the “culture wars” of recent decades. The spiritual and moral decay of North American society—what has been called our culture of disbelief—is making allies of the three great Christian traditions.25 Christians have begun to recognize that the “fight” against the tide of godless secularism and pluralistic relativism precludes “fighting” against each other. Beyond this, the Christian church is in the midst of rediscovering and reclaiming important elements of its rich heritage, including music, prayer, spiritual formation, and worship, not to mention exciting new ventures of cooperation in matters of social concern, virtue and morality, and evangelism.26

Such dialogue is not without problems, especially as it relates to matters of sound biblical doctrine and the practice of Christian worship. Much work remains in establishing the common Christian ground held by the three great Christian traditions. Yet, given his concern for the socioeconomic and spiritual well-being of “all the tribes of Israel,” I believe the Chronicler would affirm these recent initiatives for dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, Paul exhorts Christians to “do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). There is also little doubt that the great cloud of witnesses that continues to assemble in the heavenly realm includes saints from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.

Original Meaning

Clans of Othniel and Caleb (4:13–16)

THE KENIZZITES, or descendants of Kenaz, were apparently independent southern clans absorbed into the tribe of Judah. Kenaz was the younger brother of Caleb and the father of Othniel (cf. Josh. 15:17; Judg. 1:13; 3:9, 11). Caleb, son of Jephunneh, is also identified as a Kenizzite (Num. 32:12; Josh 14:6, 14). Caleb was one of the twelve spies sent into Canaan to reconnoiter the land before the Israelite conquest (Num. 13:6, 30; 14:6). Along with Joshua, Caleb returned with a favorable report and was commended by God for his faith and duly rewarded with an inheritance in the land of Canaan (Num. 14:24; Deut. 1:36).

Othniel, Caleb’s nephew (or younger brother, as in the NIV), was known for his conquest of Debir at the behest of Caleb (for which he received Caleb’s daughter Acsah in marriage, Josh. 15:16–17). Othniel was also known for his leadership as a judge in delivering the Israelites from the king of Aram (Judg. 3:9–11). The Chronicler includes the genealogies of Othniel and Caleb because both were responsible for expanding the boundaries of Israel during the days of the judges. Their example was meant to encourage post-exilic Judah by reminding the people that God was still capable of enlarging the borders of diminished Judah through the efforts of faithful individuals.

The name Meonothai is restored (4:13) on the basis of the LXX and Vulgate in the genealogy because of an error of haplography. The name Ge Harashim (4:14) means “the valley of the craftsmen” and was located with a cluster of villages including Lod and Ono, some thirty miles northwest of Jerusalem (cf. Neh. 11:35). Some commentators connect this reference to “craftsmen” with the Kenites, perhaps indicating this people group had been displaced to the north.8 The phrase “the son of Elah: Kenaz” (NIV) may be rendered “these are the sons of Kenaz” with only a slight transposition of words.9 If this reading is correct, then the section begins and ends with an envelope construction calling attention to “the sons of Kenaz.” In either case, the name Kenaz frames the genealogy (4:13–15).

This section of genealogies is comprised of independent fragments and appears to be disconnected with the larger context of the additional clans of Judah. Some commentators suggest the passage is a possible continuation of the Calebite genealogy (4:13–15).10 Only the name Ziph is known among the sons of Jehallelel, a city southeast of Hebron later associated with David when he was a fugitive hiding from King Saul (1 Sam. 23:14–16; 26:2; Ps. 54; cf. Josh. 15:55). Perhaps the Chronicler includes these former Hebrew cities south of Judah’s postexilic border in anticipation of the restoration of this territory to the holdings of Judah.

Bridging Contexts

WE HAVE ALREADY observed that the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue has been written for the Hebrew restoration community. Broadly understood, the genealogies served to legitimize the restoration community as the heirs of God’s promises made to the patriarchs and kings of Israel and to bolster the morale of those resettling Judah. Beyond these general purposes, each section of the genealogical prologue contributes to a specific theme developed in the retelling of Israelite history. For instance, this particular section both fills the gaps and completes the genealogy of Judah begun in chapter 2. The emphasis on Judah in the genealogical prologue mirrors the centrality of Davidic kingship in the Chronicler’s account of Israelite history.

Equally important is the sensitivity the Chronicler subtly expresses to his target audience. Judah was preeminent among the tribes of Israel because this line would be the fountainhead for the institution of kingship and eventually the Messiah himself (Gen. 49:8–12). The ancestors and descendants of King David, however, represent only one family among the many clans in the tribe of Judah. Numerous non-Davidic families and clans of Judah are numbered among those Jewish expatriates who have made the journey back to Palestine from Babylonia. The Chronicler encourages certain of these “lesser clans” of the tribe of Judah by noting their resettlement patterns in his genealogical review. No doubt this strategy of personalizing the record by referencing particular clans and families who have resettled Judah after the Babylonian exile is aimed at achieving full participation in the restoration initiative.

In keeping with his previously established literary pattern, the Chronicler adds the dimension of personal story to the ledger of names in his genealogy by giving us occasional “snapshots” of life experiences for certain characters in the record. One vignette tells the story of a man named Jabez (“pain”), who is liberated from the neurosis of an ill-fated name by the power of prayer (4:9–10).13 A second preserves the record of an interracial marriage between Mered and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (4:17–18) According to Allen, this was the Chronicler’s way of raising a prophetic voice against the encroaching attitudes of “apartheid and xenophobia” in “isolationist” postexilic Judah.14 A third and recurrent narrative expansion in the section simply celebrates the virtue of labor by emphasizing crafts and guilds (4:14, 21, 23; perhaps an echo of the creation mandate to “subdue” the earth in the broadest sense of the word, Gen. 1:28). Wilcock aptly concludes that the entire passage (4:1–23) showcases the Chronicler’s concern to combine “practical facts” and “spiritual truths.”15

The one-line report of Mered’s marriage to Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, attests a significant Egyptian influence in this segment of the genealogy of Judah. This mixing of Hebrew and Egyptian populations is not surprising since historically the Judean Negev served as a buffer zone between the kingdom of Egypt and the Levant. That Bithiah is identified as a “daughter of Pharaoh” is so extraordinary that it is often dismissed by commentators as “extremely unlikely,” given Egyptian custom and biblical tradition.16 Others suggest that the use of the title “Pharaoh” is simply a later Hebrew euphemism for an “Egyptian lady.”17

A word of caution is in order here. There is no need to discount the authenticity of the Chronicler’s record. Like the nation of Judah, Egypt in the fifth century B.C. was not the empire it was prior to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As the political fortunes of kingdoms change, transformation of social customs and cultural traditions occurs as well. The marriage of Mered and Bithiah must be understood in this context, not the context of earlier Middle Kingdom Egypt.

Quite apart from the exact meaning of the phrase “daughter of Pharaoh,” it is clear that the name Bithiah (lit., “daughter [or worshiper] of Yahweh”) seems to designate a person who has converted to the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh. This fact may betray a decidedly “progressive” theological stance on the part of the Chronicler since there is no trace of the criticism of marriage to foreign wives characteristic of the response of Ezra and Nehemiah to interracial marriage (Ezra 10).

Wilcock interprets this genealogical footnote listing the children born of a non-Jewish mother as evidence of the Chronicler’s openness to relationships between Israel and other nations, thereby adding “an evangelistic breadth of vision” to his practicality and piety.18 Perhaps this is in reaction to the hardline attitudes toward interracial marriage adopted as a result of the earlier reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although these harsh social and religious reforms were necessary at the time, the Chronicler’s reference to interracial marriage may be a warning of sorts lest the unhealthy attitude of particularism crystallize in the restoration community.

It is possible to infer that the Chronicler takes the Abrahamic covenant and the words of the preexilic prophets to heart. Israel has been placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to bless the nations (Gen. 12:1–3) by sharing the light of God’s revelation with them (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 51:4). Later Jewish history suggests xenophobia eventually triumphed over the Chronicler’s subliminal appeal for evangelistic openness as a fervently nationalistic Judaism continued to develop through the intertestamental period. This would not be overturned until the ministry of Jesus Christ, who sought out men and women, sinners and saints, Jew and Samaritan and Gentile alike—the very people comprising his genealogical ancestry (cf. Matt. 1:2–17).

Contemporary Significance

A WIDENESS OF HEART. The Chronicler’s subtle exhortation to his postexilic audience for an “evangelistic openness” to relationships with non-Jews calls to mind the parable Jesus told about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The story is well known and often told. The question raised in applying the parable to the contemporary setting still haunts the Christian and the Christian church: “Who is my neighbor?”

The question posed by the thoughtful reading of the parable of the good Samaritan has been fittingly answered in recent years by any number of capable Christian thinkers and writers. For instance, John Stott has rightly emphasized imitating the compassion of Christ for people in need through responsible Christian social concern—doing good to the widest spectrum of human beings in urgent need.19 Terry Muck challenges the Christian to extend the principle of “loving one’s neighbor” to include the rapidly growing membership of the non-Christian religions in pluralistic North America.20 Finally, John Piper has reminded us that the parable of the good Samaritan is not about “self-esteem” as our narcissistic culture might suggest; rather, it is about “God-esteem” that enables the Christian to be devoted to pursuing the happiness of others.21

There may be, however, another way in which we might apply the question of befriending a neighbor raised by the parable of the good Samaritan. Leslie Allen has observed “the Chronicler had a wideness of heart which we do well to ponder and seek to emulate.”22 In fact, Allen challenges us to translate the Chronicler’s openness of mind and softness of heart into “multi-denominational awareness.”23 Given recent developments in evangelical Christianity, I might even extend Allen’s thesis to a “multitradition awareness”—that is, a wideness of heart and a spirit of charity among the major traditions of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox.

A new spirit of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation is emerging in Christianity as the church of Jesus Christ forges ahead into the new millennium.24 The dialogue between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians has been prompted by the “culture wars” of recent decades. The spiritual and moral decay of North American society—what has been called our culture of disbelief—is making allies of the three great Christian traditions.25 Christians have begun to recognize that the “fight” against the tide of godless secularism and pluralistic relativism precludes “fighting” against each other. Beyond this, the Christian church is in the midst of rediscovering and reclaiming important elements of its rich heritage, including music, prayer, spiritual formation, and worship, not to mention exciting new ventures of cooperation in matters of social concern, virtue and morality, and evangelism.26

Such dialogue is not without problems, especially as it relates to matters of sound biblical doctrine and the practice of Christian worship. Much work remains in establishing the common Christian ground held by the three great Christian traditions. Yet, given his concern for the socioeconomic and spiritual well-being of “all the tribes of Israel,” I believe the Chronicler would affirm these recent initiatives for dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, Paul exhorts Christians to “do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). There is also little doubt that the great cloud of witnesses that continues to assemble in the heavenly realm includes saints from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.

Original Meaning

Clan of Ezrah (4:17–20)

APART FROM THE (disputed) locations of Gedor, Soco, and Zanoah, nothing is known of people or places mentioned in 4:17–18. All three names are listed as villages belonging to the tribal allotment of Judah, suggesting a kinship relationship between the village and its founder (cf. Josh. 15:34, 48, 58). Keilah and Eshtemoa (1 Chron. 4:19) are also known from the record of Judah’s tribal allotment (Josh. 15:44, 50). Keilah’s history was linked to the rivalry between Saul and David (1 Sam. 23:1–6), and the town was apparently resettled and rebuilt by returnees from the Babylonian captivity (cf. Neh. 3:17–18). Eshtemoa was one of the cities in the hill country of Judah and was apparently loyal to David, as the elders of the town received booty from David’s plundering of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:28).

This section of the extended Judahite genealogy is interesting because of the prominent place it gives to women, especially Miriam (a Calebite relative of Ezrah, 4:17) and Bithiah (daughter of Pharaoh, 4:18). There is some question as to whether or not “Pharaoh” is a royal title in this context. At the very least it suggests the inclusion of Egyptian elements within the tribe of Judah. The example of interracial marriage may have been an apologetic of sorts for the legitimacy of offspring from non-Hebrew mothers during the Chronicler’s era.

Nothing is known of Shimon and his descendants or Ishi and his descendants (4:20). The names must have held some significance for the Chronicler’s audience; perhaps they were ancestors of some of those Hebrews returning from Babylonian captivity.

Bridging Contexts

WE HAVE ALREADY observed that the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue has been written for the Hebrew restoration community. Broadly understood, the genealogies served to legitimize the restoration community as the heirs of God’s promises made to the patriarchs and kings of Israel and to bolster the morale of those resettling Judah. Beyond these general purposes, each section of the genealogical prologue contributes to a specific theme developed in the retelling of Israelite history. For instance, this particular section both fills the gaps and completes the genealogy of Judah begun in chapter 2. The emphasis on Judah in the genealogical prologue mirrors the centrality of Davidic kingship in the Chronicler’s account of Israelite history.

Equally important is the sensitivity the Chronicler subtly expresses to his target audience. Judah was preeminent among the tribes of Israel because this line would be the fountainhead for the institution of kingship and eventually the Messiah himself (Gen. 49:8–12). The ancestors and descendants of King David, however, represent only one family among the many clans in the tribe of Judah. Numerous non-Davidic families and clans of Judah are numbered among those Jewish expatriates who have made the journey back to Palestine from Babylonia. The Chronicler encourages certain of these “lesser clans” of the tribe of Judah by noting their resettlement patterns in his genealogical review. No doubt this strategy of personalizing the record by referencing particular clans and families who have resettled Judah after the Babylonian exile is aimed at achieving full participation in the restoration initiative.

In keeping with his previously established literary pattern, the Chronicler adds the dimension of personal story to the ledger of names in his genealogy by giving us occasional “snapshots” of life experiences for certain characters in the record. One vignette tells the story of a man named Jabez (“pain”), who is liberated from the neurosis of an ill-fated name by the power of prayer (4:9–10).13 A second preserves the record of an interracial marriage between Mered and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (4:17–18) According to Allen, this was the Chronicler’s way of raising a prophetic voice against the encroaching attitudes of “apartheid and xenophobia” in “isolationist” postexilic Judah.14 A third and recurrent narrative expansion in the section simply celebrates the virtue of labor by emphasizing crafts and guilds (4:14, 21, 23; perhaps an echo of the creation mandate to “subdue” the earth in the broadest sense of the word, Gen. 1:28). Wilcock aptly concludes that the entire passage (4:1–23) showcases the Chronicler’s concern to combine “practical facts” and “spiritual truths.”15

The one-line report of Mered’s marriage to Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, attests a significant Egyptian influence in this segment of the genealogy of Judah. This mixing of Hebrew and Egyptian populations is not surprising since historically the Judean Negev served as a buffer zone between the kingdom of Egypt and the Levant. That Bithiah is identified as a “daughter of Pharaoh” is so extraordinary that it is often dismissed by commentators as “extremely unlikely,” given Egyptian custom and biblical tradition.16 Others suggest that the use of the title “Pharaoh” is simply a later Hebrew euphemism for an “Egyptian lady.”17

A word of caution is in order here. There is no need to discount the authenticity of the Chronicler’s record. Like the nation of Judah, Egypt in the fifth century B.C. was not the empire it was prior to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As the political fortunes of kingdoms change, transformation of social customs and cultural traditions occurs as well. The marriage of Mered and Bithiah must be understood in this context, not the context of earlier Middle Kingdom Egypt.

Quite apart from the exact meaning of the phrase “daughter of Pharaoh,” it is clear that the name Bithiah (lit., “daughter [or worshiper] of Yahweh”) seems to designate a person who has converted to the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh. This fact may betray a decidedly “progressive” theological stance on the part of the Chronicler since there is no trace of the criticism of marriage to foreign wives characteristic of the response of Ezra and Nehemiah to interracial marriage (Ezra 10).

Wilcock interprets this genealogical footnote listing the children born of a non-Jewish mother as evidence of the Chronicler’s openness to relationships between Israel and other nations, thereby adding “an evangelistic breadth of vision” to his practicality and piety.18 Perhaps this is in reaction to the hardline attitudes toward interracial marriage adopted as a result of the earlier reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although these harsh social and religious reforms were necessary at the time, the Chronicler’s reference to interracial marriage may be a warning of sorts lest the unhealthy attitude of particularism crystallize in the restoration community.

It is possible to infer that the Chronicler takes the Abrahamic covenant and the words of the preexilic prophets to heart. Israel has been placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to bless the nations (Gen. 12:1–3) by sharing the light of God’s revelation with them (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 51:4). Later Jewish history suggests xenophobia eventually triumphed over the Chronicler’s subliminal appeal for evangelistic openness as a fervently nationalistic Judaism continued to develop through the intertestamental period. This would not be overturned until the ministry of Jesus Christ, who sought out men and women, sinners and saints, Jew and Samaritan and Gentile alike—the very people comprising his genealogical ancestry (cf. Matt. 1:2–17).

Contemporary Significance

A WIDENESS OF HEART. The Chronicler’s subtle exhortation to his postexilic audience for an “evangelistic openness” to relationships with non-Jews calls to mind the parable Jesus told about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The story is well known and often told. The question raised in applying the parable to the contemporary setting still haunts the Christian and the Christian church: “Who is my neighbor?”

The question posed by the thoughtful reading of the parable of the good Samaritan has been fittingly answered in recent years by any number of capable Christian thinkers and writers. For instance, John Stott has rightly emphasized imitating the compassion of Christ for people in need through responsible Christian social concern—doing good to the widest spectrum of human beings in urgent need.19 Terry Muck challenges the Christian to extend the principle of “loving one’s neighbor” to include the rapidly growing membership of the non-Christian religions in pluralistic North America.20 Finally, John Piper has reminded us that the parable of the good Samaritan is not about “self-esteem” as our narcissistic culture might suggest; rather, it is about “God-esteem” that enables the Christian to be devoted to pursuing the happiness of others.21

There may be, however, another way in which we might apply the question of befriending a neighbor raised by the parable of the good Samaritan. Leslie Allen has observed “the Chronicler had a wideness of heart which we do well to ponder and seek to emulate.”22 In fact, Allen challenges us to translate the Chronicler’s openness of mind and softness of heart into “multi-denominational awareness.”23 Given recent developments in evangelical Christianity, I might even extend Allen’s thesis to a “multitradition awareness”—that is, a wideness of heart and a spirit of charity among the major traditions of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox.

A new spirit of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation is emerging in Christianity as the church of Jesus Christ forges ahead into the new millennium.24 The dialogue between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians has been prompted by the “culture wars” of recent decades. The spiritual and moral decay of North American society—what has been called our culture of disbelief—is making allies of the three great Christian traditions.25 Christians have begun to recognize that the “fight” against the tide of godless secularism and pluralistic relativism precludes “fighting” against each other. Beyond this, the Christian church is in the midst of rediscovering and reclaiming important elements of its rich heritage, including music, prayer, spiritual formation, and worship, not to mention exciting new ventures of cooperation in matters of social concern, virtue and morality, and evangelism.26

Such dialogue is not without problems, especially as it relates to matters of sound biblical doctrine and the practice of Christian worship. Much work remains in establishing the common Christian ground held by the three great Christian traditions. Yet, given his concern for the socioeconomic and spiritual well-being of “all the tribes of Israel,” I believe the Chronicler would affirm these recent initiatives for dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, Paul exhorts Christians to “do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). There is also little doubt that the great cloud of witnesses that continues to assemble in the heavenly realm includes saints from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.

Original Meaning

Clan of Shelah (4:21–23)

THE REFERENCE TO SHELAH, the oldest surviving son of Judah, echoes 2:3 and forms an inclusion or envelope construction marking 2:3–4:23 as a larger literary unit. According to Williamson, this passage sheds welcome light on the existence of guilds of craftsmen in ancient Israel (e.g., linen workers (4:21] and potters [4:23]).11

The parenthetical statement attesting the antiquity of the genealogy (4:22) and the reference to the king (4:23) indicate these records date from the preexilic period of Israelite history. The names Lecah, Laadah, Beth Ashbea, Jokim, Cozeba, Saraph, and Netaim are unique to this passage in the Bible. The rendering of the clause “who ruled in Moab” is problematic. The Hebrew word bʿl can mean to “rule over” or “to marry” (here in combination with preposition le, so the Targum reads “who married Moabites”; cf. NRSV, “who married into Moab”). Still others suggest a scribal error confusing pʿl with bʿl and translate accordingly, “who worked in Moab.”12 It is possible the word “there” in 4:23 indicates the potters moved to Lehem (perhaps Bethlehem?) in rotating shifts for a period of royal service.

Bridging Contexts

WE HAVE ALREADY observed that the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue has been written for the Hebrew restoration community. Broadly understood, the genealogies served to legitimize the restoration community as the heirs of God’s promises made to the patriarchs and kings of Israel and to bolster the morale of those resettling Judah. Beyond these general purposes, each section of the genealogical prologue contributes to a specific theme developed in the retelling of Israelite history. For instance, this particular section both fills the gaps and completes the genealogy of Judah begun in chapter 2. The emphasis on Judah in the genealogical prologue mirrors the centrality of Davidic kingship in the Chronicler’s account of Israelite history.

Equally important is the sensitivity the Chronicler subtly expresses to his target audience. Judah was preeminent among the tribes of Israel because this line would be the fountainhead for the institution of kingship and eventually the Messiah himself (Gen. 49:8–12). The ancestors and descendants of King David, however, represent only one family among the many clans in the tribe of Judah. Numerous non-Davidic families and clans of Judah are numbered among those Jewish expatriates who have made the journey back to Palestine from Babylonia. The Chronicler encourages certain of these “lesser clans” of the tribe of Judah by noting their resettlement patterns in his genealogical review. No doubt this strategy of personalizing the record by referencing particular clans and families who have resettled Judah after the Babylonian exile is aimed at achieving full participation in the restoration initiative.

In keeping with his previously established literary pattern, the Chronicler adds the dimension of personal story to the ledger of names in his genealogy by giving us occasional “snapshots” of life experiences for certain characters in the record. One vignette tells the story of a man named Jabez (“pain”), who is liberated from the neurosis of an ill-fated name by the power of prayer (4:9–10).13 A second preserves the record of an interracial marriage between Mered and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (4:17–18) According to Allen, this was the Chronicler’s way of raising a prophetic voice against the encroaching attitudes of “apartheid and xenophobia” in “isolationist” postexilic Judah.14 A third and recurrent narrative expansion in the section simply celebrates the virtue of labor by emphasizing crafts and guilds (4:14, 21, 23; perhaps an echo of the creation mandate to “subdue” the earth in the broadest sense of the word, Gen. 1:28). Wilcock aptly concludes that the entire passage (4:1–23) showcases the Chronicler’s concern to combine “practical facts” and “spiritual truths.”15

The one-line report of Mered’s marriage to Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, attests a significant Egyptian influence in this segment of the genealogy of Judah. This mixing of Hebrew and Egyptian populations is not surprising since historically the Judean Negev served as a buffer zone between the kingdom of Egypt and the Levant. That Bithiah is identified as a “daughter of Pharaoh” is so extraordinary that it is often dismissed by commentators as “extremely unlikely,” given Egyptian custom and biblical tradition.16 Others suggest that the use of the title “Pharaoh” is simply a later Hebrew euphemism for an “Egyptian lady.”17

A word of caution is in order here. There is no need to discount the authenticity of the Chronicler’s record. Like the nation of Judah, Egypt in the fifth century B.C. was not the empire it was prior to the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. As the political fortunes of kingdoms change, transformation of social customs and cultural traditions occurs as well. The marriage of Mered and Bithiah must be understood in this context, not the context of earlier Middle Kingdom Egypt.

Quite apart from the exact meaning of the phrase “daughter of Pharaoh,” it is clear that the name Bithiah (lit., “daughter [or worshiper] of Yahweh”) seems to designate a person who has converted to the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh. This fact may betray a decidedly “progressive” theological stance on the part of the Chronicler since there is no trace of the criticism of marriage to foreign wives characteristic of the response of Ezra and Nehemiah to interracial marriage (Ezra 10).

Wilcock interprets this genealogical footnote listing the children born of a non-Jewish mother as evidence of the Chronicler’s openness to relationships between Israel and other nations, thereby adding “an evangelistic breadth of vision” to his practicality and piety.18 Perhaps this is in reaction to the hardline attitudes toward interracial marriage adopted as a result of the earlier reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although these harsh social and religious reforms were necessary at the time, the Chronicler’s reference to interracial marriage may be a warning of sorts lest the unhealthy attitude of particularism crystallize in the restoration community.

It is possible to infer that the Chronicler takes the Abrahamic covenant and the words of the preexilic prophets to heart. Israel has been placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to bless the nations (Gen. 12:1–3) by sharing the light of God’s revelation with them (e.g., Isa. 49:6; 51:4). Later Jewish history suggests xenophobia eventually triumphed over the Chronicler’s subliminal appeal for evangelistic openness as a fervently nationalistic Judaism continued to develop through the intertestamental period. This would not be overturned until the ministry of Jesus Christ, who sought out men and women, sinners and saints, Jew and Samaritan and Gentile alike—the very people comprising his genealogical ancestry (cf. Matt. 1:2–17).

Contemporary Significance

A WIDENESS OF HEART. The Chronicler’s subtle exhortation to his postexilic audience for an “evangelistic openness” to relationships with non-Jews calls to mind the parable Jesus told about the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). The story is well known and often told. The question raised in applying the parable to the contemporary setting still haunts the Christian and the Christian church: “Who is my neighbor?”

The question posed by the thoughtful reading of the parable of the good Samaritan has been fittingly answered in recent years by any number of capable Christian thinkers and writers. For instance, John Stott has rightly emphasized imitating the compassion of Christ for people in need through responsible Christian social concern—doing good to the widest spectrum of human beings in urgent need.19 Terry Muck challenges the Christian to extend the principle of “loving one’s neighbor” to include the rapidly growing membership of the non-Christian religions in pluralistic North America.20 Finally, John Piper has reminded us that the parable of the good Samaritan is not about “self-esteem” as our narcissistic culture might suggest; rather, it is about “God-esteem” that enables the Christian to be devoted to pursuing the happiness of others.21

There may be, however, another way in which we might apply the question of befriending a neighbor raised by the parable of the good Samaritan. Leslie Allen has observed “the Chronicler had a wideness of heart which we do well to ponder and seek to emulate.”22 In fact, Allen challenges us to translate the Chronicler’s openness of mind and softness of heart into “multi-denominational awareness.”23 Given recent developments in evangelical Christianity, I might even extend Allen’s thesis to a “multitradition awareness”—that is, a wideness of heart and a spirit of charity among the major traditions of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox.

A new spirit of ecumenical dialogue and cooperation is emerging in Christianity as the church of Jesus Christ forges ahead into the new millennium.24 The dialogue between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians has been prompted by the “culture wars” of recent decades. The spiritual and moral decay of North American society—what has been called our culture of disbelief—is making allies of the three great Christian traditions.25 Christians have begun to recognize that the “fight” against the tide of godless secularism and pluralistic relativism precludes “fighting” against each other. Beyond this, the Christian church is in the midst of rediscovering and reclaiming important elements of its rich heritage, including music, prayer, spiritual formation, and worship, not to mention exciting new ventures of cooperation in matters of social concern, virtue and morality, and evangelism.26

Such dialogue is not without problems, especially as it relates to matters of sound biblical doctrine and the practice of Christian worship. Much work remains in establishing the common Christian ground held by the three great Christian traditions. Yet, given his concern for the socioeconomic and spiritual well-being of “all the tribes of Israel,” I believe the Chronicler would affirm these recent initiatives for dialogue and cooperation. Indeed, Paul exhorts Christians to “do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). There is also little doubt that the great cloud of witnesses that continues to assemble in the heavenly realm includes saints from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.