Who are Moses' descendants?

The sons of Moses "the man of God" could not, like their brethren the sons of Aaron, officiate as priests. They were named of the tribe of Levi (1 Chron. 23:14-17). During David's reign, "Shebuel the son of Gershom," Moses' eldest son, was "ruler of the treasures"; while Shelomith, descended from Moses' second son, was, with his brethren, the custodian of "all the treasures of the dedicated things," given expressly for the maintenance of the house of Jehovah (1 Chron. 26:24-28). The honourable position they were privileged to occupy, in David's kingdom, enables us to point to the sons of Moses as a striking example of the fulfilment of that gracious promise, "The children of Thy servants shall continue; their seed shall be established before thee."

But though so much is covered, perhaps these few allusions to the family life of Moses let us into a sad, sad secret of which few, even today, are aware. Can it be that God in His mercy has even now allowed the bitter shame that came to the grandchild of Moses to be covered to most, except to those who love His writings, and delight to dig beneath the surface of the Word? However that may be, if you will turn to the New Translation, or the Revised Version, of Judges 18:30, there you will read the tragic words, "Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land." If this reading is correct, (and probably it is, though perhaps we may not be absolutely sure of it), then the first idol priest recorded in Israel was the grandson of Moses. It is too sad, too tragic, to discuss; and we perhaps do best to leave it, with just this bare statement, as God has left it, without comment; but does it not say to every parent, no matter how honoured he may be; no matter how grace covers it up from the eye of man — yet the sad harvest of his own folly must be reaped.

But there is joy as well as sorrow as we trace the descendants of Moses, for "Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler of the treasures." (1 Chron. 26:24). And Shelomith, descended from Eliezer, Gershom's brother, was another who was "over all the treasures of the dedicated things." (1 Chron. 26:26). This was in the days of David. It is refreshing, indeed, to find these children of Moses entrusted with some of the most responsible work in the kingdom: especially when we remember that "Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Moses" was glad to share in the theft of Micah's treasures. (Judges 18:18-20).

Second son of Moses and Zipporah, so named by Moses because 'God' had been 'his help.' He, with his mother and his brother were left in the care of Jethro until after the Exodus, when they joined Moses in the wilderness. Ex. 18:4; 1 Chr. 23:15, 17; 1 Chr. 26:25.

Eldest son of Moses and Zipporah, born in Midian. Ex. 2:22; Ex. 18:3; Judges 18:30 (see MANASSEH); 1 Chr. 23:15-16; 1 Chr. 26:24.

Son of Eliezer, a son of Moses. 1 Chr. 23:17; 1 Chr. 24:21; 1 Chr. 26:25.

Just at the close we are told who this man is (chap. 18:30). He is the son of (as the Revised Version also renders it) Gershom, the son of Moses, and he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land. This Levite, who took the place of priest in connection with idolatry, was a descendant of no other than Moses himself, the great lawgiver of Israel. What a thought, beloved! Ah, is it not true, is it not written upon every verse that we have read, Ye must be born again? There is no such thing as spiritual descent. There is no such thing as inheriting spiritual traits; and the child of Moses may become the leader in an apostasy, just as much as an enemy of God, as an uncircumcised heathen king.

Just at the close we are told who this man is (Judges 18:30). He is the son of (as the Revised Version also renders it) Gershom, the son of Moses, and he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land. This Levite, who took the place of priest in connection with idolatry, was a descendant of no other than Moses himself, the great lawgiver of Israel. What a thought, beloved! Ah, is it not true, is it not written upon every verse that we have read, "Ye must be born again?" There is no such thing as spiritual descent. There is no such thing as inheriting spiritual traits; and the child of Moses may become the leader in an apostasy, just as much as an enemy of God, as an uncircumcised heathen king.

But now we have revealed one of the saddest proofs of the decline in Israel that had already taken place. The name of the Levite priest is Jonathan ("Jehovah hath given,") the son of Gershom, the son of Moses: scarcely the grandson, but certainly a descendant not far removed, of the great lawgiver. Of this and not Manasseh, as the true reading, there is no doubt. Only respect for so honored a name that of Moses induced the alteration, — the "n" alone needed for it being suspended also over, rather than written in the word. "The significance of the statement," as Cassel observes, lies in the contrast between descendant and ancestor." So early and grave was the degeneracy of the people.

Father of Gershom, the father of Jonathan, the idolatrous priest in the tribe of Dan. Judges 18:30. Jerome, the Vulgate, three Hebrew MSS, and two or three ancient copies of the LXX read Moses instead of Manasseh. In many Hebrew MSS the letter nun (N) is written over or between the letters mem (M) and shin (S), so as to alter the name of Moses to Manasseh. The reason alleged by the Rabbis for the supposed correction is that the copyists desired to clear the name of Moses from the obloquy of having a descendant among idolaters in Israel. We have no other trace of a Gershom being the son of Manasseh; but there was one well known as the son of Moses. Doubtless Moses should be read instead of Manasseh.

The number of the generation following the twelve patriarchs is no way decided. To begin the computation one really ought to take, at any rate, one hundred and thirty-nine, not seventy; that is, take the females in. So the children of Dinah and Serah do not appear at all. The fact of a number of children in one generation says nothing as to the result. Benjamin had many; Reuben had many: neither were large tribes. Does Dr. C. suppose that a forger would have been insensible to this if he had been inventing? It is the strongest possible proof that the account is historical, drawn from facts, for no one would have laid himself open to the objection. There was no need whatever, but that the facts were so, to lend a handle to objectors. It was unnatural, if it were not true. Dr. C. states that Moses' children were only two: I doubt it much. They were only two by Zipporah, but he had married also an Ethiopian woman. It did not concern the scripture history to say anything of children by her. We see from the genealogies that families were reckoned all under one head, if they were not numerous, so as to make a distinct family (1 Chron. 23:10-11); or they might come in as two, when properly the head should have been but one, as Ephraim and Manasseh. If Joseph had had a dozen sons afterwards, they would not have formed distinct families; Gen. 48:6. They would have merged in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.*

107 All these considerations, which lie at the basis of the whole system, are ignored by Dr. C. We have an instance how much the names are taken merely to represent families, and how many may be left out, in the very case Dr. C. mentions; who, in his usual careless and superficial way, does not notice or perceive it, being simply bent on his own object. "The Amramites (he tells us), numbered as Levites in the fourth (Eliezer's) generation, were, as above, only two, namely, the two sons of Moses — the sons of Aaron being reckoned as priests. Hence the rest of the Kohathites of this generation must have been made up of the descendants of Ishar and Uzziel." (Pages 169, 170.) This is because Ishar and Uzziel are mentioned; Exod. 6:21-22. But this is simply that there was some special reason for mentioning them. Kohath had another son, Hebron, who may have had, for aught we know, ten times as many. In a word those are noticed in the genealogies as to whom some special motive existed, others not.

Dr. C. has not even found it out. All his calculation here is based, to say nothing of its general fallacy, upon his not noticing what was before his eyes in the text. But this fact, with a thousand other similar ones, involves a principle which makes the ground of all his calculations fundamentally false. Let the reader note this case, as it may clear his mind as to these statements of families. A genealogical succession is given, and only two sons out of four mentioned. One, it so happens, we can supply as far as it goes, because Moses and Aaron came from that stock; the absence of the other we cannot account for. In this case we are sure of it, because he is mentioned a few verses before. Now it is just as possible — very likely indeed — that Amram may have had a host of sons, besides Moses and Aaron, who are mentioned because of their importance. The names are given more to shew from whom people are descended who are known, than to tell all the descendants. All this Dr. C. has overlooked, and simply made mathematical calculations as if all were given. His whole system is false.