| Barnes' Notes on the Bible Rather, "So all Israel were reckoned ... the kings of Israel. And Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their transgressions."
Clarke's Commentary on the BibleWere reckoned by genealogies - Jarchi considers these as the words of Ezra, the compiler of the book; as if he had said: I have given the genealogies of the Israelites as I have found them in a book which was carried into Babylon, when the people were carried thither for their transgressions; and this book which I found is that which I have transcribed in the preceding chapters.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleSo all Israel were reckoned by genealogies,.... Not now by the writer of this book in the preceding chapters; for two of the tribes are not reckoned at all, and the rest but in part; but there had been kept an exact account of them: and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel; not in the canonical book or books of Kings, but in the annals, journals, and diaries, which each king took care to be kept with some exactness, often referred to in the preceding books; out of which this writer, under a divine direction, had taken what was proper to be continued, and had carried the genealogy down to the captivity of the ten tribes; but the genealogy being lost with them, he could proceed no further, nor say anything more concerning them: but Judah; for so the word should be stopped, and read according to the Hebrew accents: who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression; their idolatry, and were now returned again; of them the writer proposes to give a further account.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament1 Chronicles 9:1-3 form the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem in vv. 4-34. 1 Chronicles 9:1-2 "And all the Israelites were registered; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah was led away to Babylon for her transgressions." The lxx and Vulg. have erroneously connected ויהוּדה with the preceding words, and render, "in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah," and then have translated the following words וגו הגלוּ arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau's opinion, that Israel here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken of, for both reasons are quite worthless. "The book of the kings of Israel" is cited in 2 Chronicles 20:34 (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:18), and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the historical work cited as the "book of the kings of Israel and Judah" (2 Chronicles 27:7; 2 Chronicles 35:27; 2 Chronicles 36:8), or as the "book of the kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Chronicles 16:11; 2 Chronicles 25:26, and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened title, "book of the kings of Israel," that kings of the northern kingdom are spoken of? Then, as to the contrast between Israel and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in favour of taking the name in its narrower sense; but when we consider the grouping together in 1 Chronicles 9:10 of "Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim," we see clearly that Israel in 1 Chronicles 9:2 incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. In 1 Chronicles 9:1, Israel is used in the same sense as in 1 Chronicles 9:2; and the contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to the contrast "Judah and Jerusalem," i.e., Israel is a designation of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be understood to denote the whole covenant people. That 1 Chronicles 9:1 forms the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2-8, is so manifest that Bertheau cannot adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, that "the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning." For the assertion, "We recognise in it a short introduction to the historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites after the exile," cannot be adduced in support of his view, since it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the words of the verse. (Note: Bertheau's further remark, "1 Chronicles 9:1 cannot have been written by our historian, because he did not consider it sufficient to refer his readers to the work he quotes from, but thought himself bound to communicate genealogical registers of the tribes of the northern kingdom (1 Chronicles 5-7), which he must have extracted from older registers prepared in the time of the kings (cf. 1 Chronicles 6:1), perhaps even out of the work here named," is quite incomprehensible by me. Notwithstanding repeated consideration of it clause by clause, I have not succeeded in comprehending the logic of this argument.) The statement, "Judah was led captive to Babylon for her transgressions," corresponds to the statement 1 Chronicles 5:25., 1 Chronicles 6:15. But when, after this statement, our writer continues, "And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah," etc., the "former inhabitants" can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Nehemiah 11, - a similarity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vv. 2-34, to that in Nehemiah 11:3-24: "As the result of the comparison, we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents." The first point in this result has some foundation; for if we turn our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the registers in 1 Chronicles 9:4-17 of our chapter and in Nehemiah 11:3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chronicles 9:2-34 and Nehemiah 11:3-24, we see that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by the remark, 1 Chronicles 9:2, "The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests," etc., according to which the following words, 1 Chronicles 9:3, "And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah," etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, to Nehemiah 5:15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time of the former governors (הראשׁנים הפּחות), with whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily call his predecessors in the office "former governors;" while the inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From the fact that the inhabitants "of their cities" are not contrasted as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers and Bertheau from Nehemiah 11:1, that the "former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities" are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, is not tenable. In Nehemiah 11, on the contrary, the register is introduced by the remark, 1 Chronicles 9:3, "These are the heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests," etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities of Judah, at that time, i.e., at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been made out, as in vv. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are enumerated, and in 1 Chronicles 9:25-36 the inhabitants of the other cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 3-19a), while in vv. 19b-34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving upon the Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in their cities outside of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:2), because all that was necessary had been already communicated in the preceding genealogies (1 Chronicles 2-8).
Geneva Study BibleSo all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were {a} carried away to Babylon for their transgression. (a) Until now he has described their genealogies before they went into captivity, and now he describes their history after their return.
Wesley's Notes 9:1 The book - In the publick records, wherein there was an account of that kingdom, and of the several families in it.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible CommentaryCHAPTER 9 1Ch 9:1-26. Original Registers of Israel and Judah's Genealogies. 1. all Israel were reckoned by genealogies-From the beginning of the Hebrew nation, public records were kept, containing a registration of the name of every individual, as well as the tribe and family to which he belonged. "The book of the kings of Israel and Judah" does not refer to the two canonical books that are known in Scripture by that name, but to authenticated copies of those registers, placed under the official care of the sovereigns; and as a great number of the Israelites (1Ch 9:3) took refuge in Judah during the invasion of Shalmaneser, they carried the public records along with them. The genealogies given in the preceding chapters were drawn from the public records in the archives both of Israel and Judah; and those given in this chapter relate to the period subsequent to the restoration; whence it appears (compare 1Ch 3:17-24) that the genealogical registers were kept during the captivity in Babylon. These genealogical tables, then, are of the highest authority for truth and correctness, the earlier portion being extracted from the authenticated records of the nation; and as to those which belong to the time of the captivity, they were drawn up by a contemporary writer, who, besides enjoying the best sources of information, and being of the strictest integrity, was guided and preserved from all error by divine inspiration.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary9:1-44 Genealogies. - This chapter expresses that one end of recording all these genealogies was, to direct the Jews, when they returned out of captivity, with whom to unite, and where to reside. Here is an account of the good state into which the affairs of religion were put, on the return from Babylon. Every one knew his charge. Work is likely to be done well when every one knows the duty of his place, and makes a business of it. God is the God of order. Thus was the temple a figure of the heavenly one, where they rest not day nor night from praising God, Re 4:8. Blessed be His name, believers there shall, not in turn, but all together, without interruption, praise him night and day: may the Lord make each of us fit for the inheritance of the saints in light.
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible CommentaryChapter 9 This chapter intimates to us that one end of recording all these genealogies was to direct the Jews, now that they had returned out of captivity, with whom to incorporate and where to reside; for here we have an account of those who first took possession of Jerusalem after their return from Babylon, and began the rebuilding of it upon the old foundation. I. The Israelites (v. 2-9). II. The priests (v. 10-13). III. The Levites and other Nethinim (v. 14-26). IV. Here is the particular charge of some of the priests and Levites (v. 27-34). V. A repetition of the genealogy of king Saul (v. 35-44). Verses 1-13 The first verse looks back upon the foregoing genealogies, and tells us they were gathered out of the books of the kings of Israel and Judah, not that which we have in the canon of scripture, but another civil record, which was authentic, as the king's books with us. Mentioning Israel and Judah, the historian takes notice of their being carried away to Babylon for their transgression. Let that judgment never be forgotten, but ever be remembered, for warning to posterity to take heed of those sins that brought it upon them. Whenever we speak of any calamity that has befallen us, it is good to add this, "it was for my transgression," that God may be justified and clear when he judges. Then follows an account of the first inhabitants, after their return from captivity, that dwelt in their cities, especially in Jerusalem. 1. The Israelites. That general name is used (v. 2) because with those of Judah and Benjamin there were many of Ephraim and Manasseh, and the other ten tribes (v. 3), such as had escaped to Judah when the body of the ten tribes were carried captive or returned to Judah upon the revolutions in Assyria, and so went into captivity with them, or met them when they were in Babylon, associated with them, and so shared in the benefit of their enlargement. It was foretold that the children of Judah and of Israel should be gathered together and come up out of the land (Hos. 1:11), and that they should be one nation again, Eze. 37:22. Trouble drives those together that have been at variance; and the pieces of metal that had been separated will run together again when melted in the same crucible. Many both of Judah and Israel staid behind in captivity; but some of both, whose spirit God stirred up, enquired the way to Zion again. Divers are here named, and many more numbered, who were chief of the fathers (v. 9), who ought to be remembered with honour, as Israelites indeed. 2. The priests, v. 10. It was their praise that they came with the first. Who should lead in a good work if the priests, the Lord's ministers, do not? It was the people's praise that they would not come without them; for who but the priests should keep knowledge? Who but the priests should bless them in the name of the Lord? (1.) It is said of one of them that he was the ruler of the house of God (v. 11) not the chief ruler, for Joshua was then the high priest, but the sagan, and the next under him, his deputy, who perhaps applied more diligently to the business than the high priest himself. In the house of God it is requisite that there be rulers, not to make new laws, but to take care that the laws of God be duly observed by priests as well as people. (2.) It is said of many of them that they were very able men for the service of the house of God, v. 13. In the house of God there is service to be done, constant service; and it is well for the church when those are employed in that service who are qualified for it, able ministers of the New Testament, 2 Co. 3:6. The service of the temple was such as required at all times, especially in this critical juncture, when they had newly come out of Babylon, great courage and vigour of mind, as well as strength of body; and therefore they are praised as mighty men of valour. |
