1 Chronicles 9:35–42

1 Chronicles 9:35 — Jeiel, Father of Gibeon: The passage opens by anchoring the genealogy in place as much as in person. Jeiel is identified not merely by name but as the founding figure ("father") of Gibeon, the prominent Benjaminite city northwest of Jerusalem. The naming of his wife, Maacah — an unusual detail in an otherwise terse register — marks this as a family of some distinction. Maacah is a name associated elsewhere with Aramean royalty and Davidic connections (cf. 2 Sam 3:3), and its appearance here may carry subtle overtones of mixed heritage and geopolitical complexity in Israel's pre-monarchic world. The Chronicler's note that they "lived in Gibeon" is not incidental: Gibeon was a city of enormous cultic importance in the early monarchy, the site of the tabernacle and the great high place where Solomon would later receive his famous dream (2 Chr 1:3–13). To root Saul's ancestry here is to set it, from the very first line, in a place saturated with divine encounter.

1 Chronicles 9:36 — The Sons of Jeiel: Ten sons are listed, of whom the firstborn, Abdon, carries the right of primogeniture. Yet the genealogical line does not pass through Abdon but through Ner (the fifth-listed son), demonstrating the Chronicler's recurring theological motif — already visible in the stories of Jacob over Esau and David over his elder brothers — that God's purposes frequently bypass human expectations of succession. The name Kish appears in the list (v. 36) and again as the son of Ner (v. 39), suggesting either two distinct individuals sharing the name across generations, or the compressed telescoping of generations common in ancient Near Eastern genealogies.

1 Chronicles 9:37–38 — Mikloth and the Jerusalem Connection: The brief note that Mikloth fathered Shimeam, and that this branch of the family "lived with their relatives in Jerusalem, near their relatives," is a subtle but significant observation. It establishes continuity between the Gibeonite Benjaminites and the post-exilic Jerusalem community — the audience the Chronicler is actually addressing. These genealogies are not antiquarian curiosities; they are identity documents, telling the restored community returning from Babylon that their roots reach back, legitimately and unbroken, into the full sweep of Israel's covenantal history.

1 Chronicles 9:39 — The Line to Saul: The genealogical chain tightens: Ner → Kish → Saul. This triple formula ("became the father of") mimics the cadences of creation genealogies and flood genealogies in Genesis, evoking a sense of providential unfolding. Saul's four sons are then listed: Jonathan, Malchishua, Abinadab, and Eshbaal. The last name, Eshbaal ("man of Baal"), is striking — in the parallel text of 2 Samuel 2:8 he is called Ish-bosheth ("man of shame"), a deliberate scribal substitution to erase the theophoric element linking a son of Israel's king to the Canaanite deity. The Chronicler, however, preserves the original name without apology, suggesting his concern is historical completeness over polemical sanitization.

1 Chronicles 9:40 — Merib-baal: Jonathan's son is here called Merib-baal, again preserving an older form that 2 Samuel 4 and 9 render as Mephibosheth. Merib-baal is the crippled prince whom David sheltered at his table "for Jonathan's sake" — one of Scripture's most luminous episodes of covenantal loyalty (hesed). The Chronicler records his name without elaboration, trusting the reader to carry that story's weight. Merib-baal fathered Micah, extending the Saulide line.

Verses 41–42 — The Descendants of Micah: Four sons of Micah are listed, and the line continues through Ahaz to Jarah (or Jehoaddah in 8:36), who in turn fathers Alemeth, Azmaveth, and Zimri, from whom the line reaches Moza. The genealogy extends six generations beyond Saul, demonstrating that his house, though displaced from the throne, was not annihilated. This quiet persistence of Saul's lineage carries a typological weight: God preserves the remnant even of failed dynasties, a foreshadowing of divine mercy that transcends human failure.

Typological and Spiritual Senses: The Fathers read the lineage of Saul as a sober illustration of the contrast between election and perseverance. Saul was genuinely chosen (1 Sam 9:17) yet lost his anointing through disobedience. The Glossa Ordinaria and later scholastic commentators noted that the preservation of Saul's biological descendants, even as the Davidic line bore the messianic promise, teaches the distinction between the gifts of nature (lineage, talent, even charismatic calling) and the gift of fidelity, which alone is crowned.

From a Catholic theological perspective, this genealogy participates in what the Catechism calls the "pedagogy of God" (CCC §1950, §122) — the gradual and patient manner in which God educates His people through history, including its shadows and failures. The Chronicler, writing for the post-exilic community, does not suppress the line of Saul even though it represents a monarchy that ended in catastrophe. This reflects a profound theological conviction: that the entirety of salvation history, including its broken branches, belongs to the patrimony of faith.

St. Augustine, in The City of God (Book XVII), reflects on the reign of Saul as a figure of the earthly city — endowed with real gifts but ultimately oriented toward self rather than God. For Augustine, Saul's tragedy is not that he was unchosen, but that he was chosen and squandered his election through pride and disobedience — a warning that applies to every baptized Christian who possesses real grace but risks losing it through spiritual presumption. This is consistent with the Council of Trent's teaching (Session VI, Canon 23) that no one, without special divine revelation, can be certain of perseverance in grace — a teaching that gives this genealogy genuine pastoral edge.

The name Eshbaal also invites reflection on the Catholic theology of inculturation. That a son of Israel's king bore a name referencing a Canaanite deity illustrates the permanent danger of syncretism — the blending of covenantal faith with surrounding religious cultures. The Church's Magisterium, particularly in Nostra Aetate and the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, acknowledges that authentic inculturation purifies rather than absorbs the errors of ambient cultures, precisely the correction implied when later scribes changed Eshbaal to Ish-bosheth.

The mercy shown to Merib-baal (v. 40), the crippled grandson of Saul sheltered by David, resonates with the Church's understanding of covenant fidelity (hesed) as a prefiguration of God's unconditional love — what Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est (§9) called the divine eros that pursues humanity even into its brokenness and disgrace.

These verses offer a striking counterintuitive gift for the contemporary Catholic: the reminder that sacred history has room for genealogies of failure. In an age of social media highlight reels and curated identity, the Chronicler insists on listing Eshbaal, Merib-baal the lame, and the descendants of a king whose story ended in divine rejection — not to shame them, but because they belong. Every Catholic family carries its own shadows: estranged relatives, ancestors who abandoned the faith, or personal chapters we'd rather not revisit. This passage invites us to resist the urge to edit our own story. The Church has always held that honest memory is a spiritual discipline; the Examen of St. Ignatius of Loyola begins precisely with looking clearly at where we have been. Moreover, the survival of Merib-baal's line through David's covenant loyalty is a concrete image of how God's mercy reaches even into the inheritance of our failures. Catholics struggling with a sense of spiritual disqualification — feeling that past sins, broken families, or failed commitments have excluded them from God's story — will find in these verses the stubborn insistence that God's genealogy has no dead ends.