The focus of the Chronicles genealogies is very clearly upon David and his tribe, Judah; and upon the Levites, whose genealogy is at the center of the genealogical section:

A The lineage of David (chs. 1—3)
B Judah and Simeon in the South (4:1-43)
C The Transjordanian tribes to the north (ch. 5)
D Levi (ch. 6)
C' The other northern tribes (ch. 7)
B' Benjamin in the South (ch. 8)
A' The lineage of Saul (ch. 9)

This is exactly the focus we would expect if indeed these genealogies were prepared to encourage the Jews [Judah-ites] who had returned from exile along with some priests, in order to re-establish God's Kingdom. The books of Chronicles only describe the history of Judah- which makes sense if they were written to encourage and warn the Judah-ites who returned from Babylon. These genealogies go up to Nehemiah's time (3:19-24)- suggesting that was when they were written. The genealogies omit Dan and Zebulun (we would expect to see them listed in chapter 7)- perhaps because none (or very few) from those tribes returned from Babylon. The fact that the other tribes from the ten tribe Kingdom are accounted for, although far more briefly, would suggest that it was the chronicler's desire to show that the basis for the predicted reunion between Judah and Israel in the re-established Kingdom was in place.

1:1 Scholars have commented that there are no such lengthy genealogies existent in any ancient literature. These genealogies in 1 Chron. 1-9 are unique in ancient literature. There are "king lists", found in the literature of Egypt, Ugarit, Sumer, Moab and Persia (e.g. on the Cyrus cylinder). But that anyone other than a King might have a genealogy, that was paradigm breaking. One simple lesson from all the genealogies of the Bible, which appear so monotonous to us later readers, is simply that God is amazingly sensitive to His people, seeing us all as Kings of His Kingdom... and thus reveals a breathtaking value and estimation of the human person. Note how the Biblical genealogies trace royal lines (e.g. of David) as well as ordinary people back to Adam, the archetypical human; the contemporary king lists tended to be designed to trace the line of the king back to the gods. This anchoring of Israel within humanity was needed for the returning exiles- because they soon developed an elitist mindset, considering themselves so radically racially superior to the Gentiles and giving birth to the Pharisaic movements which rejected God's Son. We too are given at times reminders of our humanity, of how our reaction to things is so basically human... in order to keep us from such superiority and isolationism.

1:5-26 The total number of the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth comes to 70 (Shem 26, Ham 30, Japheth 14)- the number of the Gentiles.

1:10 Mighty- The purpose of the Chronicles genealogies was to give Judah in Babylon some sense of where they had come from, and to specifically enable the priests and Levites to trace their genealogy. Jewish tradition recorded in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 15a) says the authors were Ezra and Nehemiah. The idea of the restoration was that the Kingdom of Israel was to be re-established in glory, with each of the tribes living in their allotted portions of the land- and so they needed to have a sense of where they belonged. The Babylonian captivity had resulted in the Jews losing their sense of where they came from, which tribe they belonged to etc. The Hebrew word gibbor translated "mighty" here is used extensively in describing the "mighty" men of Babylon [founded by Nimrod] who had destroyed Judah (Jer. 49:22; 50:9,36; 51:30,56 etc.). But 1 Chronicles goes on to extensively use the term about the "mighty men" of Israel, and it is also used in the restoration prophecies which speak of how Judah shall again become "mighty" at the restoration (Zech. 9:13; 10:5,7). The explanation of the origins of the Middle Eastern peoples was also valuable in a restoration context, because these were the peoples who were living in Judah when the exiles returned; Ezra and Nehemiah record the problem of inter-marriage with them, and so here the Chronicler explains where exactly they came from and the historical differences between them and the true Israel. This would explain the in passing reference to the division of the peoples at Babel (1:19).

1:19- See on 1:10.


1:32 These genealogies prove that Abraham was, indeed, the father of many nations as God promised; and the returned exiles needed to be reminded of that wonderful assurance, that the promises to Abraham had been fulfilled and therefore shall be to us too.
 

The Septuagint states that Job was the " Jobab" of 1 Chron.1:44,45, who lived five generations after Abraham.

1:43 Before any king reigned over the children of Israel- The genealogies are a subtle calling of Judah to repentance. In this case, the point is being made that Israel had wanted to be like Edom and other nations in having a human king, and had thus rejected their God. 

1:44 Jobab- Probably the Job of the book of Job. There are many connections between the book of Job and the restoration prophecies of Isaiah, leading to the possibility that the story of Job's suffering and restoration in glory was rewritten under inspiration in Babylon in order to provide hope and inspiration to the suffering exiles. This would explain his mention here, in a genealogy which generally focuses upon Israel, but makes as it were an excursion in order to mention Job.

1:44 When... was dead- Then, another king reigned. This is the repeated rubric about the kings of Edom down to :51. The implication could be that Edom went for generations without having kings overthrown by coups or invasion- the line of kings continued unbroken. This could be read as a provocation of Judah to think of their own national history- for the history of the kings of Israel was littered with usurpers and a broken line of succession, and there were times when Judah's history had not been much better. If Gentiles behave better than do God's people- this ought to be a challenge to us in our behaviour. We also note that the kings died- when it was commonly believed that they were immortal.

2:3 Evil in the sight of the Lord- This is the very phrase so often used about the behaviour of the kings of Judah, which had led to the captivity in Babylon (2 Chron. 21:6; 22:4; 33:2,6,22; 36:5,9,12).

2:7 "1 Chron. 2:6, five names are grouped together as בָּנִים of Zerah, which are found nowhere else so united. The first, Zimri, may be strictly a son; but זִמְרִי may perhaps be a mistake for זַבְדִּי, for Achan, who is in 1 Chron. 2:7 the son of Carmi, is in Josh. 7:1 called the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah".

Transgressed- This Hebrew word means literally to cover up, relevant to what Achan did. The sinful life is associated with cover ups, whereas the righteous life is open and transparent.

2:18 begat children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth- The Hebrew is unusual here, and is not the usual rubric used for having a child by a wife. It literally means 'he brought her to beget'- "children" is not in the original, and the Hebrew translated "wife" equally means simply 'a woman'. He was clearly a polygamist and the implication of the Hebrew here could simply be that he got women pregnant- and yet it was those children through whom God's purpose developed. This was encouragement to the returned exiles that God was and is eager to use the spiritually weak, and to work through the failures of His people, rather than turning away from us in disgust.

2:23 Sixty cities- The 60 cities of Dt. 3:4. The characteristic of driving out Canaanites against incredible odds was inherited; and some aspects of spirituality would appear to be almost genetic, although nurture rather than nature would be surely the stronger factor.

2:24 "Hezron, who was the son of Pharez (1 Chron. 2:5), was the father of all this progeny, his sons, Caleb and Jerahmeel, being very fruitful, and he himself likewise, even in his old age, for he left his wife pregnant when he died, 1 Chron. 2:24. This Hezron was one of the seventy that went down with Jacob into Egypt, Gen. 46:12. There his family thus increased, as other oppressed families there did. We cannot but suppose that he died during the Israelites' bondage in Egypt; and yet it is here said he died in Caleb-Ephratah (that is, Bethlehem), in the land of Canaan, 1Chron. 2:24."

2:34,35 A Gentile was reckoned amongst the Judah-ites- see on 6:27,28.

2:35 "If it be mentioned to his praise, we must suppose that this Egyptian was proselyted to the Jewish religion and that he was very eminent for wisdom and virtue, otherwise it would not have become a true-born Israelite to match a daughter to him, especially an only daughter. If Egyptians become converts, and servants do worthily, neither their parentage nor their servitude should be a bar to their preferment. Such a one this Egyptian servant might be that she who married him might live as happily with him as if she had married one of the rulers of her tribe".

2:49,50 Caleb the Kenizite is here reckoned as a Judah-ite, because his descendants physically lived in Judah and identified with Judah. See on 6:27,28. 


3 "Seldom has a crown gone in a direct line from father to son for seventeen descents together, as here". This was clearly from God, who said he would preserve David's line- a reflection of God's respect for a man. And a man who had many wives, messed up, and was not a very successful father.

3:2 The daughter of Talmai- David married the daugter of a Gentile neighbouring king. His son Solomon committed the same mistake 1000 fold more. Our failures often become justification for others to sin many times 'more' than we did... especially our children.

3:5 Nathan- David called one of his children by Bathsheba 'Nathan' surely in honour of Nathan the prophet who confronted him over his sin with Bathsheba. This shows a commendable humility to God's word in Nathan, and how a spiritually healthy person will love and respect their reprover.

3:8 Elishama... Eliphelet- David's children of the same name in :6 probably died. So David lost at least three children in their youth or babyhood...

3:13,14 The king list here is interesting-  good kings having bad sons and vice versa. Spirituality is ultimately not simply a function of nurture of parental expectation.

:17,18 Jeconiah had sons, but he was later "written childless" and is likened to God's signet ring which He took off from His hand (Jer. 22:24) and gave to Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23).

3:24 Anani- A reference to Messiah? Who else was this King?

4:4 Ephratah... Bethlehem- These genealogies end in places not people, as :14. This is relevant to the exiles who returned. They were being shown where they came from, and encouraged to take again their ancestral lands.

4:10 This is placed within the genealogies to stand out. Jabez was an example to the returned exiles to be ambitious in taking their land inheritance and even to ask for more than what was assigned to them. The request that evil would not "grieve" him uses the same word as Nehemiah twice uses in urging the exiles not to be "grieved" by the evil around them (Neh. 8:10,11).

Keep me from evil- Taken by the Lord Jesus and inserted into the Lord's prayer.

4:9,10 This apparently out of context incident, recorded in the midst of genealogies, is in fact appropriate if the genealogies were written as encouragement for the returned exiles as suggested in our notes on chapter 1. Jabez prayed to be given a larger inheritance, and this kind of spiritual ambition was required of the returning exiles if they were to re-establish God's Kingdom within the limits of the land promised to Abraham. And that land could be acquired without the use of force or politics. The amazing blank-cheque support given to Ezra and the exiles (Ezra 7) shows how this could have come about for them too, as it did for Jabez. The connection between prayer and land acquisition is made several times in Chronicles, beginning here- and this was so relevant for the returning exiles. 

4:10 gives an example of using previous Angelic promises and preparatory work in order to achieve an act of faith. Some of the children of Judah later requested that their border be enlarged, at the expense of driving out neighbouring Canaanite tribes.  "Jabez called on the God of Israel (an Angelic term), saying, Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed (a reference back to the Angelic blessing of Abraham's seed with the promise of possession of the land?), and enlarge my coast, and that Thine hand (an Angelic phrase) might be with me, and that Thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested. " In passing, is this the basis of "deliver us from evil... (i e.) lead us not into (spiritual) temptation" in the Lord's prayer? In that case our sins are being likened to the tribes  which  Jabez  drove out in faith, and we should believe that our Angel has driven our sins out for us in prospect, so that we might inherit the promises.

4:15 Caleb was a Gentile, a Kennizite, but was incorporated into Judah- an example to encourage the returned exiles that even if after the captivity they couldn't prove their descent, they could still be counted as Judah. 

4:17,18 Note the emphasis upon the role of women.

4:18 The daughter of Pharaoh- Did the Pharaoh's daughter who defied her father to save Moses actually marry an Israelite? The reminder was again that Judah were far from ethnically pure, right from their roots. Ethnic purity was not to be the basis of membership of Judah- see on :15.

Bithiah The Great

One important method in Bible study is to keep asking questions as we read a text, and to imagine how the story developed further. The account of Moses being found by Pharaoh’s daughter is a classic Bible story- but it begs many questions. Why did this young woman risk disobeying her father? Given Moses’ age, how did she manage to survive in Pharaoh’s court with an adopted child who looked like a Hebrew and ought to have been killed in babyhood? What kind of relationship did she have with her father? Did he tolerate her sympathy and “compassion” for the Hebrews?

Where else do we read about Pharaoh’s daughter? Searching through the Bible, perhaps with the help of a concordance, we come to the references to Solomon marrying Pharaoh’s daughter. No great answers there to our questions. Sometimes in Bible study we do draw a blank. And that’s a blank. And there’s only one other reference to Pharaoh’s daughter, hidden away in the obscure genealogies of Chronicles, which we likely skip reading in our daily Bible readings. But there… is the answer. “The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered, Epher, and Jalon. These are the sons of Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered married; and she conceived and bore Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa” (1 Chron. 4:17 ESV). Who was Mered? A prince of the tribe of Judah. And yes, he lived around the time of Moses. So… a daughter of Pharaoh married a Hebrew. A slave. And she was the daughter of Pharaoh. Now we’re onto something.

We eagerly look up the meaning of “Bithiah”. And we find that Bithiah means ‘daughter of Yah’- there is an intended tension therefore in the way in which she is called ‘Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh’, especially considering that Pharaoh was thought to be God in Egyptian culture. It cannot be an undersigned coincidence that Bithiah is recorded as having a daughter, whom she called Miriam. It’s not very common for the names of daughters to be recorded in the genealogies, so it seems a point is being made. Miriam was of course the name of Moses’ sister, who had first introduced Bithiah to Moses’ family. Her name in Hebrew is almost the feminine form of her father’s name, Mered. Mered had another wife who was from the tribe of Judah: “And his Judahite wife bore Jered …  Heber… and Jekuthiel” (1 Chron. 4:18 ESV).

 

And then we wonder: Am I the first guy to have come to this discovery? This is where the internet is useful. A bit of research shows that no, others have figured some of this out. Not that getting support from others ultimately matters, for we should be ready to stand with our backs to the world if necessary in believing what we have discovered in the Bible. And no jewel shines so brightly as the one you find yourself, as Harry Tennant once put it in talking about Bible study. But all the same, it’s some level of human comfort to find we’re not completely alone, and in this case, to find that indeed Jewish tradition upholds this connection between Bithiah and the adoptive mother of Moses. And Egyptologists have various theories as to who the Pharaoh of the Exodus was. One of them is that it was Amunhotep II. His coffin decorations appear to show that he had a skin condition- perhaps the boils from the plagues?  One stele that was discovered shows that two of Amunhotep II's sons have been "erased". Perhaps one of them was Moses?

It seems likely that many Egyptians became proselytes, because many of them left Egypt with Israel. So Bithiah became attracted to God’s people, and decided to forego all she could’ve had in order to save just one Hebrew life. If nothing else we learn that to sacrifice all for the sake of the salvation of ‘just’ one person is perhaps what we are called to. The woman who could’ve been one of the most powerful women in the world sacrificed it all, to marry a Hebrew slave- who already had a wife. And presumably she changed her name. She was Yah’s daughter now, and not that of ‘god’ Pharaoh. What motivated her? Surely her experience with raising Moses. From the mouth of a child, who may well have been with his Godly parents for up to five years, she learnt more of Yahweh’s ways. And she must’ve got to know the family of origin and been impressed by Moses’ big sister Miriam… for she named her own daughter after her.

But the chain of influence didn’t end there. For when Moses was 40, he did the same as what his adoptive mother did. At age 40, Moses came to a crisis. He had a choice between the riches of Egypt, the pleasures of sin for a season, and choosing rather to suffer affliction with God's people and thereby fellowship the reproach of Christ (Heb. 11:24-26). He probably had the chance to become the next Pharaoh, as the son of Pharaoh's daughter; but he consciously refused this, as an expression of faith in the future recompense of the Kingdom. Bithiah’s example would’ve been ever before him.

It is worth trying to visualize the scene when Moses was “full forty years old” (Acts 7:23). It would make a fine movie. The Greek phrase could refer to Moses’ birthday, and one is tempted to speculate that it had been arranged that when Moses was 40, he would become Pharaoh. Heb. 11:24 says that he refused and chose- the Greek tense implying a one off choice- to suffer affliction with God’s people. It is tempting to imagine Moses at the ceremony when he should have been declared as Pharaoh, the most powerful man in his world…standing up and saying, to a suddenly hushed audience, voice cracking with shame and stress and yet some sort of proud relief that he was doing the right thing: “I, whom you know in Egyptian as Meses, am Moshe, yes, Moshe the Hebrew; and I decline to be Pharaoh”. In the end, the wonderful honour would have been given to another man, who became Pharaoh. Perhaps he or his son was the one to whom Moses was to come, 40 years later. After a nervous breakdown, stuttering, speaking with a thick accent, clearly having forgotten Egyptian… walking through the mansions of glory, along the corridors of power, to meet that man, to whom he had given the throne 40 years earlier. 

And the path of influence continued to Paul. Paul "counted" the things of this life as loss "for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ" and his sufferings (Phil. 3:8), so that he would gain the resurrection. Moses likewise rejected the world for the same two reasons: the excellency of sharing the reproach of Christ, and secondly from respect unto the recompense of the reward, at the resurrection. He uses the same word translated "esteemed" when we read of how Moses "esteemed" the reproach of Christ as greater riches than the treasures in Egypt (Heb. 11:26).

There are a number of passages which invite us to follow Moses' example in this, so that the path of influence goes yet further. Even within Hebrews, the description of Moses' rejection of Egypt for the sake of Christ is shown to be our example: " Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures (i.e. Pharaoh's treasures, which he could have had if he succeeded as Pharaoh) in Egypt... let us go forth therefore unto (Jesus) without the camp, bearing his reproach" (Heb. 11:26; 13:13). We should be even eager to bear 'reproach for the name of Christ' as Moses did (1 Pet. 4:14), knowing it is a surety of our sharing his resurrection. The way Moses had "respect unto the recompense of the reward" is our example; for again, even within Hebrews, we are exhorted: "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward" (Heb. 11:26; 10:35). The Greek for " respect" means to look away from all else; indicating how single-mindedly and intensely did Moses look ahead to the Kingdom; the knowledge of which was, in terms of number of words, scant indeed. All he had was the covenants of promise.

"(Moses) refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; having chosen rather (Gk.) to suffer affliction with the people of God" (Heb. 11:24,25) suggests that there was a struggle within the mind of Moses, between the reproach of Christ and the approbation of this world, and he then decisively came down on the right side. If we are truly saints, called out ones after the pattern of Moses, this struggle between present worldly advantage and the hope of the Kingdom must surely be seen in our minds. For this reason Moses is held up so highly as our example and pattern. 

We too face choices. To take a second job, rise early and stay up late… to advance in our careers. To get more income, to dispose of upon expensive coffees, the latest gadgets. Or in the spirit of Bithiah and Moses to realize, and realize finally and once for all, that nothing else matters now. The hope of the Kingdom and fellowship of the rejected Son of God is worth so infinitely more than any of Egypt’s temporary glory. Moses rejected it for the sake of his service of God’s people- who for the most part never appreciated him, and turned their backs on “this Moses”. Bithiah likewise, gave it all up… just to be identified with God’s people. Being the second woman in Mered’s life, a Gentile compared to the other wife being a true blue blooded Judahite, couldn’t have been much fun. For all we know, Bithiah died alone and feeling rejected in the corner of a Hebrew slave camp, lamenting how Moses was apparently caught up in the good life of Pharaoh’s court which she had given up, buried in the hot sand without a grave, a far cry from the glory girl of her teens. But she did it all so as to be connected with God’s people, just as Moses chose to suffer affliction with a people of God who didn’t want him. There are brethren who set us a great example in these things. They lost their families because they married a believer and not the one expected for them. Married someone of another race or colour because of their spiritual connection with that person, thus losing the status they might have had within their own culture. They declined promotion in their career because… they wanted to get home each day in time to read Bible stories to their kids. Didn’t take out a court case but suffered the loss of so much, didn’t answer slander, left God to judge… Spent their spare time and cash going to the Post Office and mailing Bibles to people rather than… tropical beach holidays. Spent their evenings emailing or visiting old, sick, suffering, depressed, difficult or plain awkward brethren… instead of watching telly.

The chain of influence ran from little Moses  and Miriam to Bithiah and then back to Moses, through Paul to us today. Our examples have far more power than we ever imagine. Over some issues and at some times, we like Bithiah and Moses must stand with our backs to the world. Despised by the world and even by the brotherhood, but so be it. We shall spend eternity day and night serving God… and it would be strange indeed if our lives now were not likewise totally dedicated to the things of the Kingdom into which and for which we were baptized.

 

4:22 The dominion of Moab- An encouragement to the returned exiles to dominate the Gentiles in Israel and take the land for themselves. As :40-42. The whole land promised to Abraham had been given to the returned exiles according to the powers granted Ezra in Ezra 7.

5:1 Relevant to the exiles who could not prove their descent- descent by blood was not the most important issue.

5:9 They moved away from the ecclesia because of their love of cattle and therefore drifted away into the Gentile world.

5:26 Another example of God acting directly upon the minds of men. 

6:15 The emphasis is upon the fact that it was Yahweh who carried Judah captive, the Babylonians who did so were merely in His hand.

6:27,28 Elkanah... Samuel - They were from the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1), but here they are presented as members of the tribe of Levi. The purpose of the genealogies was to explain the genealogies of Judah and the Levites (see notes on chapter 1). And yet there is reference to the other tribes of Israel in these genealogies. This was perhaps because the faithful from those tribes had gone to live in Judah and therefore were carried away captive to Babylon. Additionally, there was intermarriage between the tribes. The purpose of the genealogy here is to show how a non-Levite could become effectively a Levite on legitimate grounds- those who acted like Levites were counted as them, historically; and that not being directly descended from Levi was no reason why a person couldn't serve at the sanctuary (Samuel being a prime example). What was required was that the person recognized where they had come from and who they were. And this of course is a great pattern for us who wish to serve God but have so much disqualification, in a sense. Those who were put out of the priesthood in Nehemiah's time had no genealogy at all, rather than not being able to prove they were Levites. See on 2:49,50. 

7:6-11 The numbers of Benjamites here is in total 59,434. It's unusual in the genealogies that the numbers of a tribe are given. Perhaps this was done in Benjamin's case because the tribe numbered 45,600 at Moses' time (Num. 26:41) but were reduced to 600 at the time of Jud. 20:47. Some commentators suggest that the numbers here must refer to some previous time, but what would be the point of recording them without stating when the census was taken? The phrase "were reckoned by their genealogies" (:7) invites us to assume that this numbering was done at the same time as the Chronicles genealogies were written, which I have suggested was at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The point surely was that Benjamin multiplied amazingly. Likewise the genealogies record many sons being born to Israel whilst in Egypt. The relatively few exiles who returned from Babylon were being encouraged that from the slenderest of beginnings, God is able to multiply people and abilities. The idea of the people 'multiplying' is common throughout the prophecies of restoration.

7:14-16 Note the emphasis on the role of women.

7:21,22 The point surely is that they should've taken the land for a possession instead of just stealing cattle and getting personal material benefit from it- very relevant to the returned exiles. The more faithful had driven out the inhabitants of Gath (8:13)- not just stolen their cattle. See on :28.

7:28 Note the difference between possessions and habitations. They were intended to possess the land rather than just establish their farmsteads as their own personal habitation. The returned exiles needed reminding of this.

7:29 These towns were actually within the inheritance of Issachar and Asher (Josh. 17:11). The idea of taking away an inheritance from one tribe and giving to another was surely in the Lord's mind when He spoke of how the talent is to be taken away from one man and given to another at the day of judgment. God has an ideal intention for us in His service- talents or towns given- but if we fail to use them, He may remove them from us and add them to the service of another believer.

8:6 Removed- They, like some of the returned exiles, were not happy with the lot given them by God and were always searching for some place better rather than accepting that He knows best and has given us the right thing for us. Some versions suggest that the 'removing' was the removal into captivity, but Manahath is a place in Israel, not Babylon. Geba was a priestly city (Josh. 21:17)- the idea being that the Levites would live there, supported by the local inhabitants, and teach God's word to them. But the local inhabitants left, maybe because they didn't want to support the Levites there. And so the Levites had to farm the land to survive rather than teach God's law. This was exactly the situation in Judah at the time of the return- the exiles didn't support the Levites, and therefore they were without the teaching of God's word. Again we see the relevance of the genealogies to the time of the return from exile.

8:13 This driving out of the inhabitants of Gath is intended to be compared with the action of the men of Ephraim recorded in 1 Chron. 7:21, who went to Gath to steal cattle and were slain. Instead, they should've driven out the people of Gath and inherited their land, seeing the bigger picture of building God's Kingdom rather than just trying to grab what they could for themselves.

8:33 - see on 1 Sam. 16:8. The focus on the name 'Baal' surely reflects Jonathan's weakness.

8:34 Meribbaal- "Striver with Baal", reflecting Saul and Jonathan's respect for Gideon. It's a good thing to have Biblical heroes. Also called Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 4:4; 9:6 etc.). He was lame (2 Sam. 4:4), and had one son, Micah, from whom came very many children and whose genealogy is preserved for 10 generations. The point as noted on 7:6-11 is that from the frailest beginnings, God is prepared to multiply, as with the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

9:1 All Israel- But Dan and Zebulon were omitted from the list, and the emphasis is without doubt upon Judah and the Levites. The implication could be that those who had gone into captivity in Assyria were now not Israel (the point is made that they were still there in Assyria- 5:26). Judah was now "Israel".

Reckoned by genealogies- Implying the genealogies we are reading were written at the return of the exiles.

When Israel walked with God, “The hosts of the children of Levi” were actually called “the host of the Lord” (1 Chron. 9:18,19 Heb.). If we each have a guardian Angel, it makes sense that the hosts of God’s people on earth are represented by Angelic hosts in the Heavens.

9:3 Ephraim and Manasseh- Jerusalem was not their given inheritance but they initially lived there for fear of the Gentiles in the rest of the land. They were unwilling to go and inherit what God intended for them but took the easier way out. The genealogy here is virtually repeated in Nehemiah 11, adding yet further support to the idea that the genealogies were written in Nehemiah's time.

9:13 Able men- But the record of Ezra and Nehemiah shows that it was hard to get Levites to work at Jerusalem. They were able to do the Lord's work but chose not to because it was easier to establish their own farmsteads outside Jerusalem.

9:33 Day and night- This spirit of continual service is picked up in Rev. 4:8 where we have the picture of continual praise to God. This is our end calling, to continually serve Him. If our service of Him is a mere occasional hobby, from which we prefer to take long breaks, then are we really Kingdom people?

9:40 - see on 1 Sam. 14:10-20.

10:6- see on 1 Sam. 31:6.

It seems from 1 Chron. 11:13,14 that soon after the fight with Goliath, there was another skirmish with the Philistines at Pas-Dammim [RVmg. ‘Ephes-Dammim’- the same place where David fought Goliath]. Again, the men of Israel fled, but those who held fast were given a “great deliverance” [“salvation”, RVmg.], just as David is described as achieving. Those men who stayed and fought were doubtless inspired by David; just as we should be, time and again, by the matchless victory of our Lord on Golgotha.  See article "David and Goliath" in 1 Sam. 17.

11:22 hosts- see on 14:15

Benaiah killed a lion in order to prepare him for killing two lionlike men (1 Chron. 11:22)

1 Chron. 12:8 describes David's ecclesia in the wilderness as having faces "like the faces of lions" (Angel-cherubim language?), being "a great host, like the host of God"- David's host became increasingly in line with God's Heavenly Hosts of Angels, the four living creatures. We are to reflect the court of Heaven on earth.

David’s host increased, until it became “a great host”, “like the host of God” (1 Chron. 12:22)- the parallel between David’s men and the Angelic hosts is clear. Significantly, the Angelic armies that destroyed the Syrians are called ‘a great host’ in 2 Kings 7:6. Asa and his army defeated the Ethiopians- and it’s described as them being “destroyed before the Lord and before his host” (2 Chron. 14:13). Again, the hosts of Israel become the hosts of God.

1 Chron. 13:6 "David went up. . to bring thence the ark of God the LORD that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it". The unusual phrase 'God the LORD' may imply 'the Angel the Yahweh', as if recognizing that the Angel had God's Name, as we know the Angel which lead Israel was given by God. Thus in this context David goes on to say about the ark of the Lord "whose Name is called on it". When Uzzah died it is stated "there he died before God" (v. 10), as if he died in the presence of an Angel- i. e. the Angel present inside the ark which he touched. See on Ps. 78:60

1 Chron. 14:15 gives an incident similar to the scenario of the conquest, with the Angel physically going ahead of them and the people having to do their part in following. "When thou (David) shalt hear a sound of going (like the noise of the Angel cherubim in Ezekiel 1?) in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then shalt thou go out to battle; for God (the Angels) is gone forth before thee to smite the host of the Philistines". So once the Angels had physically moved forward and David had heard them doing this, he too could move ahead in doing the human part in bringing God's purpose about. David alludes to this as a regular experience when he speaks of God ‘going out’ with the hosts / armies of Israel (Ps. 60:10 RV). His hosts were as the hosts of God (1 Chron. 11:22)- he walked in step with the Angel Cherubim above him, as Ezekiel was to do later. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on Gen. 18:10;  Rev. 21:12.

15:12 David’s bringing the ark to the place which he had prepared (1 Chron. 15:12) is the basis of the Lord’s words in Jn. 14:1-3. Clearly the Lord saw David as Himself, and us as the ark. The ‘bringing up’ or ‘lifting up’ of the ark (1 Chron. 15:12,22 RVmg.) to a perpetual dwelling place has evident reference to the resurrection. And when the ark was finally brought or lifted up to Zion, David / Jesus dealt bread and wine to the people (1 Chron. 16:3). One practical encouragement from this typology is that the memorial feast is a celebration that in fact we, the ark, have in prospect already been brought or lifted up into the eternal place prepared for us in the Kingdom.

16:3- see on 1 Chron. 15:12.

21:15- see on 2 Sam. 24:16

23:13- see on Jn. 17:17

1 Chron. 28:2- see on Ps. 132:8

Maybe the words of David to Solomon in 1 Chron. 28:20  came to Christ’s mind in Mt. 27:46: "My God (cp. "My God, My God") will be with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work for the service of the house of the Lord". Recognizing He had now been forsaken, Jesus agreed "It is finished". Indeed, from the moment He left the Upper Room  the  work  was  finished and therefore the presence of the Angel departed (Jn. 17:4 "I have finished the work. . ").