1 Chronicles 4:24–43

Chronicles 4:24–43

THE DESCENDANTS OF Simeon:

Nemuel, Jamin, Jarib, Zerah and Shaul;

25Shallum was Shaul’s son, Mibsam his son and Mishma his son.

26The descendants of Mishma:

Hammuel his son, Zaccur his son and Shimei his son.

27Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters, but his brothers did not have many children; so their entire clan did not become as numerous as the people of Judah. 28They lived in Beersheba, Moladah, Hazar Shual, 29Bilhah, Ezem, Tolad, 30Bethuel, Hormah, Ziklag, 31Beth Marcaboth, Hazar Susim, Beth Biri and Shaaraim. These were their towns until the reign of David. 32Their surrounding villages were Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Token and Ashan—five towns—33and all the villages around these towns as far as Baalath. These were their settlements. And they kept a genealogical record.

34Meshobab, Jamlech, Joshah son of Amaziah, 35Joel, Jehu son of Joshibiah, the son of Seraiah, the son of Asiel, 36also Elioenai, Jaakobah, Jeshohaiah, Asaiah, Adiel, Jesimiel, Benaiah, 37and Ziza son of Shiphi, the son of Allon, the son of Jedaiah, the son of Shimri, the son of Shemaiah.

38The men listed above by name were leaders of their clans. Their families increased greatly, 39and they went to the outskirts of Gedor to the east of the valley in search of pasture for their flocks. 40They found rich, good pasture, and the land was spacious, peaceful and quiet. Some Hamites had lived there formerly.

41The men whose names were listed came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. They attacked the Hamites in their dwellings and also the Meunites who were there and completely destroyed them, as is evident to this day. Then they settled in their place, because there was pasture for their flocks. 42And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day.

Original Meaning

THE SOURCES FOR the Chronicler’s genealogy of Simeon include the records pertaining to Israel’s (i.e., Jacob) second son by Leah found in Genesis 46:10; Exodus 6:15; Numbers 26:12–14; and Joshua 19:2–8. The lists of descendants in Genesis 46:10 and Exodus 6:15 name six sons of Simeon, while Numbers 26:12–14 and 1 Chronicles 4:24 omit the name Ohad and cite only five sons. The Chronicler is unique among all the biblical sources in naming the third son Jarib instead of Jachin.

The Chronicler’s placement of Simeon’s genealogy between that of Judah (2:2–4:23) and Levi (6:1–81) may be explained on historical grounds since Simeon’s allocation of land in Canaan was carved out from the large tract of land granted to Judah (Josh. 19:2–9). Furthermore, some of the Levitical cities were originally towns and villages belonging to the territory of Simeon (1 Chron. 6:65). The destiny of Simeon and Judah was also entwined socially and politically. By the time of David, the towns and villages within the territory of Simeon were recognized as Judean holdings (1 Chron. 4:31). According to Braun, it is the Chronicler’s interest in “all Israel” and his attachment to the ideal of the twelve-tribes motif that motivates his inclusion of Simeon in the tribal lists of Israel long after it has disappeared as a geographical and political entity.1

The genealogy demonstrates both breadth (the listing of a single generation of descendants from a common ancestor, e.g., 4:24) and depth (the listing of successive generations, e.g., 4:25–27). The passage reflects a three-part structure typical of the genealogical records of the lesser Hebrew tribes: the genealogy proper (4:24–27), settlements (4:28–33), and leaders and conquests (4:34–43). Numerous subfeatures of the genealogy have been identified: the name list (a catalog of proper names, whether person or places, e.g., 4:28–31), the muster roll (a list of fighting men, e.g., 4:34–37) and tally (a cardinal number attached to the genealogical record, e.g., 4:42), and a battle report (a summary of a military encounter, e.g., 4:41–43).2

The Chronicler’s attention to detail in the reporting of precise numbers and specific geography further heightens the tension between the ideal of a bygone era and the actual situation of the postexilic period. Rather than discourage his audience, the Chronicler seeks to bolster hope by helping his contemporaries grasp “the real meaning of grace.”3 The record of Israel’s past serves as a barometer of sorts, indicating the full measure of covenant blessings God is capable of bestowing on the current generation of Jews.

The genealogy of Simeon highlights the family of Shaul through several generations. In so doing, the record offers a partial explanation for the subordinate position of the tribe of Simeon in relation to the tribe of Judah. Shimei, the grandson of Shaul, fathered sixteen sons and six daughters, but his brothers “did not have many children” (4:27a). Thus, the clan of Shaul was not as populous as the people of Judah (4:27b). Interestingly, Shaul’s mother was an unnamed Canaanite woman (Gen. 46:10; Ex. 6:15). One wonders if this fact is incidental to the Chronicler’s purposes or if it conveys a theological message. Given the highly selective nature of the genealogies in Chronicles, the latter seems more likely.

The question remains, however, as to the writer’s intent. Perhaps the Chronicler is making a pejorative statement about intermarriage among God’s people, resulting in the lack of offspring among the Simeonites. Or maybe the postexilic historian emphasizes the lineage of Shaul as an example of Yahweh’s universal love for the nations, similar to the story of Ruth. No doubt the faithful among the Chronicler’s audience discern both messages in this notation.

The middle unit of Simeon’s record (4:28–33) contains a catalog of settlements and a reference to a genealogical record placed emphatically at the end of the section (4:33). According to Thompson, the Chronicler “wanted to stress that Simeon once had its own official registration and was part of the total Israel.”4

This memory of Simeon’s former independence from Judah is important for two reasons. (1) The example of geographical expansion is a reminder of the reality that territorial boundaries were always shifting, given the rise and fall of political fortunes in the ancient world. In the past the nation of Israel prospered materially and expanded geographically in accordance with her collective obedience to the stipulations of Yahweh’s covenant. The Chronicler understands that the earth is the Lord’s (Ps. 24:1) and that as owner of the land, God can restore to Israel what he once gave them (e.g., Deut. 1:8; 3:18; 8:10). Likewise, Israel has received the land as a divine gift by faith in Yahweh’s covenant promises, and so by means of covenant renewal Israel can again be restored in the land of her ancestors (cf. Neh. 9:36–37; 10:28–39).5

(2) The account serves as an exhortation to those postexilic Jews still inhabiting the very same towns and villages settled by the descendants of Simeon (cf. Neh. 11:26–29). Theologically, the Chronicler’s selective portrayal of Simeon shows that historical circumstances have not thwarted God’s initiative in the ideal of the twelve tribes of Israel. The presentation of Simeon as one of the twelve, given the historical reality of the tribe of Simeon as a nonentity by the time of the Chronicler, mirrors the situation for all the Israelite tribes in one sense after the Exile. The boundaries of the ancient Israelite territories have been radically altered, if not erased altogether. Tribal and clan distinctions have been blurred by numerous deportations and generations of intermarriage. But “all Israel” as the people of God continue to possess a portion of the land of God’s promise—the covenant inheritance bequeathed to Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 12:1–3).

The third section of the genealogy (4:34–43) stresses the expansion and settlement of land to the west (vv. 39–41) and southeast (vv. 42–43) of the original Simeonite territory by the descendants of Shimei. The place name “Gedor” (v. 39) is problematic since the LXX reads Gerar, and that site is more appropriately situated to the offspring of Ham.6 The term “Hamites” (vv. 40–41) refers generally to the Philistine or Canaanite people groups in this context. The Meunites are variously associated with the Amalekites and Sidonians (Judg. 10:12) and the Philistines (2 Chron. 26:7) in the Old Testament. Depending on the resource consulted, the Meunites are identified with “Maon,” a town in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15:55), or a site about eleven miles south of Gaza (modern day Maʿin).7 It is unclear whether the hill country of Seir refers to an area of the southern Negev or to Edomite holdings south and east of the Dead Sea. The Amalekites (possibly descendants of Esau, cf. Gen. 36:12, 16) were a pastoral-nomadic people group of the Negev and Sinai, defeated first by Saul (1 Sam. 15:7–8) and later by David (30:1–18; 2 Sam. 8:12; cf. 1 Chron. 18:11). Historically, all were people groups hostile to Israel.

The passage offers insight on the process of genealogical enrollment in ancient Israel—apparently a two-stage process of entering names (v. 38, perhaps connected to a tribal oral tradition [NIV, “listed … by name”]) and then cataloging the names according to some scheme of arrangement (4:41, perhaps on the basis of a census taking [NIV, “names were listed”]).8 The theme of pastureland for the flocks and herds of the Simeonites is repeated three times in the brief account (vv. 39, 40, 41). Curiously, the closest lexical parallels to the Chronicler’s language are those psalms identifying the Israelites as the sheep of God’s pasture (e.g., Ps. 37:3; 74:1; 79:13; 95:7; 100:3). The military tone of the unit echoes the prophetic blessing of Jacob over Simeon as one given to anger and violence (cf. Gen. 49:5–7). Finally, the phrase “completely destroyed” (1 Chron. 4:41) is reminiscent of the conquest of Canaan (cf. Deut. 7:2; Josh. 2:10; 6:21).

Theologically, the focus of this third section of Simeon’s genealogy is faithfulness—the faithfulness of God’s Word concerning the destiny of Simeon as uttered by Jacob (Gen. 49:5–7), the faithfulness of the Simeonites in possessing the land allotted to them by Joshua (note the correspondence of the place names between Josh. 19:2–9 and 1 Chron. 4:28–33), the faithfulness of God in helping the Simeonites overcome their enemies (cf. Deut. 1:30; 3:22), and the faithfulness of Shimei’s family in trusting God for the expansion of the Simeonite tribal holdings (1 Chron. 4:38–43). These are all important examples of a faithful God blessing his faithful people—a necessary history lesson for the Chronicler’s audience.

Bridging Contexts

GLORIFYING THE PAST (or future). The Chronicler uses the genealogy of Simeon to address a phenomenon common to the human experience, namely, the tendency to glorify the past. Each generation is troubled by the disparity perceived between their understanding of the ideal life and their observation of reality. Often the idealized life is associated with the past, the notion of “the good old days.” Sometimes the actual or the contemporary situation is discounted against the future, in the sense that those things yet to come are presumed to be better than present conditions. In either case, the assumption is that the virtue of current circumstances pales when compared to the golden past or the silver-lined future.

Such dissatisfaction with life in the “present tense” is basic to fallen human nature. In fact, the garden temptation of Eve may be reduced to feelings of doubt implanted by the serpent, prompting a disaffection for her present situation (Gen. 3:1–7). The human penchant for reliving the past and yearning for the future is surely symptomatic of our pride in our own ability to alter circumstances and our impatience with the plan of God. The human capacity for selective remembrance and forgetfulness also permits the glorification of the past to the point where memory and imagination are blurred. Such reconstructions create a nostalgic experience or “homesickness” for the past.9

The Bible dispels the myth that the past is better than the present, as the Hebrew sage cautions against even asking such questions (Eccl. 7:10). Jesus himself indicated each day has enough trouble of its own, so worrying about the future is futile (Matt. 6:34). The Bible also discourages living in the future because tomorrow is uncertain and the future is unknown to finite mortals (cf. Matt. 24:42; James 4:13–16). Essentially, that means we must live in “this day”—as recognized by the Jews (e.g., Deut 30:15; Josh. 24:15; Ps. 118:24; Eccl. 5:18–20) and affirmed by the teaching of the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 6:11; Luke 19:9; Acts 22:16; Heb. 3:13).

Jacques Ellul goes so far to say that the present is all we have since people forget the past and are unable to penetrate the future.10 Although he overstates the case, his emphasis on “living in the present” is an important insight. C. S. Lewis aptly noted the same some years earlier when Screwtape informed Wormwood that the business of “the Father [of Lies]” was to get people away from the eternal and from the Present (since freedom and actuality are offered to humans only in the Present).11 This was best accomplished, according to Screwtape, by encouraging people to live in the Future since it is unknown and irreal (and thus least like eternity). Escapism into the Past had limited value for Screwtape because people have some real knowledge of the Past and it resembles eternity in its determinate nature. This is why the act of remembering the works and words of God in the past is so important to biblical theology. It is one of the keys to understanding the concept of the “eternal” in the contemporary setting.

Despite the danger of escapism into memories, the Bible invites reflection on the past because the act of remembering is inherently educational. Israel’s primary mode of knowing is narrative or story, and only remembering the story of her past will keep Israel true to her divine calling.12 Centuries earlier Moses challenged his audience to “ask … about the former days” (Deut. 4:32). The invitation was rhetorical in that Moses proceeded to recite specific events of Israelite history to prove a point. Essentially, that point is the truth that the Lord is God and that he has chosen Israel (cf. Deut. 4:36–37). The power of God and the uniqueness of Israel as his people are rooted in divine acts of deliverance and the word of covenant revelation. These deeds and words of God are manifest throughout the course of Hebrew history as recorded in the Old Testament. In fact, the book of Deuteronomy provides a course of theological instruction based on the remembrance of the past.13

The Chronicler offers his people a similar invitation. In general, his recitation of Hebrew history is a theology of hope couched in the call to remember the words and deeds of God connected with the Davidic covenant. Specifically here, the genealogy of Simeon is intended to stir the memory of postexilic Israel because they too have assumed they are living in the days of “small things” (cf. Zech. 4:10).

But the summons to remember in the world of the Old Testament is more than nostalgia, the sentimental yearning for some past and irrecoverable period of history. Remembering in the Old Testament is an active cognitive commitment with behavioral outcomes, “an intellectual activity that is relational and personal.”14 For the Chronicler this act of remembering is relational in that it is a communal exercise as a result of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (cf. 1 Chron. 16:12, 15–16). That remembering is a highly personal activity for the Chronicler is evident in the recording of numerous prayers, each one presuming an individual faith commitment to God (e.g., 2 Chron. 6:42).

For the Chronicler the memory of Simeon is both retrospect (meditation on the past) and prospect (anticipation for the future). The God who prospered the initiatives of the Simeonites is the very same God who stirred Cyrus to rebuild the Jerusalem temple. Thus, careful reflection on the history of Israel serves two purposes. (1) It instills confidence in the future. Postexilic Israel has every reason to believe that the pattern of God’s activity in history will continue. (2) It functions as a catalyst in the restoration community. The religious vitality and social mobilization of Israel is always conditioned by her ability to remember the words and deeds of God (cf. Deut. 8:18; Neh. 4:14). Whether as an antidote for times of individual and national distress (Ps. 77:11–12), as spiritual therapy prompting repentance and confession of sin (Ps. 25:6–7), or as an act of worship encouraging service to others in the name of God (Deut. 15:12–15), this activity of remembrance is essential to proper relationship with God.

Finally, the genealogical record of Simeon is also a legacy, something transmitted or received from ancestors. The Jews of the Chronicler’s Jerusalem are the heirs of a rich inheritance. The legacy of Simeon is a strong faith in the God of their father Jacob, a God of unswerving faithfulness to the Simeonites and to all Israel. Only faith in the God of Simeon can enable restoration Judah to overcome the gulf between the Davidic ideal and the reality of Persian domination.

Contemporary Significance

THE INCONGRUITY BETWEEN the ideal and the actual. The tension between the biblical ideal and the reality of present circumstances remains a struggle for God’s faithful. Like the psalmist, the Christian at times still asks the question, “How long, O LORD?” (Ps. 13:1).

The New Testament addresses the incongruity between the ideal and the actual on several levels. The book of Hebrews affirms doctrinally that Jesus Christ is truly Son of Man and that God has put everything subject under him, though we do not now see everything subject to Christ (Heb. 2:8). John the apostle takes a more pastoral and reflective approach when he acknowledges we are children of God, but what we will be has not yet been made known (1 John 3:2). Lastly, Paul dramatizes the visceral strain of reconciling the ideal and actual when he laments what a wretched creature he is as he is torn by the war between sin and righteousness raging within (Rom. 8:22–24). Each aspect of the dichotomy between the ideal and the actual is important because it reminds us that the issue is a complex one. It also indicates that any resolution aimed at reconciling the polarity must be multifaceted, taking into consideration our intellect, our psyche, and our emotions.

We have learned that the Chronicler is attempting to reconcile the historical distance and theological disparity between the Davidic ideal and the reality of Persian occupation of Judah for a discouraged audience in postexilic Jerusalem. The New Testament mentions other kinds of tensions between the biblical ideal and actual human experience that have the potential to produce similar feelings of anxiety and despair in individual believers and in the Christian community at large. Note, for example, the ongoing conflict between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness (cf. Col. 1:13), sound doctrine compromised by false teaching (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 2:1; cf. 2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Peter 2:1), and an ethic of social justice eroded by oppression and prejudice (e.g., 2 Thess. 3:13; cf. James 2:5–6). Some mediation of the biblical ideal and present reality is essential because the unresolved tension poses a threat to personal faith and spiritual growth. The greater the discontinuity between the ideal and the actual, the more room for seeds of doubt to germinate, undermining one’s hope in God and robbing one of the joy of the Lord.

The Chronicler understands the importance of dealing with the historical and theological distance between the Davidic ideal and the life situation of his audience. He basically seeks to resolve the dilemma by appealing to past faithfulness as documented in the Scriptures, recording earlier Hebrew history: (1) the faithfulness of God to his Word and to his people Israel, and (2) the faithfulness of God’s people in believing his covenant promises and in obeying his covenant stipulations. Two other partial solutions for spanning the gap between the ideal and the actual are implicit in the Chronicler’s message: The idea of waiting on God seems everywhere tacit in the two books, given his emphasis on prayer.

Like the psalmist the Chronicler subtly encourages his contemporaries to take heart and wait for the Lord (cf. Ps. 27:14). His numerous references to personal and corporate worship experiences during the days of Israelite kingship also echo the psalmist’s understanding that entering the sanctuary of God in worship brings some perspective to polarity between the ideal and the actual (cf. Ps. 73:16–17).

The New Testament seeks to harmonize the ideal with the actual in a similar manner. For example, “faithful” is an epithet for God and Jesus Christ in Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:18). Much like Chronicles, the book of Hebrews appeals to the example of people faithful to God—that great cloud of witnesses who have preceded us (Heb. 12:1; cf. Phil. 3:17). Unlike Chronicles, the New Testament explicitly calls on the Christian to wait on God for a final resolution to the polarity between the biblical ideal and the present reality (e.g., Rom. 8:23, 25; 1 Cor. 1:7). Although less forceful, the idea that worship mediates the tensions between the ideal and the actual seems to be embodied in New Testament injunctions related to prayer (e.g., Matt. 6:9–10; James 5:13–16; 1 John 5:14–15).

In addition, the New Testament presents a more definitive statement of eschatology expressly intended to engender hope in the Christian (1 Thess. 4:13; Titus 2:13; Heb. 6:9). Perhaps most important, God has given his Holy Spirit to the Christian “as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Cor. 5:5). This specific and personal work of the Holy Spirit mediates the biblical ideal and present reality by affirming the believer as an heir of the promises of God in Christ (cf. Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:16).

But what does all this mean, practically speaking? (1) Human frailty and finitude prevent any complete reconciliation of the biblical ideal and the present reality on this side of the second advent of Christ. This does not, however, lead us to despair. Rather, those who have put their faith in God’s Son have the assurance that ultimately they “will never be put to shame” (cf. Rom. 9:33; cf. 5:5). (2) Because we possess the treasure of God’s mercy in jars of clay, it is plain to all that it is God’s power and not human ingenuity that enables the Christian to cope with the tension of life’s polarities (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7). As we overcome the incongruence between the biblical ideal and the present reality by the help of the Holy Spirit, God is the One who is glorified!