he became the father of
The phrase "became the father of" in Hebrew is יָלַד (yalad), which means to beget or bring forth. This term is used throughout the genealogies in Genesis to denote the continuation of a family line. In the context of Genesis, it emphasizes the importance of lineage and heritage, particularly in the fulfillment of God's promises. The act of fathering these sons is not just a biological event but a significant step in the divine plan for humanity, as it leads to the birth of Abram, a key figure in the biblical narrative.

Abram
The name "Abram" in Hebrew is אַבְרָם (Avram), meaning "exalted father." This name is prophetic, as Abram would become the patriarch of the Israelites and many other nations. Abram's life is a testament to faith and obedience to God, and his journey begins here with his birth to Terah. The mention of Abram in this verse foreshadows the significant role he will play in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan. Abram's account is one of transformation, as he later becomes Abraham, the father of a multitude, highlighting the theme of divine promise and fulfillment.

Nahor
Nahor, in Hebrew נָחוֹר (Nachor), means "snorting" or "snorer," which may seem mundane but reflects the common practice of naming children after everyday experiences or characteristics. Nahor is an important figure in the genealogy of the patriarchs, as he is the grandfather of Rebekah, who becomes the wife of Isaac, Abram's son. This connection underscores the intricate web of relationships that God uses to fulfill His promises. Nahor's inclusion in this verse reminds us of the interconnectedness of God's people and the unfolding of His divine plan through generations.

and Haran
The name "Haran" in Hebrew is הָרָן (Haran), which can mean "mountaineer" or "mountainous." Haran is significant as the father of Lot, who plays a crucial role in the narrative of Abram's life. The mention of Haran also introduces a subplot of loss and separation, as Haran dies before his father Terah, leading to Lot's close association with Abram. This familial relationship sets the stage for future events, including Lot's rescue from Sodom. Haran's life and death serve as a reminder of the fragility of life and the importance of family ties in the biblical narrative.

From this table it appears that 292 years, according to the Hebrew text, passed away between the Flood and the birth, or 292 +75 = = 367 between the Flood and the call of Abraham. Reckoning, however, the age of Torah at Abram's birth as 130 (vide Exposition), the full period between the Deluge and the patriarch's departure from Haran will be 367 + 60 = = 427 years, which, allowing five pairs to each family, Murphy computes, would in the course of ten generations yield a population of 15,625,000 souls; or, supposing a rate of increase equal to that of Abraham's posterity in Egypt during the 400 years that elapsed from the call to the exodus, the inhabitants of the world in the time of Abraham would be between seven and eight millions. It must, however, be remembered that an element of uncertainty enters into all computations based upon even the Hebrew text. The age of Terah at the birth (apparently) of Abram is put down at seventy. But it admits of demonstration that Abram was born in the 130th year of Terah. What guarantee then do we possess that in every instance the registered son was the firstborn? In the case of Arphaxad this is almost implied in the statement that he was born two years after the Flood. But if the case of Eber were parallel with that of Terah, and Joktan were the son that he begat in his thirty-fourth year, then obviously the birth of Peleg, like that of Abram, may have happened sixty years later; in which case it is apparent that any reckoning which proceeded on the minute verbal accuracy of the registered numbers would be entirely at fault. This consideration might have gone far to explain the wide divergence between the numbers of the Samaritan and Septuagint as compared with the Hebrew text, had it not been that they both agree with it in setting down seventy as the age of Terah at the date of Abram's birth. The palpable artificiality also of these later tables renders them even less worthy of credit than the Hebrew. The introduction by the LXX. of Cainan as the son of Arphaxad, though seemingly confirmed by Luke (Luke 3:35, 36), is clearly an interpolation. It does not occur in the LXX. version of 1 Chronicles 1:24, and is not found in either the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Targums or the ancient versions, in Josephus or Philo, or in the Codex Beza of the Gospel of Luke. Its appearance in Luke (and probably also in the LXX.) can only be explained as an interpolation. Wordsworth is inclined to regard it as authentic in Luke, and to suppose that Cainaan was excluded from the Mosaic table either to render it symmetrical, as Luke's table is rendered symmetrical by its insertion, or because of some moral offence, which, though necessitating his expulsion from a Hebrew register, would not prevent his reappearance in his proper place under the gospel.

Parallel Commentaries ...