The sons of David, 1 Chronicles 3:1-9. His line to Zedekiah, 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. The successors of Jeconiah. 1 Chronicles 1:17-24.

The Jezreelitess; of that Jezreel in Judah, Joshua 15:56, not of that in Manasseh, Joshua 17:16. The Carmelitess; so called, because she was the wife of Nabal, who dwelt in Carmel, 1 Samuel 25:2, which was in Judah, Joshua 15:55.

No text from Poole on this verse.

Which title belongs either to all the foregoing women; or rather, as the singular number showeth, to Eglah only, last mentioned; who possibly may be so called, because she was his first, and therefore most proper, wife, though her son was born after all the rest before mentioned, and therefore both she and her son are put in the sixth place; the wives being here named only for the sons’ sakes. See more on 2 Samuel 3:5.

No text from Poole on this verse.

Four; all David’s children by her, as the text positively affirms; and therefore Solomon is called her

only son, Proverbs 4:3, because she loved him as if he had been so.

Ammiel, called also

Eliam, 2 Samuel 11:3. See Poole "2 Samuel 11:3".

And he had two other sons called by the same names, 1 Chronicles 3:8, but they were by differing wives; and probably they were then distinguished by some additional clause or title, which is here omitted, because it was now needless for us to know it; or the two first were dead before the two second were born, and therefore the names of the deceased were given to these to preserve their memory.

No text from Poole on this verse.

Object. There are but seven mentioned 2 Samuel 5:14, &c.

Answ. Two of them are omitted there, because they died very early, or were inglorious, or died without issue; and here we have all the sons of David, as it here follows, 1 Chronicles 3:9, which clause is not added, 2Sa 5.

No text from Poole on this verse.

No text from Poole on this verse.

No text from Poole on this verse.

No text from Poole on this verse.

No text from Poole on this verse.

No text from Poole on this verse.

Of whom, at least under that name, there is no mention in thee history of the reign of Josiah’s sons, 2Ki 23 2Ki 24. But in Jeremiah 22:11, there is mention of Shallum the son of Josiah king of Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah his father; which most conceive to be the same who is otherwise called Jehoahaz, 2Ki 23. And this seems most probable,

1. From that phrase, he reigned instead of Josiah; which implies that he immediately succeeded his father; otherwise he would have been said to have reigned instead of his brother, as Zedekiah is said to reign instead of Jehoiachin, 2 Kings 24:17, because he was his next successor.

2. From the order of that sermon or discourse of Jeremiah, which was directed to Zedekiah, and his servants, and people, as appears by Jeremiah 21:1,2,11 22:1,2, whom he admonisheth by the examples of the kings his predecessors, and of the sentence of God concerning each of them, and that in order as they reigned:

1. Of Shallum, 1 Chronicles 3:11, &c.

2. Of Jehoiakim, 1 Chronicles 3:18, &c.

3. Of Jeconiah, 1 Chronicles 3:24, &c. Therefore Shallum is the same with Jehoahaz, who was the first king after Josiah, 2 Kings 23:30.

4. From the nature of that prophecy, Jeremiah 22:11,12, which best agrees to Jehoahaz, who was carried captive not so far as Babylon, but only to Egypt, a very near country whence the people hoped that he would speedily and easily return, or be re-established in his throne by the king of Egypt, in opposition to the king of Babylon.

5. Because Jehoahaz was one of Josiah’s younger sons, as appears by comparing 2 Kings 23:31,36. And this Shallum is here called his fourth son.

Not his natural son, for he was his uncle, 2 Kings 24:17; but his legal son, or his successor, upon whom the son’s right was devolved by virtue of that law, Numbers 27:8-10, and therefore it is not strange if he have the name of

son with it. See Poole "Luke 3:1". Or this was another Zedekiah; because it is improbable, and without example, that one and the same man should be twice mentioned in the same genealogy as the son of two several parents.

Of Jeconiah; Assir, or, of Jeconiah the captive, or prisoner; which is added to show that he begat his son when he was captive in Babylon, as it is noted, Matthew 1:12, whither he was carried captive, 2 Kings 24:15.

Object. It is said of this Jeconiah, Jeremiah 22:30. Write this man childless.

Answ. So he is called, because he was an unhappy prince, and had no son that succeeded him in the throne, as the next words explain it. See more on that place.

Salathiel his son; either his legal or his natural son; of which See Poole "Jeremiah 22:30"; See Poole "Matthew 1:12"; See Poole "Luke 3:27".

Malchiram also, and Pedaiah: the sentence seems to be short and imperfect, as is frequent in the Hebrew language, and something is here understood, as, the sons also of Salathiel were Malchiram and Pedaiah, &c., as they gather from hence, that the same Zerubbabel is called the Song of Solomon of Pedaiah, 1 Chronicles 3:19, and the son (i.e. the grandson) of Salathiel, Matthew 1:12. Or Malchiram and the rest here named were the sons of Jeconiah; and they are differing Zerubbabels, which are mentioned here, 1 Chronicles 3:19 Matthew 1:12 Luke 3:27; of which see the notes on those places.

i.e. Sister to the two last named sons of Zerubbabel, to wit, by both parents; and therefore named before the other five, 1 Chronicles 3:20, who were her brethren by the father, but not by the mother.

Either of Zerubbabel; or of Meshullam, as is gathered from hence, that the sons of Hananiah (brother to Meshullam, 1 Chronicles 3:19) are named 1 Chronicles 3:21, and therefore those 1 Chronicles 3:20 are presumed to be the sons of Meshullam. But that is no necessary inference, for Meshullam possibly had no sons, and therefore he passeth from him to Hananiah, 1 Chronicles 3:21.

All these men, both parents and their sons here blended together, are mentioned as the sons of Hananiah, and branches of the royal stock.

To wit, including the father. But the Hebrew word shisha, which is rendered six, may be the proper name of one of the sons of Shemaiah, who may be so called, because he was the sixth son.

The sons of Neariah; who alone is here mentioned, because his elder brethren probably died without issue.

No text from Poole on this verse.