Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 4:22
And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubi-lehem. And [these are] ancient things.
22. and Joash, and Saraph, who etc.] Targ. “and Joash who is Mahlon and Seraph who is Chilion who took wives of the daughters of Moab” (cp. Rth 1:2; Rth 1:4). There is little to be said for the identification, which rests on the fact that the Hebrew word for had dominion might be translated married. We find no other trace of these two as rulers of Moab.
and Jashubi-lehem ] Vulg. who returned to Bethlehem, a translation which requires only an easy emendation of the present Hebrew text. Mahlon and Chilion did not return. Joash and Saraph may have retired to Moab either (like Mahlon and Chilion) because of a famine, or to escape foreign oppression, e.g. that of the Chaldeans, married wives there, and subsequently returned to their own country.
these are ancient things ] R.V. the records are ancient.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who had the dominion in Moab – Moab was conquered by David 2Sa 8:2, and again by Omri, after which it remained subject until the death of Ahab 2Ki 3:5. But a more ancient rule, in times of which we have no further record, is probably intended.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Ch 4:22
And these are ancient things.
Ancient things
The ancient is no use except it be also modern. This is the true test of antiquity. Things are not valuable simply because they are ancient; they may be ancient and dead. We have nothing to do with that kind of antiquity–it is the antiquity of mythology, not of history.
1. All the greatest things are ancient. All you can do is to modernise their form. The telegraph is older than the garden of Eden–not under that name: nothing new has been invented, except combination, adaptation; all the elements and factors are as old as God.
2. Where usefulness is proved antiquity becomes an argument and an illustration. This is the true root and the true use of history. Where usefulness has not been proved, to refer to antiquity is to invoke the sophistical assistance of superstition. We must insist on living usefulness. We must not prop up tottering walls because the copestones are covered with grey moss. This doctrine of the usefulness of antiquity must be applied ruthlessly:
(1) To churches.
(2) To men. Many men would like to live upon their reputation. It is poor living. You cannot live upon your old prayers; it is the prayer of this morning that fed your soul. Not the feast you had in childhood, but the bread you brake this very dawn is sustaining your frame.
(3) To the Bible. Would you burn the Bible? Yes, if it has been superseded, if it has proved itself to be useless, if it can no longer direct men to God, if it has ceased to be the messenger of salvation; but if it contain the living God, it it reveal the living Saviour and breathe the eternal Holy Ghost, then it is not ancient in any sense of obsoleteness, it is ancient in the sense of eternity.
3. Antiquity without Christianity dies. Any civilisation that has not in it the living spirit, the living God, dies. What is the proof? History is the elucidation and history is the evidence. Civilisation will be of no use to you when you lose the risen Christ. Non-spiritual civilisation is useless. Look at China–aa infinite death–the hermit of the globe–a living extinction. China was printing from type five hundred years before Caxton was born; she had the mariners compass before England was a nation. There was a time when our forefathers were clothed in sheepskins, when they dyed and painted their whole bodies; and at that time the Chinese were blasting their rocks with gunpowder. Before Daniel saw his visions China had a constitutional government. Then what makes China, this great cipher of the globe, a burden to civilisation? Because its civilisation is only ancient; she has not the Cross. Without that all things tend to decay. Greek–Roman–European civilisation have all gone down in the proportion in which they were not vitally connected with the Cross. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 22. And Joash, and Saraph] “And the prophets and scribes which sprang from the seed of Joshua, and the Gibeonites, whose office it was to serve in the house of the sanctuary, because they had lied to the princes of Israel; also Joash, who is the same as Mahlon; and Saraph, who is the same as Chilion, who took wives of the daughters of Moab and Boaz, the chief of the wise men of the college of Bethlehem, and of those who existed in former days.” – T.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Who had the dominion in Moab; which they ruled in the name and for the use and service of the kings of Judah, to whom Moab was subject from Davids time. Or, who had possessions in Moab; or, who married wives in Moab. These are ancient things: the sense is either,
1. These persons and things were in ancient times, and therefore it is not strange if now they be so little known. But that might have been with equal truth said of divers other parts of this account. Or rather,
2. But those blessed times and things are long since past and gone. Our ancestors then had the dominion over the heathen, but their degenerate posterity are now slaves to them in Chaldea, Persia, &c., where they are employed as potters or gardeners, or in other servile works.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22, 23. had the dominion in Moab,and Jashubi-lehem“And these are ancient things”seems a strange rendering of a proper name; and, besides, it conveysa meaning that has no bearing on the record. The following improvedtranslation has been suggested: “Sojourned in Moab, but returnedto Beth-lehem and Adaberim-athekim. These and the inhabitants ofNetaim and Gedera were potters employed by the king in his own work.”Gedera or Gederoth, and Netaim, belonged to the tribe of Judah, andlay on the southeast border of the Philistines’ territory (Jos 15:36;2Ch 28:18).
1Ch4:24-43. OF SIMEON.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Jokim,…. The Vulgate Latin version is,
and he that made the sun to stand: as if Joshua was meant; and in the Talmud it is g said Jokim, this is Joshua, who confirmed the oath to the Gibeonites; and the Targum here is,
“and the prophets of the scribes that sprang from the posterity of Joshua;”
but Joshua was of the tribe of Ephraim, and not of Judah; though some interpret it of Elimelech, as Lyra observes h, of whom the fable is, that the sun stood still at his prayers, as it did in Joshua’s time, to convert the men of Bethlehem; but Jokim is no doubt the proper name of some famous man or family that descended from Shelah:
and the men of Chozeba: which signifies a lie; and the Targum interprets it of the Gibeonites, who lied to Joshua; but those were Canaanites, and not of the posterity of Shelah, and tribe of Judah; Chezib, or Achzib, a city in the tribe of Judah, very probably is meant, as Kimchi, the very place where Shelah was born, Ge 38:5 and where dwelt some of his posterity:
and Joash and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab; some render the word, “which married in Moab”; and so the Targum interprets it of Mahlon and Chilion, who took wives of the daughters of Moab; but rather it is to be understood of some who were governors in Moab in the times of David, when Moab was subdued by him, 2Sa 8:2 or however were such, who, at one time or another, made war with Moab, and overcame them:
and Jashubilehem: which the Targumist understands of Boaz, prince of the wise men of the school of Bethlehem, and the Talmudists i of Ruth, that dwelt in Bethlehem; and may be interpreted of some of the inhabitants of that place which sprang from Shelah; or rather is the name of a single man, famous in his time, though not now known:
and these are ancient things; an account of persons that lived in ancient times, and which the writer of this book gives not on his own knowledge, but by tradition, or rather by inspiration.
g T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 91. 2. h So Heb. in Hieron. Trad. Heb. in Paralip. fol. 81. M. i Ut supra. (T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 91. 2.)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“Handfuls of Purpose,”
For All Gleaners
“And these are ancient things.” 1Ch 4:22 .
A thing is not valuable simply because it is ancient; nor is antiquity any reason why a thing should be undervalued or destroyed. All the greatest things are in reality ancient. They are not ancient in form, they are ancient in spirit. Jesus Christ was slain from before the foundation of the world: the Spirit of God is from the beginning: God himself is from everlasting to everlasting. Whatever had a begin-ing will have an end, but for the intervening and all-determining will of God. Only the eternal past can be the eternal future. Men should think much before destroying that which is ancient, if the antiquity has been associated with any measure of usefulness. On the other hand, men should be careful not to allow love of antiquity to degenerate into superstition. True conservatism is the preservation of that which ought not to be destroyed. False conservatism concerns itself about the preservation of frameworks; true conservatism is anxious only for the perpetuation of spirit and meaning and purpose known to be really good. All Christians are conservatives in the highest sense. A man must not be allowed to appropriate the name conservative simply because he would keep a wall standing that is already tottering; he is the real conservative who rectifies the perpendicular, and who rests the wall upon solid foundations; and he is a still larger and deeper conservative who removes the wall altogether if it stand in the way of natural development and healthy progress. Think of all our things that are ancient, and esteem them with highest regard; as, for example, the Bible, as an ancient book; liberty, as an ancient right; love of knowledge, as a divinely given charter; love of freedom, as a birthright: there are responsibilities and honours, dignities and functions, that we ought not to change; they were in the world before us, and they will be in the world after us; we should simply magnify them, and fill them with the highest meaning; and so allow them to pass on with added virtue and attractiveness to the generations that are to come. Old age cannot be bought. Men can soon make a ladder but no man can make a tree. We cannot hasten very perceptibly the growth of a forest; we can build a wall quickly, but time is required to jewel it with green moss. In character the element of time must enter largely, or the character will seldom pass the point of mere notoriety and corresponding admiration. When the character has stood twenty years, thirty, forty, and fifty years men begin to believe in it, and to accord it a well-merited honour. In malice let us be children; in understanding let us be men.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
1Ch 4:22 And Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab, and Jashubilehem. And [these are] ancient things.
Ver. 22. Who had the dominion in Moab. ] Ruled as viceroys under the kings of Judah, who had subdued Moab.
And these are ancient things.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
had the dominion: or became lords to Moab.
Jashubi-lehem. The Vulgate renders it “and returned to Beth-lehem”, like Naomi and Ruth (1Ch 1:1-4, 1Ch 1:19).
things: or records.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Reciprocal: Rth 1:2 – Mahlon
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ch 4:22-23. Who had the dominion in Moab Which they ruled in the name and for the use of the kings of Judah, to whom Moab was subject from Davids time. Ancient things The sense is, those blessed times are long since past. Our ancestors had the dominion over the heathen, but their degenerate posterity are slaves in Chaldea, where they are employed as potters or gardeners, or in other servile works These were Or, rather, these are the potters, &c. For he seems to oppose their present servitude to their former glory, and to show how low and mean they were in spirit, in that they would rather tarry among the heathen to do their drudgery than return to Jerusalem to serve God, and enjoy their freedom. There they dwelt Or, rather, now dwell, when their brethren are returned: for Ezra seems to have written this, after leave was given by Cyrus for the return of the Jews. With the king for his work The king of Persia, esteeming it a greater honour and happiness to serve that earthly monarch in the meanest employments, than the King of kings in his temple, and in his most noble and heavenly work.