Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 12:14
These [were] of the sons of Gad, captains of the host: one of the least [was] over a hundred, and the greatest over a thousand.
14. These the host ] R.V. These of the sons of Gad were captains of the host.
one of the least, etc.] R.V. he that was least was equal to an hundred, and the greatest to a thousand. Cp. Lev 26:8; Isa 30:17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The marginal rendering is preferable. (Compare Lev 26:8).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Not that they brought now so many men with them; but either,
1. They had hitherto been captains or colonels under Saul, or in the established militia or bands of their tribe. Or,
2. They were so afterwards under David, who for their valour and fidelity thus advanced them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. one of the least was over anhundred, and the greatest over a thousandDavid, while atZiklag, had not so large an amount of forces as to give to each ofthese the command of so many men. Another meaning, therefore, mustobviously be sought, and excluding was, which is a supplement by ourtranslators, the import of the passage is, that one of the leastcould discomfit a hundred, and the greatest was worth a thousandordinary men; a strong hyperbole to express their uncommon valor.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
These were of the sons of Gad, captains of the host,…. Of the militia in their own country, and of the men they brought with them; or they were such afterwards in David’s army:
one of the least was over one hundred, and the greatest over thousand; not that they were so when they came, or brought over such a number of men with them under their command; but they were promoted by David, when he came to the throne, to be centurions and chiliarchs; according to Jarchi, the sense is, that the least of them would put to flight and pursue one hundred, and the greatest of them 1000, and so fulfilled the passage in Le 26:8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
, heads of the war-host, i.e., chief warriors, not leaders of the host. , “one for a hundred, (viz.) the small and the greater for a thousand,” i.e., the smaller (weaker) could cope with a hundred, the stronger with a thousand men; cf. Lev 26:8. This, which is the only correct interpretation, is that received by Bertheau and the older Jewish commentators. The Vulgate, on the contrary, translates, novissimus centum militibus praeerat et maximus mille , which is inadmissible, for in that case must have been used instead of . The belongs to both the clauses which it precedes, to and to , and is placed immediately before to emphasize the contrast between one and a hundred. In 1Ch 12:15 we have a proof of their valour, in an account of a bold exploit performed by them. In the first month of the year, that is, in spring, when the Jordan overflows all its banks, they crossed the river and put to flight all the dwellers in the valleys towards the east and towards the west. This happened, probably, when they separated themselves from their brethren and went over to David, when they must have had to cut their way through the adherents of Saul (Berth.). The Piel with denotes to make full, to make to run over, in the signification to overflow. The Kethibh comes from elsewhere only the plural , so also here in the Keri. In the dry summer season the Jordan may be crossed by wading at various points (fords); while in spring, on the contrary, when it is so swollen by the melting snows of Lebanon, that in some parts it overflows its banks, it is very dangerous to attempt to cross. See on Jos 3:15. , “the valleys,” for the inhabitants of the valleys.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(14) These were.Subscription.
Captains of the host.Literally, heads of the host, i.e., chief warriors.
One of the least was over an hundred.The margin is correct. Davids band at this time was about 600 strong. The rendering of the text is that of the Syr. and Vulg. The LXX. closely intimates the Heb. . For the true meaning, comp. Deu. 32:30; and Lev. 26:8. The Heb. says: One to a hundred, the little one; and the great one to a thousand. This. too, is poetic, or, at least, rhetorical in character, and quite unlike the chroniclers usual style.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. One of the least was over a hundred, and the greatest over a thousand Thus the Vulgate; but the marginal reading gives the sense of the Hebrew: One that was least could resist a hundred, and the greatest a thousand. The least or smallest of these heroes was able to cope with a hundred ordinary men, while the mightiest could maintain battle with a thousand. The expression is to be regarded as proverbial. Comp. Lev 26:8; Deu 32:30; Jos 23:10.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 12:14 These [were] of the sons of Gad, captains of the host: one of the least [was] over an hundred, and the greatest over a thousand.
Ver. 14. One of the least was over a hundred. ] Or, One that was least could resist a hundred, and the greatest a thousand. Such a one was
“ . ”
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
one of the least was over an hundred, and the greatest over a thousand: or, one that was least could resist an hundred, the greatest a thousand. Lev 26:8, Deu 32:30
Reciprocal: 1Ch 13:1 – consulted