The expression identifies a wider paternal clan rather than limiting the office to Shallum’s biological brothers. The construct phrase אֶחָיו לְבֵית־אָבִיו (ʾeḥayw lĕbêt-ʾābîw), literally “his brothers, [belonging] to the house of his father,” is followed by the appositional gentilic הַקָּרְחִים (haqqorḥîm), “the Korahites.” In this genealogical and administrative setting, “brothers” commonly denotes fellow members of a kinship group, while “father’s house” designates the ancestral household or clan. Shallum is therefore presented as the named representative of a larger Korahite body charged with the work of temple service. The genealogy, “son of Kore, son of Ebiasaph, son of Korah,” establishes the legitimate Levitical descent of the group and anchors its duty in inherited clan organization. The Chronicler does not depict the gatekeeping assignment as a private responsibility of Shallum and his immediate siblings. Rather, Shallum and his fellow Korahites stand “over the work of the service” as שֹׁמְרֵי (šōmĕrê), Qal active participles meaning those continually appointed to guard, “the thresholds of the tent.” The participial description portrays an established office, while the reference to their fathers in the following clause places that office within the remembered history of the clan. This corporate use of kinship language accords with the surrounding roster. Verses 17-18 list gatekeepers and their stations, and verses 20-32 describe successive Levitical families entrusted with defined sanctuary duties. The Chronicler’s concern is thus both genealogical and cultic: the postexilic temple personnel are shown to belong to authorized ancestral houses whose service reaches back to Israel’s earlier worshiping community.

The statement attributes David’s military success to Yahweh’s delivering power rather than to David’s independent military capacity. The verb וַיּוֹשַׁע (wayyôshaʿ), a Hiphil wayyiqtol of יָשַׁע (yāšaʿ), commonly denotes causing deliverance or granting victory. Its sense here is broader than rescue from an immediate danger: Yahweh preserved David through his campaigns and gave him victory over the hostile powers encountered in them. David is the direct object, while Yahweh, placed after the verb, is emphatically identified as the effective agent of the victories just narrated. The same declaration occurs in 18:6, after the account of David’s victory over Hadadezer and the Arameans, and reappears in v. 13 after Edom’s subjugation. The repetition frames the foreign campaigns of 18:1-13 as a unified account of divinely granted dominion. It also recalls the covenant promise of 1 Chronicles 17:8, where Yahweh pledged to be with David and to cut off his enemies. Thus the narrator reads David’s expansion not as royal self-exaltation but as the historical outworking of Yahweh’s promise to establish David’s rule and give Israel rest from surrounding enemies. “Wherever he went” is therefore a comprehensive expression within the narrated sphere of David’s wars, not an unrestricted declaration that every act later performed by David possessed divine approval. Chronicles elsewhere records David’s sins and divine discipline. In this context, however, the phrase interprets the victories over Philistia, Moab, Zobah, Aram, Ammon, and Edom as Yahweh’s preservation of his anointed king amid the conflicts necessary to secure the kingdom promised to him.

The appeal to the divine promise does not vindicate David's census as a whole; it explains why the enumeration remained limited and incomplete. Verses 23-24 distinguish David's act from the scope and outcome of the count: David did not include those below twenty, Joab began the census but did not finish it, and the result was not entered into the royal records. The Chronicler thus preserves the judgment of 21:1-22:1 and 27:24 while identifying a boundary beyond which David did not press the numbering. The clause כי אמר יהוה (ki ʾamar YHWH), "for the LORD had said," grounds this restraint in the prior covenantal word. The perfect ʾamar refers to what God had already declared, while the Hiphil infinitive להרבות (leharbôt), "to multiply," recalls the patriarchal promise that Israel's descendants would become as numerous as the stars of heaven. The expression does not suggest that human counting could frustrate God's promise. Rather, it sets the covenantally promised multitude over against an attempt to reduce Israel to a manageable military statistic. The reference to those under twenty also corresponds to the ordinary age threshold for Israel's military musters, so the verse concerns the extension of a military census beyond its conventional object. Accordingly, the verse should not be read as though David had performed a righteous partial census that cancels the guilt attached to the larger enterprise. The census had already been undertaken in a manner that incurred divine displeasure, as 27:24 expressly reiterates. Yet David's failure to number the younger population is presented as a real limitation, apparently reflecting recognition that Israel's increase rested upon the LORD's covenant fidelity rather than royal calculation. The Chronicler's point is therefore both historical and theological: the recorded census was incomplete, and Israel's true multitude derived from God's promise to multiply his people.

The masculine singular suffix in “his daughter” (u-bitto) refers most naturally to Ephraim, not to Beriah. Although Beriah is the son named at the end of v. 23, he is not the grammatical subject of that verse. Ephraim remains the subject throughout: “he went in to his wife,” “she conceived,” “she bore a son,” and “he called his name Beriah.” The transition in v. 24 therefore continues the account of Ephraim’s household, identifying Sheerah as another of Ephraim’s children. This reading also accords with the larger structure of 7:20-29, which traces the Ephraimite line and its territorial associations. The account first records the death of Ephraim’s sons Ezer and Elead, then the birth and naming of Beriah amid that grief, and then preserves the exceptional notice concerning Ephraim’s daughter. The designation does not require Sheerah to be a daughter of Beriah, nor does the text supply a generation between Ephraim and Sheerah. The Chronicler’s genealogy is selective rather than mechanically successive, but the immediate syntax and the continuing focus upon Ephraim establish her as his daughter.

The perfect יָשְׁבוּ (yāšĕbû), Qal perfect third common plural of יָשַׁב (yāšab, “to dwell, settle”), does not identify a preexilic residence in Jerusalem. It functions as an introductory summary for the resident population whose genealogies and offices are specified in vv. 4-34. English versions properly render it with a past tense, “there dwelt,” but the Hebrew perfect here presents the settlement as an established state rather than locating it at a remote point in Israel’s history. The immediate literary setting determines the reference. Verse 2 has already distinguished “the first inhabitants” who returned to their possessions and towns after the exile, while 9:1 recalls Judah’s deportation to Babylon. Verse 3 narrows the focus from the repopulated towns to Jerusalem, and the following material enumerates Judahites, Benjaminites, priests, Levites, gatekeepers, and other temple personnel associated with that restored city. The parallel arrangement with Nehemiah 11, though not verbally identical, likewise concerns the postexilic inhabitation of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the verse should not be read as a detached historical notice that Ephraimites and Manassites inhabited Jerusalem in the monarchic period. Its perfect verb introduces the Chronicler’s account of the restored community centered upon Jerusalem and its temple. The settlement is portrayed as a realized postexilic condition, consistent with the Chronicler’s larger concern to show the continuity of Israel’s worshiping community after judgment and exile.

The possessive expression "his father" (ʾābîw) refers most naturally to Hosah, who heads the clause: "For Hosah, from the sons of Merari, sons: Shimri the head." Shimri is thus presented as one of Hosah's sons, and Hosah is the father who elevated him to the first position. The later enumeration confirms this reading, since vv. 11-12 continue with additional sons and summarize the gatekeeping divisions belonging to Hosah. Grammatically, ʾābîw is the construct form of ʾāb, "father," with a third masculine singular suffix, requiring an antecedent already supplied by the context. No intervening male individual provides a plausible alternative antecedent; Hosah is the named patriarch whose sons are being listed. The designation "from the sons of Merari" identifies Hosah's larger Levitical descent, while bānîm, "sons," introduces his immediate household line for the purposes of the gatekeeper roster. The verse therefore combines clan affiliation with household organization: Hosah belongs to the Merarite branch, and Shimri's precedence among Hosah's sons rested on his father's appointment.

The verse presents Solomon’s name as divinely authorized and programmatic for his appointed reign. The clause “for Solomon shall be his name” (ki Shelomoh yihyeh shemo) follows the Lord’s promise to give him rest from surrounding enemies and is immediately joined to the declaration, “peace and quiet I will give upon Israel in his days.” The name Shelomoh is deliberately associated with shalom, “peace, well-being,” so that the son’s identity is interpreted through the peace God sovereignly grants to Israel during his rule. The repeated first-person verbs, “I will give rest” (haniḥoti) and “I will give” (etten), make clear that Solomon does not create this condition by autonomous political achievement; it is the Lord’s covenantal gift. The relation between Shelomoh and shalom is a literary and theological wordplay, even if the precise historical derivation of the personal name is discussed in lexical study. Within the present oracle its intended association cannot be missed: Solomon is named in connection with the shalom that characterizes his days. This does not mean that the Chronicler depicts Solomon’s reign as without every threat or failure, nor does it reduce peace to private temperament. The following phrase, “upon Israel in his days,” defines the promised peace as a public condition for the covenant people, corresponding to Solomon’s temple-building vocation in the surrounding context. The naming thus distinguishes David’s divinely assigned role amid warfare from Solomon’s divinely assigned role in a period of rest, during which the house for the Lord’s name is to be established.

The Hebrew identifies Eleazar by his father, Dodo, and does not state that Eleazar was a relative of either David or the preceding warrior. The expression אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־דּוֹדוֹ הָאֲחוֹחִי (ʾelʿāzār ben-dôdô hāʾăḥôḥî) is a conventional genealogical designation: “Eleazar son of Dodo the Ahohite.” Although dōd can denote an uncle, beloved, or other close kinsman, the Masoretic vocalization דּוֹדוֹ (dôdô) here functions as a proper name after the construct noun בֶּן (ben, “son of”). The final -ô is therefore part of the name as transmitted, rather than a pronominal suffix yielding “his relative.” The parallel in 2 Samuel 23:9 confirms this understanding by naming “Eleazar son of Dodo, son of an Ahohite.” Chronicles has abbreviated or slightly reshaped the ancestral description as “Dodo the Ahohite,” but it preserves the same identification of David’s warrior. The Ahohite gentilic locates the family within an Israelite clan or locality associated with Ahoah. Thus the verse moves from the first named champion to Eleazar, presenting him as a known member of David’s military elite through his paternal and clan identification, before affirming his place among the Three.

“From Masrekah” most naturally identifies Samlah by his place of origin or association, rather than naming either his father or a clan. The preposition מִן (min, “from”) attached to the place-name מַשְׂרֵקָה (Masreqah) functions as a locative designation: Samlah is known as the man of Masrekah. It need not mean that Masrekah was the royal capital. The narrative gives no statement that he ruled there, and the formula distinguishes a king by a locality in the same manner that the following ruler, Saul, is identified as being “from Rehoboth by the River” (1 Chron. 1:48). Masrekah has not been securely identified archaeologically; proposals connecting its name with a vine or vineyard remain etymologically plausible but geographically inconclusive. Within the succession list, the changing personal and geographical identifications suggest that the Edomite monarchy was not being presented as a single hereditary dynasty. Hadad is identified by his paternal descent and his city, whereas Samlah is identified only by Masrekah; later rulers likewise bear differing local associations. The repeated formula, “he died, and X reigned in his place,” records succession without tracing father-to-son accession. This coheres with the broader heading in 1 Chronicles 1:43, which lists kings who ruled in Edom before an Israelite king reigned, and with the parallel account in Genesis 36:31-39. The text does not disclose the constitutional means by which these rulers were chosen, whether by tribal leadership, military power, or dynastic claims now omitted; it does indicate that the list preserves a sequence of Edomite rulers associated with different places rather than a royal genealogy descended from one house.

Netaim and Gederah are best understood as place names, identifying the settlements in which the Shelahite craftsmen resided. The phrase יֹשְׁבֵי נְטָעִים וּגְדֵרָה (yoshebe Netaim u-Gederah), “inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah,” employs the construct participle יֹשְׁבֵי (yoshebe, “inhabitants of”) in the ordinary manner for residents of particular localities. Although נְטָעִים (netaim) can denote “plantings” and גְדֵרָה (gederah) can denote an enclosure or wall, transparent Hebrew meanings frequently underlie Judean toponyms. The surrounding genealogy likewise repeatedly associates Shelah’s descendants with named places: Lecah, Mareshah, Beth-ashbea, Jokim, and Cozeba (vv. 21-22). The geographical pattern strongly favors reading these terms as settlements rather than as descriptions of agricultural estates or fenced compounds. Gederah is also known as a Judahite locality elsewhere in the Old Testament, though the text does not establish with certainty that the same site is intended here. Netaim cannot be securely identified from extant geographical evidence. The concluding שָׁם (sham, “there”) gathers the preceding references into a statement about a settled occupational group: these potters and inhabitants of the named communities lived in those places while associated with the king’s work. The verse therefore preserves a record of Judahite clan locations and occupations, rather than offering a generalized picture of laborers living among royal plantations and enclosures. The uncertainty of the sites’ modern identification does not weaken their literary function, since the Chronicler’s concern is to locate the Shelahite line within the territorial and economic life of Judah.

The phrase לַבְּשָׂמִים (labbesamim) identifies the aromatic materials with which the ointment was prepared. The participle רֹקְחֵי (roqĕḥê), Qal masculine plural construct from רָקַח (raqaḥ), denotes those engaged in compounding or perfuming, and its object, הַמִּרְקַחַת (hammirqāḥat), denotes a prepared aromatic mixture, especially an ointment. The following lamed phrase specifies the sphere or materials of that preparation: these priestly personnel were compounders of the ointment involving the besamim, the fragrant spices or aromatics. It is therefore unlikely that the phrase means an ointment later employed in connection with spices; the spices are the substances that give the preparation its distinctive character. The wording recalls the cultic prescriptions of Exodus 30. There the sacred anointing oil is called a מִרְקַחַת רֹקֵחַ (mirqaḥat roqeaḥ), "a compounded product of a perfumer" (Exod. 30:25), and it is made from selected aromatic substances. Exodus also distinguishes this oil from the incense burned before the Lord, though both are composed from costly spices and both are protected from common imitation (Exod. 30:32-38). Consequently, 1 Chronicles 9:30 most naturally concerns priestly preparation of holy aromatic ointments, probably including the anointing oil, rather than the manufacture of incense alone. The designation "from the sons of the priests" accords with the sacred character of these preparations and with the Chronicler's concern to identify the ordered personnel responsible for temple holiness.

The phrase "David lived in the stronghold" identifies the captured fortress as David's royal residence and administrative center, yet it does not confine the "City of David" to a palace precinct. The verb וַיֵּשֶׁב (wayyēšeḇ), a Qal wayyiqtol of יָשַׁב (yāšaḇ, "dwell, settle"), marks David's establishment in the place he had just taken. The definite מְצָד (meṣāḏ, "the stronghold") denotes the recognized fortified core of Jebusite Jerusalem, rather than an unspecified military post. The parallel account expressly calls this stronghold "Zion" (2 Sam 5:7, 9); Chronicles omits that name here without locating David elsewhere. Verse 8 distinguishes the fortress from the city developing around it: David "built the city all around," while Joab restored or renewed "the rest of the city." The Millo, probably a substantial supporting or terracing structure within Jerusalem's defenses, helps indicate that the narrative has urban fortification and expansion in view, not only occupation of a citadel. Thus David's residence in the stronghold supplied the political nucleus from which Jerusalem was rebuilt and governed. The title "City of David" consequently arose from David's permanent royal establishment there, though the immediate setting distinguishes the central fortress from the broader inhabited and fortified city.

The clause "these dwelt in Jerusalem" is best read as a genealogical residence notice, not as a direct identification of the preceding Benjaminites with the postexilic returnees enumerated in 1 Chronicles 9. The Qal perfect יָשְׁבוּ (yāšĕbû, "they dwelt" or "they had settled") attaches the named persons or clans immediately preceding to Jerusalem, distinguishing this branch of Benjamin from relatives associated with other localities in the genealogy. It establishes their connection with the city but supplies no explicit date, no reference to return from exile, and no language of restoration. The following chapter does explicitly introduce the inhabitants who first resettled their holdings after the exile (9:2), and it includes Benjaminites among Jerusalem's population (9:7-9). That proximity invites a canonical association between Benjamin, Jerusalem, and the restored community, but it does not collapse the two lists into one chronological register. Chronicles frequently preserves ancestral genealogies alongside notices of later settlement, thereby presenting the postexilic community as continuous with Israel's historic tribal and household order. The closely similar formula in 9:34, concluding a Levitical genealogy, confirms that such statements function as editorial markers of a family's Jerusalem residence rather than as precise chronological dating formulas. Thus 8:28 affirms that the Benjaminite heads named in the list belonged to a Jerusalem-based branch, while chapter 9 provides the more specific postexilic population setting.

“His strength” denotes primarily the LORD’s own might, sought as the effective power of the covenant God, rather than functioning as a direct title for the ark. The noun עֹז (ʿōz, “strength, might”), with the third masculine singular suffix, is coordinated with “the LORD” as the object of the Qal plural imperative דִּרְשׁוּ (diršû, “seek”). The summons therefore calls Israel to pursue the LORD in dependence upon the power that belongs to him and by which he acts for his people. The immediately following appeal to seek “his face” continually identifies this strength with the God whose presence is to be sought, not with an impersonal resource detached from him. The ark nevertheless supplies an important setting for the language. The song is introduced at the time of the ark’s installation (16:1, 7), and elsewhere the ark can be associated with the LORD’s strength or might (Ps 78:61; 132:8). Its presence in Zion was the appointed covenantal sign of the LORD’s enthronement among his people. Yet 1 Chronicles 16:11, corresponding closely to Psalm 105:4, does not name the ark, nor does it use the more explicit expression “ark of your might” found in Psalm 132:8. The immediate cultic setting may thus enrich the command: seeking the LORD’s strength includes seeking him where he has made his name dwell. The wording itself, however, reaches beyond the ark to the divine power manifested in creation, redemption, protection, and covenant faithfulness throughout the historical recital that follows.

The Masoretic arrangement does not explicitly identify the woman denoted by the feminine verb in v. 17 as Bithiah. The verb וַתַּהַר (wattahar), a Qal wayyiqtol third feminine singular of הָרָה (harah, “to conceive”), requires a feminine subject, yet no woman has been named in the immediate clause. The genealogy has just named Mered among Ezrah’s sons, and the most natural implied subject is therefore a wife connected with Mered, whose descendants are being incorporated into the larger Ezrah notice. Her name, however, has not been preserved in this compressed genealogical entry. The closing words of v. 18, “these were the sons of Bithiah daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took,” most directly identify the children named in v. 18: Jered, Heber, and Jekuthiel. The demonstrative אֵלֶּה (ʾelleh, “these”) normally points to the immediately preceding group, while Bithiah is introduced only after that list. On this reading, Bithiah is associated with the woman called Mered’s “Judahite wife” in v. 18, whether the designation reflects her incorporation into Judah through marriage and covenantal identification or functions as a name-like designation. The woman who conceived Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah in v. 17 remains unnamed and may have been another wife of Mered. Some translations rearrange the final clause of v. 18 in sense, placing Bithiah’s identification beside v. 17 in order to supply an antecedent for wattahar and to make Bithiah mother of Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah. That construction relieves the abrupt feminine verb, but it weakens the ordinary forward reference of “these” in v. 18 and depends on a literary reordering not indicated by the Hebrew text. The obscurity is best regarded as a feature of the Chronicler’s abbreviated use of genealogical materials, rather than as sufficient reason to detach Bithiah from the offspring most immediately assigned to her.

Bilhah and Tolad are best understood as variant forms of the towns called Balah and Eltolad in Joshua 19:3, 5. The Chronicler’s sequence substantially follows Joshua’s catalogue of Simeon’s inheritance: Hazar-shual, Balah, and Ezem occur together in Joshua 19:4, while Eltolad follows in 19:5. First Chronicles 4:28-30 preserves the same regional succession, placing Bilhah, Ezem, and Tolad together before Bethuel, Hormah, and Ziklag. The correspondence of order and neighboring place names makes identification more compelling than an attempt to find distinct towns bearing nearly identical names. The Hebrew בִּלְהָה (Bilhah) is a proper noun and should not be identified with the matriarchal servant Bilhah of Genesis. In this context it is a settlement within the towns inhabited by Simeon (1 Chr 4:28). Its fuller spelling, with final he, differs from Joshua’s בַּלָה (Balah), likely reflecting an alternative local pronunciation or orthographic tradition. Likewise, Chronicles’ תּוֹלָד (Tolad) corresponds to Joshua’s אֶלְתּוֹלַד (Eltolad); the initial אֶל (ʾel) may have been lost in transmission or abbreviated in the Chronicler’s source. Such variation among ancient place names is unsurprising, particularly where the consonantal forms are close and the geographical lists independently confirm the identification. The verse therefore continues a recognized Simeonite territorial list, rather than introducing the patriarchal Bilhah or a separate group of otherwise unattested localities.

The use of Israel rather than Jacob identifies the patriarch as the covenantal father of the tribes and situates the Kohathite line within the whole people of God. The final expression, בֶּן־יִשְׂרָאֵל (ben-yisraʾel, "son of Israel"), completes a chain that moves from Izhar through Kohath and Levi to Israel. Israel is not a different ancestor from Jacob, nor does the designation introduce a merely national abstraction; it is the covenant name given to Jacob and regularly used of him as the progenitor of the tribes. The repeated construct noun בֶּן (ben, "son of") marks descent in a compressed genealogical form. In this instance the ancestry coheres with the Pentateuchal record: Levi is Jacob's son, Kohath is Levi's son, and Izhar is Kohath's son (Gen. 46:11; Exod. 6:18, 21). By ending with Israel, the Chronicler places a particular Levitical and Kohathite branch under the identity of Israel as God's covenant people. This accords with Chronicles' sustained interest in showing that the priestly, Levitical, and musical offices belong to Israel's ordered worship and arise from the ancestral structure established by God.

The expression הַנּוֹתָרִים (hannotarim), a Niphal masculine plural participle of יתר (yatar, “remain, be left over”), denotes the residual Kohathite division after the Aaronic priestly line has been distinguished, not survivors of a disaster. The participle is substantival, “the ones remaining,” and its force is organizational and genealogical. It marks those Kohathites who did not belong to the house of Aaron, whose members had already received their priestly cities in the preceding allotment. This distinction follows the larger Levitical arrangement. Aaron belonged to Kohath, but his descendants alone were appointed to the high-priestly office, while other Kohathites retained Levitical responsibilities without sharing that priestly prerogative. The Chronicler therefore first records the cities granted to Aaron’s descendants and then turns to “the remaining sons of Kohath.” The term does not suggest that the Kohathites had been reduced by judgment, warfare, or exile; it classifies the clan according to its divinely ordered ministries. The phrase also accords with the Pentateuchal presentation of Levi’s descendants. Numbers differentiates Aaron and his sons from the other Levites, even where both groups are associated with the sanctuary. Chronicles preserves that distinction in the distribution of cities: the descendants of Aaron receive a defined priestly inheritance, whereas the remaining Kohathites receive Levitical cities by lot. Their designation as “remaining” is thus relative to Aaron’s separated house, not an assertion that they were an insignificant or diminished remnant.

The repetition of Moza’s line identifies 1 Chronicles 9:35-44 as a deliberate reprise of the Benjamite and Gibeonite genealogical material in 8:29-40, rather than as a new list of postexilic Jerusalem residents. Verse 43 corresponds closely to 8:37: Moza "fathered" (hôlîd, Hiphil perfect of yālad) Binea, followed by the successive line Rephaiah, Eleasah, and Azel. Its placement after the lists of Jerusalem’s inhabitants and temple personnel marks a transition from the restored community’s settlement to the ancestral setting of Saul’s family. The larger repeated unit begins with Jeiel, "father of Gibeon" (9:35), and includes both the line through Moza and the line through Ner, Kish, and Saul (9:36, 39). Moza’s descendants are therefore a collateral branch within the same Gibeonite-Benjamite family register; the text does not present Azel as Saul’s ancestor. By preserving this broader family record, the Chronicler situates Saul within Benjamin and Gibeon while retaining related lines that belonged to the inherited tribal archive. The immediate literary purpose becomes evident in 10:1, where the narrative turns to Saul’s death. The genealogy supplies Saul’s familial and tribal identification before recounting the collapse of his house and the transfer of the kingdom to David. Moza’s branch is retained because the Chronicler’s genealogies preserve households and clans, not only the direct line of the principal figure. The duplication also binds the opening genealogical collection to the ensuing royal history: Israel’s restored worshiping community is narrated against the remembered history of Benjamin, Saul, and the rise of David’s house.

The repeated filial formula identifies a true father-to-son Davidic line; it does not attempt to describe the precise political arrangements by which each king exercised rule. In each instance בְּנוֹ (bĕnô), the masculine singular construct of בֵּן (bēn, "son") with a third masculine singular suffix, links the following name to the preceding king: Amaziah was Joash's son, Azariah was Amaziah's son, and Jotham was Azariah's son. The compressed, verbless sequence is characteristic of a genealogy, whose concern is descent and dynastic continuity rather than accession dates, sole reigns, or periods of shared authority. Although bēn can sometimes denote a more remote descendant, the parallel royal narratives establish direct filial relationships in this case. Amaziah is identified as Joash's son, Azariah as Amaziah's son, and Jotham as Azariah's son (2 Kings 14:1, 21; 15:5, 32). The designation Azariah is the name used here for the king commonly called Uzziah in Kings and Chronicles, but the genealogy's point remains the same: the Davidic throne passed through successive generations of David's house. The account of Uzziah's leprosy does not conflict with this lineage. 2 Kings 15:5 and 2 Chronicles 26:21 report that Jotham supervised the royal household and judged the people while his father remained afflicted and excluded from ordinary royal life. Such administrative rule under an incapacitated king does not make Jotham less fully Uzziah's son, nor does it require the genealogical formula to distinguish regency from sole kingship. Chronicles 3:12 records the covenantal and biological continuity of the royal house, while the historical books supply the more complicated circumstances of its governance.