| Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir,.... The same with Iri, 1 Chronicles 7:7 so that these were not sons of Benjamin, as they seem to be, if they are the same with Muppim and Huppim in Genesis 46:21 but his great-grandchildren, and are the same with Shupham and Hupham, from whom families of the tribe of Benjamin sprung, Numbers 26:39 the Targum calls them the inhabitants of a city, but of what is not said, unless Geba should be meant, 1 Chronicles 8:6 and Hushim, the sons of Aher: either the same with Aharah, the third son of Benjamin, 1 Chronicles 8:1 or Ahiram, Numbers 26:38, though some read the words, "the sons of another"; whom they suppose to be Dan, who otherwise is omitted; and Hushim is the only son of Dan, Genesis 46:23, where the same plural word is used as here; who, they think, is called another, by way of detestation, that tribe being guilty of gross idolatry; but he rather seems to belong to Benjamin.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament1 Chronicles 7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, "And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir," would seem, if we may judge from the ו cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names וחפּים מפּים occur in Genesis 46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Numbers 26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called שׁוּפמי from שׁפוּפם, and another חוּפמי from חוּפם, are introduced; we must consequently hold מפּים to be an error for שׁפם or שׁוּפם. And (2) the name עיר is most probably identical with עירי in 1 Chronicles 7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., וחפּם שׁפם, seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with וּלשׁפּים לחפּים in 1 Chronicles 7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1 Chronicles 7:15 belong to the Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled with the purpose (1 Chronicles 7:6) to mention none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further statement, "Hushim, sons of Aher," is utterly enigmatical. The name חשׁים is found in Genesis 46:23 as that of Dan's only son, who, however, is called in Numbers 26:42 שׁוּחם, and who founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names חוּשׁים and חשׁים are again met with in 1 Chronicles 8:8, 1 Chronicles 8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our חשּׁם and that family. The word אהר, alius, is not indeed found elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so here; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction w, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted from our chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is omitted. (Note: Bertheau's judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts that חשׁים (Genesis 46:27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Genesis 46 and Numbers 26, Dan follows after Benjamin; that in Genesis 46 Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1 Chronicles 7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, "sons of Bilhah," can, according to Genesis 46:25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, - he thinks there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and that חשׁם was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word אהר, "the other," he draws the further inference that it may have been, according to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designation of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself from the congregation of Israel; cf. Judges 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1 Chronicles 6:61 and 1 Chronicles 6:69, and is named only in 1 Chronicles 2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1 Chronicles 12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that אהר בּן חשּׁם, "Hushim the son of the other," viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for חשּׁם דן וּבני. The name Aher, then, had so completely concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new commencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, שׁפם and חפם, to the similarly-sounding חשׁם, though probably at first only in the margin. This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in 1 Chronicles 2:2 and 1 Chronicles 12:35, but also in 1 Chronicles 27:22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in 1 Chronicles 6:61, 1 Chronicles 6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1 Chronicles 6:61 the words, "Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan," and after 1 Chronicles 6:69 a whole verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can there by any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, for in 1 Chronicles 6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1 Chronicles 6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any "dislike." When Berth. quotes Judges 18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri מנשׁה the name משׁה is supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage משׁה has been altered into מנשׁה from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it "to solve the enigma of our verse." If the words in question do really contain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been dropped out. Yet the בּלהה בּני at the end of 1 Chronicles 7:13 is not sufficient to warrant such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that בלהה בני would have to be referred to both, the conj. ו could not have been omitted before נפתּלי בּני. The want of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a conjunction; cf. 1 Chronicles 7:6, 1 Chronicles 7:14, 1 Chronicles 7:30. ו is found only before אפרים בּני, 1 Chronicles 7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold נף בני, 1 Chronicles 7:13, without ו cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that בלהה בני includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.)
Geneva Study BibleShuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir, and Hushim, the sons of {f} Aher. (f) Meaning that he was not the son of Benjamin, but of Dan Ge 46:23.
King James Translators' NotesIr: or, Iri Aher: or, Ahiram
Scofield Reference NotesMargin Shuppim Shupham and Hupham. Num 26:39.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary12. Shuppim also, and Huppim-They are called Muppim and Huppim (Ge 46:21) and Hupham and Shupham (Nu 26:39). They were the children of Ir, or Iri (1Ch 7:7). and Hushim, the sons-"son." of Aher-"Aher" signifies "another," and some eminent critics, taking "Aher" as a common noun, render the passage thus, "and Hushim, another son." Shuppim, Muppim, and Hushim are plural words, and therefore denote not individuals, but the heads of their respective families; and as they were not comprised in the above enumeration (1Ch 7:7, 9) they are inserted here in the form of an appendix. Some render the passage, "Hushim, the son of another," that is, tribe or family. The name occurs among the sons of Dan (Ge 46:23), and it is a presumption in favor of this being the true rendering, that after having recorded the genealogy of Naphtali (1Ch 7:13) the sacred historian adds, "the sons of Bilhah, the handmaid, who was the mother of Dan and Naphtali." We naturally expect, therefore, that these two will be noticed together, but Dan is not mentioned at all, if not in this passage.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary7:1-40 Genealogies. - Here is no account either of Zebulun or Dan. We can assign no reason why they only should be omitted; but it is the disgrace of the tribe of Dan, that idolatry began in that colony which fixed in Laish, and called it Dan, Jud 18 and there one of the golden calves was set up by Jeroboam. Dan is omitted, Re 7. Men become abominable when they forsake the worship of the true God, for any creature object.
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible CommentaryChapter 7 In this chapter we have some account of the genealogies, I. Of Issachar (v. 1-5). II. Of Benjamin (v. 6-12). III. Of Naphtali (v. 13). IV. Of Manasseh (v. 14-19). V. Of Ephraim (v. 20-29). VI. Of Asher (v. 30-40). Here is no account either of Zebulun or Dan. Why they only should be omitted we can assign no reason; only it is the disgrace of the tribe of Dan that idolatry began in that colony of the Danites which fixed in Laish, and called Dan, and there one of the golden calves was set up by Jeroboam. Dan is omitted, Rev. 7. Verses 1-19 We have here a short view given us, I. Of the tribe of Issachar, whom Jacob had compared to a strong ass, couching between two burdens (Gen. 49:14), an industrious tribe, that minded their country business very closely and rejoiced in their tents, Deu. 33:18. And here it appears, 1. That they were a numerous tribe; for they had many wives. So fruitful their country was that they saw no danger of over-stocking the pasture, and so ingenious the people were that they could find work for all hands. Let no people complain of their numbers, provided they suffer none to be idle. 2. That they were a valiant tribe, men of might (v. 2, 5), chief men, v. 3. Those that were inured to labour and business were of all men the fittest to serve their country when there was occasion, The number of the respective families, as taken in the days of David, is here set down, amounting in the whole to above 145,000 men fit for war. The account, some think, was taken when Joab numbered the people, 2 Sa. 24. But I rather think it refers to some other computation that was made, perhaps among themselves, because it is said (1 Chr. 27:24) that that account was not inserted in the chronicles of king David, it having offended God. II. Of the tribe of Benjamin. Some account is here given of this tribe, but much larger in the next chapter. The militia of this tribe scarcely reached to 60,000; but they are said to be mighty men of valour, v. 7, 9, 11. Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf, Gen. 49:27. It was the honour of this tribe that it produced Saul the first king, and more its honour that it adhered to the rightful kings of the house of David when the other tribes revolted. Here is mention (v. 12) of Hushim the sons of Aher. The sons of Dan are said to be Hushim (Gen. 46:23), and therefore some read Aher appellatively, Hushim-the sons of another (that is, another of Jacob's sons) or the sons of a stranger, which Israelites should not be, but such the Danites were when they set up Micah's graven and molten image among them. III. Of the tribe of Naphtali, v. 13. The first fathers only of that tribe are named, the very same that we shall find, Gen. 46:24, only that Shillem there is Shallum here. None of their descendents are named, perhaps because their genealogies were lost. IV. Of the tribe of Manasseh, that part of it which was seated within Jordan; for of the other part we had some account before, ch. 5:23, etc. Of this tribe observe, 1. That one of them married an Aramitess, that is, a Syrian, v. 14. This was during their bondage in Egypt, so early did they begin to mingle with the nations. 2. That, though the father married a Syrian, Machir, the son of that marriage, perhaps seeing the inconvenience of it in his father's house, took to wife a daughter of Benjamin, v. 15. It is good for the children to take warning by their father's mistakes and not stumble at the same stone. 3. Here is mention of Bedan (v, 17), who perhaps is the same with that Bedan who is mentioned as one of Israel's deliverers, 1 Sa. 12:11. Jair perhaps, who was of Manasseh (Jdg. 10:3), was the man. |
