At this point the genealogy is interrupted by the mention of Ezer and Elead in 1 Chronicles 7:21. This involves an incident that probably took place after the conquest of the land. These latter two sons of Ephraim were killed by the native-born men of Gath during a livestock raid. This probably hints at hostile relationships between the Ephraimites and some of the local inhabitants (i.e., peoples who had already occupied the land before the invasion of Israel from Egypt).1
This account appears nowhere else in the Scriptures. According to Japhet, the tale is sketched with basic lines and few words, recording only essential actions and motives.
2 Emphasis is placed on a few details not of a strictly essential nature: these are the men who were born in the land,
his brothers came to comfort him,
and Ephraim their father.
These details insist upon the geographical background of the events in the neighbourhood of Gath
and the conflict between “the men of Gath who were born in the land’ and the sons of Ephraim.
The phrase they came down
in 1 Chronicles 7:21 is well chosen because it implies that the men of Ephraim descended to the lowlands in order to raid their livestock.
The point is made that these are geohistorical facts. As Wilcock says, within this account we find examples illustrating the whole incident, such as geographical and historical cross-references and the mention of flesh-and-blood people, which are typical of the Chronicler’s style in these chapters.3
The Gath of 1 Chronicles 7:21 is probably the Gittaim mentioned in 2 Samuel 4:3, and the account probably dates to the Israelite settlement in Canaan.4
After mourning the loss of his two sons, Ephraim’s wife subsequently became pregnant with a son, whom they named Beriah. This material highlights the crisis faced by Ephraim.5 Commentators conclude that this event forms the basis for the birth and naming of Beriah.6 Ephraim named him Beriah because of the tragedy his family had suffered
(1 Chronicles 7:25, NLT).
The origin of the tragedy is traced from unlawful behaviour by the two brothers (trying to steal livestock
) right to its reversal of the tragedy in the birth of Beriah. His name in Hebrew (bĕrîʿâ) is linked to the Hebrew word bĕrāʿâ, which means in disaster
or in tragedy
or in evil
(KJV). This is an enduring testimony to the crisis.7 The reasons behind Ephraim giving his son this name remain unknown. It can be viewed in both a negative and positive light.
The perpetuation of mourning in a name is unusual.8 There are Hebrew names that mark the end of bereavement. The names Menachem and Manasseh are really cries of praise for the gift of new children to the God who, respectively, comforts
for the loss of an earlier child or children and makes to forget
earlier calamity, often the loss of infants since the infant mortality rate was very high.
In this case there had been a loss not of an infant but of grown sons, and not one but two. It was a disaster the father never got over, and the new baby was made to bear the burden of a perpetual bereavement by his hapless name. It was a means not of working it out of the father’s system but of prolonging it. The boy’s presence would always remind him of it. In some ways it is burdening the child with the painful memories of the past that for many years will act like a ball and chain. A similar case is seen in the naming of Benoni (son of my sorrow
) by Rachel, a name that later, wisely, was changed by Jacob to Benjamin (son of my right hand
). Leslie Allen comments on this incident as follows: There is something very human and yet very unhealthy about this vignette. I see in it a warning about human emotion which, changing from a natural force to a neurotic obsession, can suck others into its vortex and seek to drag down their lives in turn.
9
The account of the killing of Ezer and Elead and its aftermath (1 Chronicles 7:21–23) may be compared to the story of Jabez (1 Chronicles 7:4) in that again a child is given a negative name that speaks of a painful past and yet marks a new beginning. Positively, Beriah had a daughter and named her Sheerah (remnant
), who built
cities, a palpable sign of God’s blessing (2 Chronicles 26:5–7), and his line leads to Joshua
(the Lord saves
). This, the only mention of Joshua in Chronicles, is a reminder of the conquest and possession of the land described in the following verses. This is another sign of hope for the community still recovering from the disaster
of exile.10 The Chronicler, moreover, inserts the account as an example of temporary loss and setback overcome providentially by human initiative. What better way to remind his audience that the setback of the exile was only temporary?11
This material shows how a crisis caused by sinful behavior, which put the survival of the tribe of Ephraim at risk, was resolved through the provision of a child whose descendants would establish towns in the tribal allotment of Ephraim (Joshua 16:3, Joshua 16:5) and lead to the conquest of the land (Joshua 1:1–18).12
In its present context Sheerah represents Beriah’s daughter, who is uniquely named the builder of the two Beth Horons, the only instance in the Hebrew Bible where a female is indicated in the role of city builder.13 Uzzen-sheerah is otherwise unknown.
This historical footnote naming Sheerah as the founder of two cities is remarkable for the prominence accorded a woman, but not out of character for the Chronicler. This story, too, emphasising the accomplishments of an individual, serves to encourage each member of the post-exilic community to become involved in restoring Israel to its former glory.14
21 Zabad his son, Shuthelah his son, and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath who were born in the land killed, because they came down to raid their livestock.