Original Meaning

The Families of Bela and Ehud (8:1–7)

THE FOCAL POINT of the genealogy is the clan of Ehud more than the family tree of the tribal patriarch Benjamin. The phrase “heads of families” (8:6, 10, 13, 28) refers to a clan leader (note the additional modifier in v. 28, “chiefs” [raʾšim]). Although this register has several names in common with the parallel sources (e.g., Bela, Ashbel, Gera), the introductory verses cannot be harmonized with Genesis 46:21; Numbers 26:38–41; or 1 Chronicles 7:6. Williamson comments that this is not surprising since “the differences will reflect alterations in which clans were prominent at a given period.”8 Although extensive commentary on textual problems lies outside the purpose of this series, the NIV footnote to the name Abihud in 1 Chronicles 8:3 deserves comment. It is indeed possible that “Gera, Abihud” should be read “Gera the father of Ehud,” thus connecting the Chronicler’s genealogy with Ehud the left-handed judge (cf. Judg. 3:15). This would explain the emphasis on the sons of Ehud in the genealogy.9

The Ehud clan of Benjamites is associated with Geba (8:6), one of the cities allotted to Benjamin as part of the tribal inheritance of Canaan supervised by Joshua (Josh. 18:24). The city was fortified by King Asa as a border post between Judah and the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 15:22). Later, the city is mentioned as one of the sites having a high place desecrated by King Josiah as part of his religious reforms (2 Kings 23:8). The reference here probably reflects a preexilic time period since the postexilic returnees settled in Micmash (the northern neighbor of Geba, cf. Neh. 11:31). The modern town of Jiba is located about six miles north of Jerusalem.

The deportation (or migration?) of Ehud’s sons to Manahath (8:7) cannot be placed historically, given the limited data available. The biblical record suggests tribal migrations as a result of natural calamities (e.g., famine; cf. Ruth 1:1) and expulsions as a result of intertribal and intratribal strife (cf. Judg. 20). Manahath was a Judean village, probably modern-day Mahnah (four miles southwest of Jerusalem). Even less clear is the identity of those heads of families deported, the person or persons responsible for the deportation, and the relationship of Gera (1 Chron. 8:7) to Gera (8:3, 5). The text of 8:7 is difficult to unravel and may have suffered at the hand of copyists. The NIV translation is widely accepted, though other renderings are viable.10

Bridging Contexts

A RECURRING THEME in our analysis of Chronicles is the message of hope for postexilic Judah couched in the retelling of the story of Israelite kingship. Despite the delay of nearly two centuries, the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will be restored in postexilic Judah. That hope is not utopian wishful thinking or sentimental daydreaming but confidence in the Word of God that promised a revived Davidic monarchy (cf. Jer. 33:15; Amos 9:11). The certainty of the Chronicler’s conviction that God will make good that promise spoken through the prophets informs the structure of the genealogical prologue.

The compilation of tribal genealogies (chs. 4–7) is encased in an envelope featuring Judah (chs. 2–3) and Benjamin (ch. 8), the two “royal” tribes of Israel. It is the idea of kingship that inspires the Chronicler’s retelling of Hebrew history. He knows beyond doubt that Israel’s destiny is tied to a royal figure of some future time. I suspect the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will again emerge in Israel during his lifetime. His questions penetrate the subsequent centuries of Jewish history even to the time of Christ’s postresurrection ascension into the glory of heaven: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

The shift from word to image as a vehicle of communication as a result of the technology revolution in our society has diminished our awareness of and appreciation for the sophistication of the Chronicler’s literary effort. The retelling of a story already well known by the audience for the purpose of bolstering morale is a tall order for any writer, no matter the century. Beyond that, the Chronicler chooses to use the genre of list or genealogy to retell Israel’s history. Yet through that medium he has subtly enhanced his message of hope by strategically selecting those tribal records that include anecdotes and brief reports scattered through the lists of names.

For example, the Chronicler teaches us something about prayer in the example of Jabez (4:9–10), wideness of heart in the attention given to the “marginalized” (e.g., the emphasis on women in the registers of Manasseh and Ephraim; 7:14–16, 24), and fresh starts by the grace of God in lists of those resettling Jerusalem after the Exile (9:1b–34). Here in the Benjamite genealogy he does it by reporting examples in which families from the tribe have experienced and overcome adversity.

Specifically, the genealogical record reports four episodes that may be construed as misfortune for the tribe of Benjamin, including the deportation of descendants of Ehud from Geba (8:6), the divorce of Hushim and Baara by Shaharaim (8:8), the tragedy of Saul’s kingship (implicitly in the reference to Israel’s first king in 8:33), and the brave warriors of Ulam’s family who are no more (8:40; according to Japhet’s historical reconstruction of Micah’s lineage Ulam and his sons were most likely casualties of the Babylonian conquest of Judah and Jerusalem).18

Yet, in 9:3 we read that some from the tribe of Benjamin joined other Jews in resettling the Persian imperial province of Judah and rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm the role of Benjamin in the restoration community (cf. Ezra 1:5; Neh. 11:4, 7–9). Was this a chance stroke of good fortune for the tribe of Benjamin? Or was this simply testimony to the tenacious spirit and exceptional ability of certain families of the Benjamites? Or did the tribe of Benjamin overcome adversity by the gracious help of the sovereign God of Israel?

Obviously these questions are rhetorical in nature. But we must take note that this profound biblical truth may be grasped only through theological extrapolation. The Chronicler nowhere makes such claims; the message is tacit or even subliminal for his audience, given their knowledge of their own history and Scriptures. We might add this is an example of good pedagogical method, encouraging the listener or the reader to draw lessons and principles for personal edification inductively from known materials. In a sense, the writer invites his audience to do “biblical theology” by remembering other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures germane to his theme of hope for a restored Israel. No doubt the Chronicler had in mind texts like Psalm 42:5, 11; 43:5: “Why are you downcast, O my soul?… Put your hope in God.”

Or in view of the grim memory of the Exile and the halting restoration effort in postexilic Judah, perhaps the Chronicler expects his audience to call to mind Lamentations 3:21–23:

Yet this I call to mind

and therefore I have hope:

Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed,

for his compassions never fail.

They are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

CUP OF SORROW/CUP OF JOY. Part of the story of the Bible is the conflict between faith in God (and the truth he has disclosed through general and special revelation) and false gods and false teaching espoused by humanistic philosophies and superstitious religions. In the Old Testament we learn that Jeremiah battled counterfeit prophets who preached a message of false hope based on visions of their own creation (Jer. 14:14; 23:16). Centuries later Jesus warned his followers that false prophets and even false Christs would rise up and deceive many (Matt. 24:4–14). Soon after, his apostles encountered stiff opposition to the truth of God in their own ministries, prompting them to admonish and instruct God’s people on the subject of false teachers and false teaching in their letters (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:13; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; 2 Peter 2:1).

Typically, we tend to associate false teaching with heretical belief and practice related to the basic tenets of our Christian creed. Historically such false doctrine has included denying the deity of Christ, denying the effects of the Fall in the nature of persons, investing other “holy books” with the divine authority of the Bible, and adding some form of “law” or “works” to the grace of God for salvation. The assault on foundational Bible truths by false teachers and the spread of their false doctrine became the catalyst for the early creedal responses to heresy (e.g., the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon). Not surprisingly, these and other distortions of biblical teaching persist today as the spirit of antichrist remains active in the world (1 John 4:1–3).

In addition, new challenges to Christian orthodoxy have surfaced. Issues related to gender roles and sexual orientation now divide the church, fallout from the “culture wars” that continues to fragment society and alienate people groups. The pluralism unleashed by postmodernism recognizes all belief systems as equally valid (whether true or not is unimportant since relativism makes “truth” superfluous). By the same token, the multicultural agenda of postmodernism insists that every culture is of equal intrinsic value. Hence, “there is no exclusive truth. There is no superior culture.”19

As a result Christianity and Western civilization are only as valid as Hinduism and Eastern civilization or animism and African civilization in the new cultural order. Even more disturbing is the perspectivist approach to literature advocated by postmodernism, divesting texts of any meaning and coherence apart from that determined by each reader. At best, the Bible can mean only what the individual reader predisposes the text to mean. At worst, the Bible is meaningless because it is impossible for language to articulate a reality that is unknowable.20

Beyond this, in recent decades the church has had to combat an equally insidious false teaching that promotes health, wealth, and happiness—all the while eschewing pain, suffering, and adversity as symptoms of a “stunted” spiritual development.21 Rather than exhorting God’s faithful to overcome adversity like the Chronicler, these false teachers preach “another gospel” that claims the “truly spiritual” person is exempt from adversity. This “have-it-all” philosophy combines the misapprehension of biblical teaching concerning “success” and “prosperity” with the social agenda of modern liberalism that seeks to eradicate all pain and suffering for the citizens of “democracy.”22

This gospel of “gain with no pain” must ignore the biblical stories featuring the adversity and suffering of God’s people. What place for Joseph wrongly accused and imprisoned (Gen. 39:11–20)? What place for the widow Naomi, who changed her name to “bitterness” (Ruth 1:20)? What place for fugitive David, who fled the wrath of King Saul in the caves of the Judean desert (1 Sam. 23:14)? What place for the apostle Paul who boasted of his weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:7–10)? What place for the apostle John exiled to the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9)? Each one is a graduate of what Gene Edwards has called “God’s sacred school of submission and brokenness.”23

The gospel of “gain with no pain” must also ignore the teaching of Jesus. On more than one occasion he made it clear to his disciples that they should anticipate adversity and persecution because “a student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master” (Matt. 10:24; cf. John 15:20). Shortly before his own arrest Jesus declared to his followers, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Christian “triumphalism” is forged in the crucible of the cross of Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:24; cf. 1 Cor. 1:17; Col. 2:15).

The psalmist asks the question: “How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me?” He then answers his own question by declaring: “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD” (Ps. 116:12–13). Henri Nouwen reminds us that the “cup of salvation” is both “the cup of joy” and “the cup of sorrow.” His study of the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels and his years of ministry to the “marginalized” of society taught him that “the cup of sorrow is also the cup of joy, that precisely what causes us sadness can become the fertile ground for gladness.… Only when we fully realize that the cup of life is not only a cup of sorrow but also a cup of joy will we be able to drink it.”24

Paul understood the paradox of the cup of sorrow and the cup of joy, recognizing that as coheirs with Christ, the child of God must share in his sufferings in order to share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Elsewhere, Paul praised “the God of all comfort,” who comforts the faithful in all their troubles, not the God who removes all trouble from their lives (2 Cor. 1:3–6). Peter echoes Paul in calling the Christian to rejoice in sharing the sufferings of Christ so that we may be “overjoyed when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 4:13). Fortunately, we are called to overcome adversity for only a “little while” (5:10), knowing we can commit ourselves to our faithful Creator, who both comforts us in our suffering and enables us to overcome our adversity (2 Cor. 1:3, 10–11; 1 Peter 4:19). This is the cup Jesus offered his disciples: “Can you drink the cup …?” (Matt. 20:22).

Original Meaning

The Family of Shaharaim (8:8–13)

THE SETTING FOR the episodes concerning the family of Shaharaim is Moab (8:8). Nothing else is known of Shaharaim apart from the Chronicler’s genealogy. Moab was a satellite state under Israelite control during the reigns of David and Solomon (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2). Moab regained its autonomy at the time of King Joram during the divided kingdom period of Israel’s history (2 Kings 3:5). Though not the same person, the name Mesha (1 Chron. 8:9) was also the name of the Moabite king who revolted against King Joram of Israel (2 Kings 3:4). The name Malcam (1 Chron. 8:9) is related to the god Molech of the Ammonites (cf. 1 Kings 11:7). The use of these names indicates both their popularity and the acculturation of the Israelites while in Moab. The story of Shaharaim undoubtedly reflects a time of peaceful relations and free movement between the nations of Israel and Moab (as in the story of Ruth) or a time when Moab was controlled by the Israelites.

The Benjamite genealogy includes the curious report that sons were born to Shaharaim by a third wife, Hodesh, after he had divorced two other of his wives (8:8). The marital problems precipitating the divorces are not mentioned. This anecdote is in keeping with the Chronicler’s style, however, of personalizing the genealogies with sidebars that highlight unusual events or call attention to “marginalized” people (like women and non-Hebrews). One wonders if the report of sons born to Shaharaim after divorcing Hushim and Baara had special application for the Chronicler’s audience in light of the divorces enforced by Ezra and Nehemiah as part of their reforms (cf. Ezra 10:11–17). One of the divorced women, Hushim, is given prominence in the register because she was the mother of Elpaal, whose descendants are the focal point of the next section of the genealogy.

The reference to Shemed as the one “who built Ono and Lod” (8:12) should be understood as having rebuilt or perhaps fortified the cities of Ono and Lod. Both Ono and Lod had a long history, known from Egyptian records prior to the Hebrew conquest of Canaan.11 The two cities were resettled in the postexilic period by descendants of families who had lived there previously (Ezra 2:33; Neh. 7:37), including Benjamites (Neh. 11:35).

There is some question as to how Ono and Lod became cities of Benjamin when they were originally part of the tribal allotment of Dan (i.e., “the area facing Joppa”; Josh. 19:46). As the tribe of Ephraim gained in influence, it took control of the cities of Ono and Lod. Since Benjamin shared a border with Ephraim, it seems likely that the two cities were absorbed by Benjamin and Judah at the division of the monarchy.

The city of Aijalon (8:13) was also originally a part of the tribal allotment given to Dan (Josh. 19:42). The city lay on the border with Ephraim, however, and it seems the tribe of Ephraim controlled Aijalon from early times (cf. Judg. 1:35). Aijalon was strategically located on the most important trade route in the Shephelah (thirteen miles northwest of Jerusalem). King Rehoboam fortified the city as a border post against Philistine aggression (2 Chron. 11:10), but the city was later captured by the Philistines during the reign of King Ahaz (28:18). The settlement of Benjamites in Aijalon may be traced to the time when the city was controlled by Judah during the reign of Rehoboam. The conquest of Gath (1 Chron. 8:13) by the Benjamites cannot be placed historically, given the terseness of the battle report.

Bridging Contexts

A RECURRING THEME in our analysis of Chronicles is the message of hope for postexilic Judah couched in the retelling of the story of Israelite kingship. Despite the delay of nearly two centuries, the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will be restored in postexilic Judah. That hope is not utopian wishful thinking or sentimental daydreaming but confidence in the Word of God that promised a revived Davidic monarchy (cf. Jer. 33:15; Amos 9:11). The certainty of the Chronicler’s conviction that God will make good that promise spoken through the prophets informs the structure of the genealogical prologue.

The compilation of tribal genealogies (chs. 4–7) is encased in an envelope featuring Judah (chs. 2–3) and Benjamin (ch. 8), the two “royal” tribes of Israel. It is the idea of kingship that inspires the Chronicler’s retelling of Hebrew history. He knows beyond doubt that Israel’s destiny is tied to a royal figure of some future time. I suspect the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will again emerge in Israel during his lifetime. His questions penetrate the subsequent centuries of Jewish history even to the time of Christ’s postresurrection ascension into the glory of heaven: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

The shift from word to image as a vehicle of communication as a result of the technology revolution in our society has diminished our awareness of and appreciation for the sophistication of the Chronicler’s literary effort. The retelling of a story already well known by the audience for the purpose of bolstering morale is a tall order for any writer, no matter the century. Beyond that, the Chronicler chooses to use the genre of list or genealogy to retell Israel’s history. Yet through that medium he has subtly enhanced his message of hope by strategically selecting those tribal records that include anecdotes and brief reports scattered through the lists of names.

For example, the Chronicler teaches us something about prayer in the example of Jabez (4:9–10), wideness of heart in the attention given to the “marginalized” (e.g., the emphasis on women in the registers of Manasseh and Ephraim; 7:14–16, 24), and fresh starts by the grace of God in lists of those resettling Jerusalem after the Exile (9:1b–34). Here in the Benjamite genealogy he does it by reporting examples in which families from the tribe have experienced and overcome adversity.

Specifically, the genealogical record reports four episodes that may be construed as misfortune for the tribe of Benjamin, including the deportation of descendants of Ehud from Geba (8:6), the divorce of Hushim and Baara by Shaharaim (8:8), the tragedy of Saul’s kingship (implicitly in the reference to Israel’s first king in 8:33), and the brave warriors of Ulam’s family who are no more (8:40; according to Japhet’s historical reconstruction of Micah’s lineage Ulam and his sons were most likely casualties of the Babylonian conquest of Judah and Jerusalem).18

Yet, in 9:3 we read that some from the tribe of Benjamin joined other Jews in resettling the Persian imperial province of Judah and rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm the role of Benjamin in the restoration community (cf. Ezra 1:5; Neh. 11:4, 7–9). Was this a chance stroke of good fortune for the tribe of Benjamin? Or was this simply testimony to the tenacious spirit and exceptional ability of certain families of the Benjamites? Or did the tribe of Benjamin overcome adversity by the gracious help of the sovereign God of Israel?

Obviously these questions are rhetorical in nature. But we must take note that this profound biblical truth may be grasped only through theological extrapolation. The Chronicler nowhere makes such claims; the message is tacit or even subliminal for his audience, given their knowledge of their own history and Scriptures. We might add this is an example of good pedagogical method, encouraging the listener or the reader to draw lessons and principles for personal edification inductively from known materials. In a sense, the writer invites his audience to do “biblical theology” by remembering other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures germane to his theme of hope for a restored Israel. No doubt the Chronicler had in mind texts like Psalm 42:5, 11; 43:5: “Why are you downcast, O my soul?… Put your hope in God.”

Or in view of the grim memory of the Exile and the halting restoration effort in postexilic Judah, perhaps the Chronicler expects his audience to call to mind Lamentations 3:21–23:

Yet this I call to mind

and therefore I have hope:

Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed,

for his compassions never fail.

They are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

CUP OF SORROW/CUP OF JOY. Part of the story of the Bible is the conflict between faith in God (and the truth he has disclosed through general and special revelation) and false gods and false teaching espoused by humanistic philosophies and superstitious religions. In the Old Testament we learn that Jeremiah battled counterfeit prophets who preached a message of false hope based on visions of their own creation (Jer. 14:14; 23:16). Centuries later Jesus warned his followers that false prophets and even false Christs would rise up and deceive many (Matt. 24:4–14). Soon after, his apostles encountered stiff opposition to the truth of God in their own ministries, prompting them to admonish and instruct God’s people on the subject of false teachers and false teaching in their letters (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:13; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; 2 Peter 2:1).

Typically, we tend to associate false teaching with heretical belief and practice related to the basic tenets of our Christian creed. Historically such false doctrine has included denying the deity of Christ, denying the effects of the Fall in the nature of persons, investing other “holy books” with the divine authority of the Bible, and adding some form of “law” or “works” to the grace of God for salvation. The assault on foundational Bible truths by false teachers and the spread of their false doctrine became the catalyst for the early creedal responses to heresy (e.g., the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon). Not surprisingly, these and other distortions of biblical teaching persist today as the spirit of antichrist remains active in the world (1 John 4:1–3).

In addition, new challenges to Christian orthodoxy have surfaced. Issues related to gender roles and sexual orientation now divide the church, fallout from the “culture wars” that continues to fragment society and alienate people groups. The pluralism unleashed by postmodernism recognizes all belief systems as equally valid (whether true or not is unimportant since relativism makes “truth” superfluous). By the same token, the multicultural agenda of postmodernism insists that every culture is of equal intrinsic value. Hence, “there is no exclusive truth. There is no superior culture.”19

As a result Christianity and Western civilization are only as valid as Hinduism and Eastern civilization or animism and African civilization in the new cultural order. Even more disturbing is the perspectivist approach to literature advocated by postmodernism, divesting texts of any meaning and coherence apart from that determined by each reader. At best, the Bible can mean only what the individual reader predisposes the text to mean. At worst, the Bible is meaningless because it is impossible for language to articulate a reality that is unknowable.20

Beyond this, in recent decades the church has had to combat an equally insidious false teaching that promotes health, wealth, and happiness—all the while eschewing pain, suffering, and adversity as symptoms of a “stunted” spiritual development.21 Rather than exhorting God’s faithful to overcome adversity like the Chronicler, these false teachers preach “another gospel” that claims the “truly spiritual” person is exempt from adversity. This “have-it-all” philosophy combines the misapprehension of biblical teaching concerning “success” and “prosperity” with the social agenda of modern liberalism that seeks to eradicate all pain and suffering for the citizens of “democracy.”22

This gospel of “gain with no pain” must ignore the biblical stories featuring the adversity and suffering of God’s people. What place for Joseph wrongly accused and imprisoned (Gen. 39:11–20)? What place for the widow Naomi, who changed her name to “bitterness” (Ruth 1:20)? What place for fugitive David, who fled the wrath of King Saul in the caves of the Judean desert (1 Sam. 23:14)? What place for the apostle Paul who boasted of his weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:7–10)? What place for the apostle John exiled to the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9)? Each one is a graduate of what Gene Edwards has called “God’s sacred school of submission and brokenness.”23

The gospel of “gain with no pain” must also ignore the teaching of Jesus. On more than one occasion he made it clear to his disciples that they should anticipate adversity and persecution because “a student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master” (Matt. 10:24; cf. John 15:20). Shortly before his own arrest Jesus declared to his followers, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Christian “triumphalism” is forged in the crucible of the cross of Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:24; cf. 1 Cor. 1:17; Col. 2:15).

The psalmist asks the question: “How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me?” He then answers his own question by declaring: “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD” (Ps. 116:12–13). Henri Nouwen reminds us that the “cup of salvation” is both “the cup of joy” and “the cup of sorrow.” His study of the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels and his years of ministry to the “marginalized” of society taught him that “the cup of sorrow is also the cup of joy, that precisely what causes us sadness can become the fertile ground for gladness.… Only when we fully realize that the cup of life is not only a cup of sorrow but also a cup of joy will we be able to drink it.”24

Paul understood the paradox of the cup of sorrow and the cup of joy, recognizing that as coheirs with Christ, the child of God must share in his sufferings in order to share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Elsewhere, Paul praised “the God of all comfort,” who comforts the faithful in all their troubles, not the God who removes all trouble from their lives (2 Cor. 1:3–6). Peter echoes Paul in calling the Christian to rejoice in sharing the sufferings of Christ so that we may be “overjoyed when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 4:13). Fortunately, we are called to overcome adversity for only a “little while” (5:10), knowing we can commit ourselves to our faithful Creator, who both comforts us in our suffering and enables us to overcome our adversity (2 Cor. 1:3, 10–11; 1 Peter 4:19). This is the cup Jesus offered his disciples: “Can you drink the cup …?” (Matt. 20:22).

Original Meaning

The Descendants of Elpaal (8:14–28)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN the rosters of the families of Shaharaim (8:8–13) and Elpaal (8:14–28) to the genealogies of Bela and Ehud (8:1–7) is unclear. Like Saul’s genealogy that follows (8:29–40), the lists probably represent independent sources. Little is known about those individuals included in the genealogy since most of the names occur only here in the Bible. Perhaps geography is an organizing principle in the splicing together of the Benjamite materials since there is a general movement from the periphery of the territory of Benjamin to the city of Jerusalem. Williamson also notes that the genealogy demonstrates movement toward the family of Elpaal, whose descendants lived in Jerusalem (8:28).12 In each case, emphasis on Jerusalem fits the pattern of the Chronicler’s interest in the resettlement and rebuilding of the city of David.

The listing of the family of Shaharaim emphasizes the expansion of tribal boundaries by the Benjamites (8:13). This may have occurred at various times in Israelite history, especially during the reigns of David in the united monarchy and Rehoboam and Josiah during the divided monarchy of Judah. The lack of data prevents any precise dating of the rebuilding of Ono and Lod and the taking of Gath. The listing of the family of Elpaal emphasizes the mingling between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. According to Myers, the tendency for the mixing of Benjamites and Judahites in the same location arose after the division of the Israelite monarchy.13 Such a development is not surprising given the commission for both Benjamin and Judah to displace the Jebusites and take the city of Jerusalem, a border city between the two tribes (cf. Josh. 15:63; Judg. 1:21).

The dual themes of tribal expansion and tribal unity are important to the Chronicler’s theology of hope for postexilic Judah. In fact, he illustrates that the city of Jerusalem belongs to all Israel by naming citizens from several tribes resettling there after the Exile (9:3).

Bridging Contexts

A RECURRING THEME in our analysis of Chronicles is the message of hope for postexilic Judah couched in the retelling of the story of Israelite kingship. Despite the delay of nearly two centuries, the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will be restored in postexilic Judah. That hope is not utopian wishful thinking or sentimental daydreaming but confidence in the Word of God that promised a revived Davidic monarchy (cf. Jer. 33:15; Amos 9:11). The certainty of the Chronicler’s conviction that God will make good that promise spoken through the prophets informs the structure of the genealogical prologue.

The compilation of tribal genealogies (chs. 4–7) is encased in an envelope featuring Judah (chs. 2–3) and Benjamin (ch. 8), the two “royal” tribes of Israel. It is the idea of kingship that inspires the Chronicler’s retelling of Hebrew history. He knows beyond doubt that Israel’s destiny is tied to a royal figure of some future time. I suspect the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will again emerge in Israel during his lifetime. His questions penetrate the subsequent centuries of Jewish history even to the time of Christ’s postresurrection ascension into the glory of heaven: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

The shift from word to image as a vehicle of communication as a result of the technology revolution in our society has diminished our awareness of and appreciation for the sophistication of the Chronicler’s literary effort. The retelling of a story already well known by the audience for the purpose of bolstering morale is a tall order for any writer, no matter the century. Beyond that, the Chronicler chooses to use the genre of list or genealogy to retell Israel’s history. Yet through that medium he has subtly enhanced his message of hope by strategically selecting those tribal records that include anecdotes and brief reports scattered through the lists of names.

For example, the Chronicler teaches us something about prayer in the example of Jabez (4:9–10), wideness of heart in the attention given to the “marginalized” (e.g., the emphasis on women in the registers of Manasseh and Ephraim; 7:14–16, 24), and fresh starts by the grace of God in lists of those resettling Jerusalem after the Exile (9:1b–34). Here in the Benjamite genealogy he does it by reporting examples in which families from the tribe have experienced and overcome adversity.

Specifically, the genealogical record reports four episodes that may be construed as misfortune for the tribe of Benjamin, including the deportation of descendants of Ehud from Geba (8:6), the divorce of Hushim and Baara by Shaharaim (8:8), the tragedy of Saul’s kingship (implicitly in the reference to Israel’s first king in 8:33), and the brave warriors of Ulam’s family who are no more (8:40; according to Japhet’s historical reconstruction of Micah’s lineage Ulam and his sons were most likely casualties of the Babylonian conquest of Judah and Jerusalem).18

Yet, in 9:3 we read that some from the tribe of Benjamin joined other Jews in resettling the Persian imperial province of Judah and rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm the role of Benjamin in the restoration community (cf. Ezra 1:5; Neh. 11:4, 7–9). Was this a chance stroke of good fortune for the tribe of Benjamin? Or was this simply testimony to the tenacious spirit and exceptional ability of certain families of the Benjamites? Or did the tribe of Benjamin overcome adversity by the gracious help of the sovereign God of Israel?

Obviously these questions are rhetorical in nature. But we must take note that this profound biblical truth may be grasped only through theological extrapolation. The Chronicler nowhere makes such claims; the message is tacit or even subliminal for his audience, given their knowledge of their own history and Scriptures. We might add this is an example of good pedagogical method, encouraging the listener or the reader to draw lessons and principles for personal edification inductively from known materials. In a sense, the writer invites his audience to do “biblical theology” by remembering other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures germane to his theme of hope for a restored Israel. No doubt the Chronicler had in mind texts like Psalm 42:5, 11; 43:5: “Why are you downcast, O my soul?… Put your hope in God.”

Or in view of the grim memory of the Exile and the halting restoration effort in postexilic Judah, perhaps the Chronicler expects his audience to call to mind Lamentations 3:21–23:

Yet this I call to mind

and therefore I have hope:

Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed,

for his compassions never fail.

They are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

CUP OF SORROW/CUP OF JOY. Part of the story of the Bible is the conflict between faith in God (and the truth he has disclosed through general and special revelation) and false gods and false teaching espoused by humanistic philosophies and superstitious religions. In the Old Testament we learn that Jeremiah battled counterfeit prophets who preached a message of false hope based on visions of their own creation (Jer. 14:14; 23:16). Centuries later Jesus warned his followers that false prophets and even false Christs would rise up and deceive many (Matt. 24:4–14). Soon after, his apostles encountered stiff opposition to the truth of God in their own ministries, prompting them to admonish and instruct God’s people on the subject of false teachers and false teaching in their letters (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:13; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; 2 Peter 2:1).

Typically, we tend to associate false teaching with heretical belief and practice related to the basic tenets of our Christian creed. Historically such false doctrine has included denying the deity of Christ, denying the effects of the Fall in the nature of persons, investing other “holy books” with the divine authority of the Bible, and adding some form of “law” or “works” to the grace of God for salvation. The assault on foundational Bible truths by false teachers and the spread of their false doctrine became the catalyst for the early creedal responses to heresy (e.g., the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon). Not surprisingly, these and other distortions of biblical teaching persist today as the spirit of antichrist remains active in the world (1 John 4:1–3).

In addition, new challenges to Christian orthodoxy have surfaced. Issues related to gender roles and sexual orientation now divide the church, fallout from the “culture wars” that continues to fragment society and alienate people groups. The pluralism unleashed by postmodernism recognizes all belief systems as equally valid (whether true or not is unimportant since relativism makes “truth” superfluous). By the same token, the multicultural agenda of postmodernism insists that every culture is of equal intrinsic value. Hence, “there is no exclusive truth. There is no superior culture.”19

As a result Christianity and Western civilization are only as valid as Hinduism and Eastern civilization or animism and African civilization in the new cultural order. Even more disturbing is the perspectivist approach to literature advocated by postmodernism, divesting texts of any meaning and coherence apart from that determined by each reader. At best, the Bible can mean only what the individual reader predisposes the text to mean. At worst, the Bible is meaningless because it is impossible for language to articulate a reality that is unknowable.20

Beyond this, in recent decades the church has had to combat an equally insidious false teaching that promotes health, wealth, and happiness—all the while eschewing pain, suffering, and adversity as symptoms of a “stunted” spiritual development.21 Rather than exhorting God’s faithful to overcome adversity like the Chronicler, these false teachers preach “another gospel” that claims the “truly spiritual” person is exempt from adversity. This “have-it-all” philosophy combines the misapprehension of biblical teaching concerning “success” and “prosperity” with the social agenda of modern liberalism that seeks to eradicate all pain and suffering for the citizens of “democracy.”22

This gospel of “gain with no pain” must ignore the biblical stories featuring the adversity and suffering of God’s people. What place for Joseph wrongly accused and imprisoned (Gen. 39:11–20)? What place for the widow Naomi, who changed her name to “bitterness” (Ruth 1:20)? What place for fugitive David, who fled the wrath of King Saul in the caves of the Judean desert (1 Sam. 23:14)? What place for the apostle Paul who boasted of his weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:7–10)? What place for the apostle John exiled to the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9)? Each one is a graduate of what Gene Edwards has called “God’s sacred school of submission and brokenness.”23

The gospel of “gain with no pain” must also ignore the teaching of Jesus. On more than one occasion he made it clear to his disciples that they should anticipate adversity and persecution because “a student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master” (Matt. 10:24; cf. John 15:20). Shortly before his own arrest Jesus declared to his followers, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Christian “triumphalism” is forged in the crucible of the cross of Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:24; cf. 1 Cor. 1:17; Col. 2:15).

The psalmist asks the question: “How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me?” He then answers his own question by declaring: “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD” (Ps. 116:12–13). Henri Nouwen reminds us that the “cup of salvation” is both “the cup of joy” and “the cup of sorrow.” His study of the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels and his years of ministry to the “marginalized” of society taught him that “the cup of sorrow is also the cup of joy, that precisely what causes us sadness can become the fertile ground for gladness.… Only when we fully realize that the cup of life is not only a cup of sorrow but also a cup of joy will we be able to drink it.”24

Paul understood the paradox of the cup of sorrow and the cup of joy, recognizing that as coheirs with Christ, the child of God must share in his sufferings in order to share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Elsewhere, Paul praised “the God of all comfort,” who comforts the faithful in all their troubles, not the God who removes all trouble from their lives (2 Cor. 1:3–6). Peter echoes Paul in calling the Christian to rejoice in sharing the sufferings of Christ so that we may be “overjoyed when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 4:13). Fortunately, we are called to overcome adversity for only a “little while” (5:10), knowing we can commit ourselves to our faithful Creator, who both comforts us in our suffering and enables us to overcome our adversity (2 Cor. 1:3, 10–11; 1 Peter 4:19). This is the cup Jesus offered his disciples: “Can you drink the cup …?” (Matt. 20:22).

Original Meaning

The Family of Saul (8:29–40)

THE CONCLUDING GENEALOGY fits the pattern of the previous listings in that the key figure is mentioned near the middle of the family roster. In this case, the central character of the last section of Benjamin’s genealogy is Saul—the most famous of all the Benjamites. The greater portion of Benjamin’s family tree (8:29–38) is repeated in the parallel passage recording the genealogy of Saul found in 9:35–44 (see comments).

The pattern of identifying clans of Benjamin with particular geographical locations continues as well, with the family of Jeiel connected with Gibeon. The biblical Gibeon is associated with modern el-Jib, some six miles northwest of Jerusalem. The city was part of Benjamin’s tribal allotment (Josh. 18:25) and was assigned to the network of Levitical cities (Josh. 21:17). Prior to the conquest of Canaan, Gibeon was a Canaanite enclave eventually absorbed by the tribe of Benjamin as the result of an unwise treaty with the Gibeonites (cf. Josh. 9). This fact suggests Saul’s ancestry included Canaanites.

In light of this, some scholars have understood the reference to Gibeon (8:29) as a subtle theological foil to the reference to Jerusalem (8:28), signifying Saul was unfit for kingship.14 This seems an overreading of the geographical data, however, since 10:13 explicitly states Saul was unfit for the throne of Israel because of his unfaithfulness to Yahweh. More likely the Chronicler devotes time to the Benjamites of Gibeon because their descendants helped rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after returning from exile (Neh. 3:7) and resettled Gibeon (Neh. 7:25).

The name Jeiel (8:29) is usually restored on the basis of the LXX and the parallel in 1 Chronicles 9:35 (so NIV). The phrase “father of Gibeon” should be understood as a civic or military leader, not the founder of the city (cf. textual note in NIV). According to Thompson, the name Maacah (8:29) indicates Jeiel’s intermarriage with an Aramean (a non-Hebrew group).15 If true, this would help explain Saul’s tendencies toward religious syncretism since his father Kish was the product of a “mixed” marriage.

Apart from the implications for this blending of the religious traditions of Baalism and Yahwism in Saul’s family, the mention of Maacah is in keeping with the Chronicler’s penchant for selecting genealogical materials that call attention to women and/or non-Hebrews. The theme of Israel as a “light” to the nations is integral to the Chronicler’s theology of hope. Like the list of names associated with Bela (8:3–5), it is unclear whether the catalog of names cited after Abdon (9:30) are sons or relatives of Jeiel.

The naming of Kish (8:33) prompts the recitation of the genealogy of King Saul (8:33–38). The list is the most extensive record of Saul’s family in the Bible and is repeated (with minor variations) in 9:39–44 as an introduction to the death of King Saul (ch. 10). It seems likely that the name Ner should be added (8:30) on the basis of the LXX (so the NIV), which means Ner was probably the name of both Saul’s uncle (8:30) and grandfather (8:33). The LXX reads the name Bokeru (8:38) as “firstborn son” (i.e., “Azrikam, his firstborn”). The retention of the “Baal” names in the genealogy indicates both the antiquity of the source and the integrity of the scribal transmission (since the offensive name of Yahweh’s rival was not purged from the roster). For instance, Esh-Baal (8:33) is also known as Ishvi (1 Sam. 14:49) and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 4:1), and Merib-Baal (1 Chron. 8:34) is called Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 4:4). The names from Micah on (8:34) are unknown to the rest of Old Testament history apart from the parallel register in 9:39–44.

The genealogy of Benjamin concludes with references to Azel and his sons and the sons of Eshek, the brother of Azel (8:38–40). The listing of the family of Eshek appears somewhat unrelated to the rest of the section and probably represents an independent military census, given the muster roll of bowmen (8:40).16 Benjamin was one of tribes instrumental in the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile (cf. 9:3). The Chronicler’s genealogy of Benjamin is both a reminder to the postexilic Benjamites of their noble heritage and a call to emulate their example of faith and intertribal cooperation.

First Chronicles 9:1a concludes the genealogical prologue. It references “all Israel” and has its parallel in the introduction to the genealogical prologue listing the twelve sons of Israel (or Jacob, 2:1–2). The idea of “all Israel” is a key theme for the Chronicler because unity among the returnees from the Exile is essential for any sustained initiative aimed at restoring Judah and Jerusalem to its former glory. This explains the title of the source book for the genealogical record, “the book of the kings of Israel” (cf. 2 Chron. 20:34).17 For the Chronicler, the ideal of kingship is a divinely appointed king shepherding the one people of God (embodied in King David and projected to the messianic king; cf. Jer. 33:25–26; Ezek. 34:23–24).

Bridging Contexts

A RECURRING THEME in our analysis of Chronicles is the message of hope for postexilic Judah couched in the retelling of the story of Israelite kingship. Despite the delay of nearly two centuries, the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will be restored in postexilic Judah. That hope is not utopian wishful thinking or sentimental daydreaming but confidence in the Word of God that promised a revived Davidic monarchy (cf. Jer. 33:15; Amos 9:11). The certainty of the Chronicler’s conviction that God will make good that promise spoken through the prophets informs the structure of the genealogical prologue.

The compilation of tribal genealogies (chs. 4–7) is encased in an envelope featuring Judah (chs. 2–3) and Benjamin (ch. 8), the two “royal” tribes of Israel. It is the idea of kingship that inspires the Chronicler’s retelling of Hebrew history. He knows beyond doubt that Israel’s destiny is tied to a royal figure of some future time. I suspect the Chronicler is hopeful that kingship will again emerge in Israel during his lifetime. His questions penetrate the subsequent centuries of Jewish history even to the time of Christ’s postresurrection ascension into the glory of heaven: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

The shift from word to image as a vehicle of communication as a result of the technology revolution in our society has diminished our awareness of and appreciation for the sophistication of the Chronicler’s literary effort. The retelling of a story already well known by the audience for the purpose of bolstering morale is a tall order for any writer, no matter the century. Beyond that, the Chronicler chooses to use the genre of list or genealogy to retell Israel’s history. Yet through that medium he has subtly enhanced his message of hope by strategically selecting those tribal records that include anecdotes and brief reports scattered through the lists of names.

For example, the Chronicler teaches us something about prayer in the example of Jabez (4:9–10), wideness of heart in the attention given to the “marginalized” (e.g., the emphasis on women in the registers of Manasseh and Ephraim; 7:14–16, 24), and fresh starts by the grace of God in lists of those resettling Jerusalem after the Exile (9:1b–34). Here in the Benjamite genealogy he does it by reporting examples in which families from the tribe have experienced and overcome adversity.

Specifically, the genealogical record reports four episodes that may be construed as misfortune for the tribe of Benjamin, including the deportation of descendants of Ehud from Geba (8:6), the divorce of Hushim and Baara by Shaharaim (8:8), the tragedy of Saul’s kingship (implicitly in the reference to Israel’s first king in 8:33), and the brave warriors of Ulam’s family who are no more (8:40; according to Japhet’s historical reconstruction of Micah’s lineage Ulam and his sons were most likely casualties of the Babylonian conquest of Judah and Jerusalem).18

Yet, in 9:3 we read that some from the tribe of Benjamin joined other Jews in resettling the Persian imperial province of Judah and rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah confirm the role of Benjamin in the restoration community (cf. Ezra 1:5; Neh. 11:4, 7–9). Was this a chance stroke of good fortune for the tribe of Benjamin? Or was this simply testimony to the tenacious spirit and exceptional ability of certain families of the Benjamites? Or did the tribe of Benjamin overcome adversity by the gracious help of the sovereign God of Israel?

Obviously these questions are rhetorical in nature. But we must take note that this profound biblical truth may be grasped only through theological extrapolation. The Chronicler nowhere makes such claims; the message is tacit or even subliminal for his audience, given their knowledge of their own history and Scriptures. We might add this is an example of good pedagogical method, encouraging the listener or the reader to draw lessons and principles for personal edification inductively from known materials. In a sense, the writer invites his audience to do “biblical theology” by remembering other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures germane to his theme of hope for a restored Israel. No doubt the Chronicler had in mind texts like Psalm 42:5, 11; 43:5: “Why are you downcast, O my soul?… Put your hope in God.”

Or in view of the grim memory of the Exile and the halting restoration effort in postexilic Judah, perhaps the Chronicler expects his audience to call to mind Lamentations 3:21–23:

Yet this I call to mind

and therefore I have hope:

Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed,

for his compassions never fail.

They are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

CUP OF SORROW/CUP OF JOY. Part of the story of the Bible is the conflict between faith in God (and the truth he has disclosed through general and special revelation) and false gods and false teaching espoused by humanistic philosophies and superstitious religions. In the Old Testament we learn that Jeremiah battled counterfeit prophets who preached a message of false hope based on visions of their own creation (Jer. 14:14; 23:16). Centuries later Jesus warned his followers that false prophets and even false Christs would rise up and deceive many (Matt. 24:4–14). Soon after, his apostles encountered stiff opposition to the truth of God in their own ministries, prompting them to admonish and instruct God’s people on the subject of false teachers and false teaching in their letters (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:13; 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3; 2 Peter 2:1).

Typically, we tend to associate false teaching with heretical belief and practice related to the basic tenets of our Christian creed. Historically such false doctrine has included denying the deity of Christ, denying the effects of the Fall in the nature of persons, investing other “holy books” with the divine authority of the Bible, and adding some form of “law” or “works” to the grace of God for salvation. The assault on foundational Bible truths by false teachers and the spread of their false doctrine became the catalyst for the early creedal responses to heresy (e.g., the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon). Not surprisingly, these and other distortions of biblical teaching persist today as the spirit of antichrist remains active in the world (1 John 4:1–3).

In addition, new challenges to Christian orthodoxy have surfaced. Issues related to gender roles and sexual orientation now divide the church, fallout from the “culture wars” that continues to fragment society and alienate people groups. The pluralism unleashed by postmodernism recognizes all belief systems as equally valid (whether true or not is unimportant since relativism makes “truth” superfluous). By the same token, the multicultural agenda of postmodernism insists that every culture is of equal intrinsic value. Hence, “there is no exclusive truth. There is no superior culture.”19

As a result Christianity and Western civilization are only as valid as Hinduism and Eastern civilization or animism and African civilization in the new cultural order. Even more disturbing is the perspectivist approach to literature advocated by postmodernism, divesting texts of any meaning and coherence apart from that determined by each reader. At best, the Bible can mean only what the individual reader predisposes the text to mean. At worst, the Bible is meaningless because it is impossible for language to articulate a reality that is unknowable.20

Beyond this, in recent decades the church has had to combat an equally insidious false teaching that promotes health, wealth, and happiness—all the while eschewing pain, suffering, and adversity as symptoms of a “stunted” spiritual development.21 Rather than exhorting God’s faithful to overcome adversity like the Chronicler, these false teachers preach “another gospel” that claims the “truly spiritual” person is exempt from adversity. This “have-it-all” philosophy combines the misapprehension of biblical teaching concerning “success” and “prosperity” with the social agenda of modern liberalism that seeks to eradicate all pain and suffering for the citizens of “democracy.”22

This gospel of “gain with no pain” must ignore the biblical stories featuring the adversity and suffering of God’s people. What place for Joseph wrongly accused and imprisoned (Gen. 39:11–20)? What place for the widow Naomi, who changed her name to “bitterness” (Ruth 1:20)? What place for fugitive David, who fled the wrath of King Saul in the caves of the Judean desert (1 Sam. 23:14)? What place for the apostle Paul who boasted of his weaknesses (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:7–10)? What place for the apostle John exiled to the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9)? Each one is a graduate of what Gene Edwards has called “God’s sacred school of submission and brokenness.”23

The gospel of “gain with no pain” must also ignore the teaching of Jesus. On more than one occasion he made it clear to his disciples that they should anticipate adversity and persecution because “a student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master” (Matt. 10:24; cf. John 15:20). Shortly before his own arrest Jesus declared to his followers, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). Christian “triumphalism” is forged in the crucible of the cross of Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:24; cf. 1 Cor. 1:17; Col. 2:15).

The psalmist asks the question: “How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me?” He then answers his own question by declaring: “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD” (Ps. 116:12–13). Henri Nouwen reminds us that the “cup of salvation” is both “the cup of joy” and “the cup of sorrow.” His study of the life of Christ as recorded in the Gospels and his years of ministry to the “marginalized” of society taught him that “the cup of sorrow is also the cup of joy, that precisely what causes us sadness can become the fertile ground for gladness.… Only when we fully realize that the cup of life is not only a cup of sorrow but also a cup of joy will we be able to drink it.”24

Paul understood the paradox of the cup of sorrow and the cup of joy, recognizing that as coheirs with Christ, the child of God must share in his sufferings in order to share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Elsewhere, Paul praised “the God of all comfort,” who comforts the faithful in all their troubles, not the God who removes all trouble from their lives (2 Cor. 1:3–6). Peter echoes Paul in calling the Christian to rejoice in sharing the sufferings of Christ so that we may be “overjoyed when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 4:13). Fortunately, we are called to overcome adversity for only a “little while” (5:10), knowing we can commit ourselves to our faithful Creator, who both comforts us in our suffering and enables us to overcome our adversity (2 Cor. 1:3, 10–11; 1 Peter 4:19). This is the cup Jesus offered his disciples: “Can you drink the cup …?” (Matt. 20:22).