1 Chronicles 4:16

4:1-43 Genealogies. - In this chapter we have a further account of Judah, the most numerous and most famous of all the tribes; also an account of Simeon. The most remarkable person in this chapter is Jabez. We are not told upon what account Jabez was more honourable than his brethren; but we find that he was a praying man. The way to be truly great, is to seek to do God's will, and to pray earnestly. Here is the prayer he made. Jabez prayed to the living and true God, who alone can hear and answer prayer; and, in prayer he regarded him as a God in covenant with his people. He does not express his promise, but leaves it to be understood; he was afraid to promise in his own strength, and resolved to devote himself entirely to God. Lord, if thou wilt bless me and keep me, do what thou wilt with me; I will be at thy command and disposal for ever. As the text reads it, this was the language of a most ardent and affectionate desire, Oh that thou wouldest bless me! Four things Jabez prayed for. 1. That God would bless him indeed. Spiritual blessings are the best blessings: God's blessings are real things, and produce real effects. 2. That He would enlarge his coast. That God would enlarge our hearts, and so enlarge our portion in himself, and in the heavenly Canaan, ought to be our desire and prayer. 3. That God's hand might be with him. God's hand with us, to lead us, protect us, strengthen us, and to work all our works in us and for us, is a hand all-sufficient for us. 4.

(16) The sons of Jehaleleel. —Heb., Yehallel-ēl, “he praiseth God.” Ziph is known, from Joshua 15:21; Joshua 15:24, as one of the cities of the children of Judah, “towards the border of Edom, southwards.” Perhaps, therefore, the sons of Jehallel-el also were Edomite-Kenizzites. Another Ziph, perhaps our Ziphah, is mentioned as in the hill-country, Joshua 15:55. Asareel is perhaps a dialectic form of Israel (See 1Chronicles 25:2; 1Chronicles 25:14.) A foreign clan might take the name of its adopted people.

14. Joab, the father of the valley of Carashim—literally, "the father of the inhabitants of the valley"—"the valley of craftsmen," as the word denotes. They dwelt together, according to a custom which, independently of any law, extensively prevails in Eastern countries for persons of the same trade to inhabit the same street or the same quarter, and to follow the same occupation from father to son, through many generations. Their occupation was probably that of carpenters, and the valley where they lived seems to have been in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Ne 11:35).

Descendants of various men, whose genealogical connection with the sons and grandsons of Judah, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:1 , is not given in the text as it has come to us. 1 Chronicles 4:16 Sons of Jehaleleel, a man not elsewhere mentioned. Ziph, Ziphah, etc., are met with only here. There is no strong reason for connecting the name זיף with the towns of that name, Joshua 15:24, Joshua 15:55.

1 Chronicles 4:1 is evidently intended to be a superscription to the genealogical fragments which follow. Five names are mentioned as sons of Judah, of whom only Pharez was his son ( 1 Chronicles 2:4 ); the others are grandchildren or still more distant descendants. Nothing is said as to the genealogical relationship in which they stood to each other; that is supposed to be already known from the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2 . Hezron is the son of Pharez, and consequently grandson of Judah, 1 Chronicles 2:8 . Carmi, a descendant of Zerah, the brother of Pharez, see on 1 Chronicles 2:6-7 . Hur is a son of Caleb, the son of Hezron, by Ephratah (see on 1 Chronicles 2:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:50 ); and Shobal is the son of Hur, who has just been mentioned ( 1 Chronicles 2:50 ). These five names do not denote here, any more than in 1 Chronicles 2 , "families of the tribe of Judah" (Berth.), but signify persons who originated or were heads of families. The only conceivable ground for these five being called "sons of Judah," is that the families registered in the following lists traced their origin to them, although in the enumeration which follows the genealogical connection of the various groups is not clearly brought out. The enumeration begins,