1 CHRONICLES 24 COMMENTARY

EDITED BY GLENN PEASE

The Divisions of Priests

1These were the divisions of the descendants of Aaron:

The sons of Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

GILL, "Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron,.... Into the classes or courses following:

the sons of Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar; 1Ch_6:3, these were the immediate sons of Aaron; but the division or distribution of them into classes are of their posterity in the times of David, who descended from the two latter.

HENRY 1-19, "The particular account of these establishments is of little use to us now; but, when Ezra published it, it was of great use to direct their church affairs after their return from captivity into the old channel again. The title of this record we have v. 1 - These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron, not by which they divided one from another, or were at variance one with another (it is a pity there should ever be any such divisions among the sons of Israel, but especially among the sons of Aaron), but the distribution of them in order to the dividing of their work among themselves; it was a division which God made, and was made for him. 1. This distribution was made for the more regular discharge of the duties of their office. God was, and still is, the God of order, and not of confusion, particularly in the things of his worship. Number without order is but a clog and an occasion of tumult; but when every one has, and knows, and keeps, his place and work, the more the better. In the mystical body, every member has

1

its use, for the good of the whole, Rom_12:4, Rom_12:5; 1Co_12:12. 2. It was made by lot, that the disposal thereof might be of the Lord, and so all quarrels and contentions might be prevented, and no man could be charged with partiality, nor could any say that they had wrong done them. As God is the God or order, so he is the God of peace. Solomon says of the lot that it causeth contention to cease. 3. The lot was cast publicly, and with great solemnity, in the presence of the king, princes, and priests, that there might be no room for any fraudulent practices or the suspicion of them. The lot is an appeal to God, and ought to be managed with corresponding reverence and sincerity. Matthias was chosen to the apostleship by lot, with prayer (Act_1:24, Act_1:26), and I know not but it might be still used in faith in parallel cases, as an instituted ordinance. We have here the name of the public notary that was employed in writing the names, and drawing the lots, (1Ch_24:6): Shemaiah, one of the Levites. 4. What those priests were chosen to was to preside in the affairs of the sanctuary (1Ch_24:5), in their several courses and turns. That which was to be determined by the lot was only the precedency, not who should serve (for they chose all the chief men), but who should serve first, and who next, that every one might know his course, and attend in it. Of the twenty-four chief men of the priests sixteen were of the house of Eleazar and eight of Ithamar; for the house of Ithamar may well be supposed to have dwindled since the sentence passed on the family of Eli, who was of that house. The method of drawing the lots is intimated (1Ch_24:6), one chief household being taken for Eleazar, and one for Ithamar. The sixteen chief names of Eleazar were put in one urn, the eight for Ithamar in another, and they drew out of them alternately, as long as those for Ithamar lasted, and then out of those only for Eleazar, or two for Eleazar, and then one for Ithamar, throughout. 5. Among these twenty-four courses the eighth is that of Abijah or Abia (1Ch_24:10), which is mentioned (Luk_1:5) as the course which Zechariah was of, the father of John the Baptist, by which it appears that these courses which David now settled, though interrupted perhaps in the bad reigns and long broken off by the captivity, yet continued in succession till the destruction of the second temple by the Romans. And each course was called by the name of him in whom it was first founded, as the high priest is here called Aaron (1Ch_24:19), because succeeding in his dignity and power, though we read not of any of them that bore that name. Whoever was high priest must be reverenced and observed by the inferior priests as their father, as Aaron their father. Christ is high priest over the house of God, to whom all believers, being made priests, are to be in subjection.

JAMISON, "1Ch_24:1-19. Division of the sons of Aaron into four and twenty orders.

Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron — (See on 1Ch_23:6).

K&D, "The division of the priests and Levites into classes. - Vv. 1-19. The twenty-four classes of priests. After the statement as to the fathers'-houses of the Levites (1 Chron 23), we have next the arrangements of the priests for the performance of the service in the sanctuary; the priestly families descended from Aaron's sons Eleazar and

2

Ithamar being divided into twenty-four classes, the order of whose service was settled by lot.

1Ch_24:1 contains the superscription, “As for the sons of Aaron, their divisions (were these).” To make the division clear, we have an introductory notice of Aaron's descendants, to the effect that of his four sons, the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, died before their father, leaving no sons, so that only Eleazar and Ithamar became priests

_i.e., entered upon the priesthood. The four sons of Aaron, 1Ch_24:1, as in 1Ch ,(יכהנו)

6:3, Exo_6:23.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:1-2. These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron — The several branches into which that family was divided. Therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office — Their brethren being dead, and leaving no issue, they and their sons were the only persons to whom the execution of that office could be committed according to the law.

ELLICOTT, "1 Chronicles 24 contains (1) an account of the organisation of the priests in twenty-four classes (1 Chronicles 24:1-19); (2) a recapitulation of the Levitical classes, as described in the last chapter (1 Chronicles 24:20-31).

Verse 1

(1) Now these are the divisions.—Literally, And for the sons of Aaron, their divisions (were as follows). The sentence forms a superscription to the section (1 Chronicles 24:1-19).

The sons of Aaron are named above (1 Chronicles 6:3). (Comp. Exodus 6:23.) As usual, the writer starts ab ovo.

COFFMAN, "Due to the fact that many thousands of the Levites were eligible to participate in the temple services, it was necessary that some systematic manner of determining the order in which they would serve was required. One must be impressed with the manner of David's making such a determination by lot, duly witnessed by all parties concerned.

"Princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God" (1 Chronicles 24:5). "The distinction between these is not clear."[1] Curtis (Madsen) wrote that, "The two terms are probably synonymous."[2]

PAEKER. " 1 Chronicles 24-26

FROM the twenty-fourth chapter to the end of the book we find much that cannot be turned to spiritual profit, yet here and there we come upon single expressions which are very significant and beautiful. What we lose in continuity, therefore, we may gain in single values. Continuity is not the only excellence to be studied. The string is

3

continuous, but the pearls which are hung upon it are single. Do not despise a single stone, a single flower, a single ear of wheat. Men do not despise pounds sterling on the ground that each sovereign is a separate coin: why then pass over single expressions that are rare or quaint or beautiful or tender? Let us go gleaning and see what we can bring home.

"Thus they were divided by lot [literally, "And they divided them by lot, these with those"], one sort with another" ( 1 Chronicles 24:5).

"The principal fathers over against their younger brethren" [literally, "The elder house equally with his younger brother." That Isaiah , "All the Levitical houses enumerated drew lots in their courses on equal terms, the elder families having no advantage over the younger ones"] ( 1 Chronicles 24:31).

This is but an illustration of the previous expression, "One sort with another." Here is a marvellous idea of democracy, "the principal fathers over against their younger brethren." Then men are not all of one age; that ought to be a blessing: then all men are not old; that should be a comfort: then all men are not principal fathers; what a delightful reflection! There may be a vital mutually-helpful relation between the two. The senior ought to be the superior. Let us see how that stands to fact and reason. The proposition is not, A senior is a superior; for then a thousand facts would pour down upon our poor argument like a torrent, and wash it away; the proposition Isaiah , The senior ought to be the superior, for he has had more time, more experience, more opportunity; he has seen how things combine, disintegrate, and recombine, and shape themselves into new forms, and betake themselves to uncalculated issues. Yet his own son rebukes him over the table, and gives him to know by the most circumlocutory methods that he is not as wise as he is old; there is no bluntness in the speech, there is a filial euphemism which entirely denudes the senior speaker of his natural crown. A man is not necessarily wise because he is old. People have gone through the world, and have never seen it Many people are tourists who are not poets; many have looked upon the mountains, and have not seen one of them. Many men have allowed fifty summers to pass, in all their daintiness and loveliness and radiance and music, and have not made a single acquaintance among the fifty. Yet there is a democratic principle even in this text which seems to classify men so sharply; for it might be read literally thus, "the chief just like his younger brother." Office did not make men vain; seniority did not inspire contempt towards junior life. Some men have been kings, and yet have been the simplest children in the world; they were above their thrones, verily they sat on their thrones, they were not crushed by them as by a splendid incubus. It is possible for an old man to be quite young in feeling, disposition, aspiration, sentiment, and to be the very centre of the gracious storm of child-laughter.

Still the distribution proceeds, and, taking one sort with another, we have this classification—

"Moreover David and the captains of the host [rather, "the princes" the same persons who are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23:2, and 1 Chronicles 24:6] separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy [rather,

4

"divided for the service the sons of Asaph, etc, who prophesied." By prophesying is probably meant public recitation of the sacred services (see 1 Chronicles 24:3)] with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals" ( 1 Chronicles 25:1).

Let us analyse these indications. We want warriors; there is not one in this list: we need builders; there is not a man in the catalogue that ever built anything that could be seen or valued arithmetically: we want legislators, men who can make duty mysterious, and dissolve responsibility in polysyllables; there is no such erratic genius in this guild. Whom have we? Prophets; for the word is "prophesy," and to prophesy means in this connection to teach, to reveal doctrines, to indicate duty, to exhort to service, to reveal the will and purpose of heaven. With what apparatus are these men furnished? Harps, psalteries, cymbals. They were known amongst their fellows as a guild of sacred minstrels. When a man prophesies he utters under a spiritual influence. We do not know how much we are indebted to music. He would be the most combative man that ever lived who would fight with a tune; the tune will not fight. There are atheists who have shed tears under the influence of what is known as sacred music. Then they were not far from the kingdom of God: they were only atheists argumentatively. How many men have committed suicide by the razor of logic! They were never meant to be logicians. When you see a man take hold of a razor you do not exhort him to be careful, because you know that he can handle it wisely; but if you saw a little child open a case and take out a razor, how you would exclaim, how you would rush to the rescue; how you would deprecate the audacity of the thoughtless little creature! It is even so with the Church. There are some infants we cannot keep away from the razor-case: if they would only take their seat within one inch of the organ they might be saved. How are these musicians described in the verse? They are described by a word which some men would begrudge; they are described as "the workmen." It should be put more vividly than this, namely, "the men working." But is music work? Certainly. Is a song a sacrifice? Yes, if sung with the whole heart. He labours who toils with his hands. Probably, but not he only. He labours who gives his brain away, who imparts to others the fragrance of his love, who makes the world welcome to all the hospitality of his prayers. He is a labourer who puts things into sweet musical rhyme for us. Sometimes we get our children to persuade themselves that they are enjoying an amusement when they are learning, in fact, the multiplication table, through the medium of rhyme. Children who would abhor the multiplication table if it were set before them nakedly would come up to it quite loving and sympathetically if they might sing it all through. So there are men who help to sing us into our duties, and who help us to sing in the discharge of those duties, and who show us, by a mysterious power given to them of God, that all work should blossom into play, all service should find its fruition in song. There are those who have distinguished between sacred music and secular music. What a marvellous faculty of analysis such men must have! There are those who talk about sacred and profane history. By what right do they so talk? What history is profane? Is there anything profane that belongs to the development of humanity, the cultivation of the total nature of man? Are we to attach a stigma to the study of history, to the perusal of those documents and records which testify to the progress of all manner of human thought? There are persons who can sing bad common metre in the church, and think it pious; whereas they could not listen to a sweet domestically beautiful song in church without a shudder. The only thing to be done with such is to let them shudder. We must see to it that the religious spirit is maintained, and nothing can maintain it so healthily as music. To think that the enemy has all the brass bands but about a dozen! whereas the church ought to have every one, and he ought to

5

be considered a thief who plays anything on an instrument that could not be played in the church. There was music in the Old Testament sanctuary; men praised the Lord loudly and sweetly in the ancient time.

"Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six" ( 1 Chronicles 25:3).

There are not six, there are only five: where is the sixth? When an arithmetical number is put before us we are entitled to begin counting. "Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah,"—five. But the Chronicler says there were six. Then why did he not write six names down? We are entitled to inquire always for the missing man. Woe unto that shepherd who allows one little lamb to go, and not trouble about him: woe to that friend who can allow one of his comrades to fall out of the ranks, and never ask a question about his doom. How was the sixth name omitted? By a clerical error? Then we should find it again. It is of small consequence to be omitted by the clerk; the clerk is not almighty. It is of small account that our name be not found on the record of the visible church because some careless writer has omitted to inscribe it there. Has he gone out of the list by proved incapacity? Could he not play the harp? Did he make a false noise with the cymbals? Let us ask the question. Has he gone out by moral lapse? Was the fool caught in some snare, the existence of which he did not suspect? Was he treading in dangerous paths, and seized by a ruffian hand, when he ought to have kept near the altar and found his security at home? We cannot tell. In this instance, the sixth man was found again. He is omitted from verse number three, but he is found in verse number seventeen. Do lists dwindle? Do friends grow fewer? They may grow fewer in one sense, and yet may be stronger in another, they may be but transplanted. The dead are not lost; they love the twilight, they can unfold themselves in shadows, they can speak through dreams; call not those dead who have gone up to be ennobled and crowned.

Regarding these six men we read of them still in verse three, as "under the hands of their father." The picture is a lovely one. It is that of six sons being conducted in musical exercise by their father. Let the picture shape itself vividly to the mental eye: six sons, with harps, psalteries, and cymbals, and the father conducting, educating, keeping them together, making all the sounds one, reconciling all the exercise into one blessed harmony. What is a father for if he is not to be a conductor? Some fathers are too separate from their families. What is a pastor to be if not a conductor? and what are children for if they set up for themselves on a basis of absolutely foolish independence? The inquiry is a two-edged sword: take care how you lift it up, for it is a dangerous weapon.

"The sons of Asaph." ( 1 Chronicles 26:1)

That name we know. We find it in chapter26 , 1 Chronicles 26:1. Asaph was a sweet singer, Asaph was a psalmist, Asaph occurs again and again in the Psalm; so that when we come upon his name in the Book of Chronicles we feel that we had anticipated the coming in of a friend. Is that not a pleasing reflection? But unfortunately this is not the same Asaph. Do not be led away by letters and syllables, for this man is quite another

6

Asaph; not the chief musician Asaph who has done so much for the church. In this instance we had an abbreviation of the man"s real name, which was Ebiasaph. We ourselves sometimes cut names in two. We describe a man by a variation of the name his parents gave him. How we leaped when we saw "Asaph," as if we had known him, whereas it was not the man at all. Some very curious instances of this kind occur in Scripture. The most noticeable probably is this, "Judas, not Iscariot." Why that guarding word? We know why. Shall we take up some sweet human name and so use it that men who bear the same name will have to guard themselves against a ruinous identification with us? Have we spoiled a name? When our mother gave it to us it was pure as morning dew; now it is like a drop of black poison: men who carry that name say in the public journals, "We are not to be mistaken for the other man." "Judas, not Iscariot," not the bag-bearer, not the thief, not the traitor; "Judas," but not the bad Judas. There is also another use for the term. Sometimes we have to say, "Asaph, not the chief musician." The deprecation, then, is on the other side. Men have names that have been rendered illustrious, and because they have been burdened with them they have to apologise for their own littleness. This is cruel to children. A parent ought to think much before he calls his child "John Milton," or "Martin Luther," or "Oliver Cromwell," or "John Wesley," or "George Whitefield." Another instance we have in the expression, "James the Less." That would seem to be really an undeserved stigma upon an obscure person; he might have been let alone. But we must have such criticism if we are to be exact in our identifications. Then we read, "the other Mary." There were many Marys, and there was "the other Mary"; each had her distinctions, peculiarities, or excellences. Let us see to it that our name has attached to it some token of which men are not ashamed. We may be spoken of as the suppliant mighty in prayer, the philanthropist generous with both hands, the father that can always find another seat at the table, the mother that will not put an Amen to her prayer until the prodigal is quite home.

"Zechariah... a wise counsellor" ( 1 Chronicles 26:14).

Not a musician, but a wise counsellor; no use with firearms, if we must modernise the expression, but great in sagacity; nothing with his hands, but an army with his head. "Zechariah" is in the singular number, and also in the plural number. Let us take heed of our parsing. There are terms even in English which are both singular and plural, and there is no atom of distinction between the one number and the other, so far as the shape of the name in type is concerned. "Zechariah" was a Prayer of Manasseh , and "Zechariah" was a tribe, a clan, or a guild. We think the word "Guild" a modern invention. Practically, it is in the Bible as everything else is in the Bible; seek, and ye shall find. Zechariah the man could give counsel; he knew what Israel ought to do, for he had understanding of the times; there was no problem too entangled for him to simplify, there was no case that he could not throw light upon; he had that peculiar insight which amounts to inspiration; he was never consulted in vain; when men thought they had a very great question, Zechariah , by one sentence, showed that after all it was a very small problem; and when men supposed themselves equal to the discussion of the problem, by one inquiry Zechariah widened the horizon, and showed them how gifted they were with simple incapability.

Thus in this field of names we have gleaned somewhat. The gleaner must not be mistaken for the reaper: but he would be a careless husbandman who did not glean his

7

fields as well as reap them. So now and again in these biblical studies it is well to go back to do a day"s gleaning, and come home in evening twilight to thank God for handfuls that might have been lost. These chapters bristle with names; there are names we can hardly pronounce: the great lesson is that we may be somewhere in God"s list Let each say, Oh, thou who keepest life"s book, let me have a place on some page! If I cannot be with the warriors, may I not be with the musicians? If I cannot be with the musicians, may I not be with the porters, the door-openers, the lamplighters, of the sanctuary? If I may not be near the king, may I not be near the door? Of what avail is it to be on any list of man"s invention and creation if we are omitted from the record on high? There is a book in heaven—a book called the Book of Life; if a man"s name be written there, fire cannot burn it. How are names to be written there? Through him who is the life, the blessed eternal Son of God. What are we doing? Great wonders, famous miracles? Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven. Crush the demon Envy that says, Try to rise from one list into another; do not be content with being a porter, a doorkeeper, when you might be a wise counsellor or a skilled musician. Rather say, The Lord gave me what I have in the way of faculty and talent; I see the number is only one, but a great deal can be done with one talent; as I have only one I cannot spend time in talking to you; I must leave you and get to work, so as to make as much as possible of the one talent. Or, I see the number is only two, but two is plural, and, once in the plural, who can tell where one may end? I will hasten, and double the dowry. In this spirit let us live, crushing envy, dismissing jealousy, contenting ourselves with God"s method of election and endowment, because it is to him, and not to Prayer of Manasseh , we must render the last account.

GUZIK, "1 CHRONICLES 24 - THE SECTIONS OF THE PRIESTHOOD

A. The twenty-four divisions of the priesthood.

1. (1 Chronicles 24:1-6) The sons of Aaron and what became of them.

Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. And Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar ministered as priests. Then David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to the schedule of their service. There were more leaders found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar, and thus they were divided. Among the sons of Eleazar were sixteen heads of their fathers’ houses, and eight heads of their fathers’ houses among the sons of Ithamar. Thus they were divided by lot, one group as another, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of the house of God, from the sons of Eleazar and from the sons of Ithamar. And the scribe, Shemaiah the son of Nethanel, one of the Levites, wrote them down before the king, the leaders, Zadok the priest, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and Levites, one father’s house taken for Eleazar and one for Ithamar.

a. Nadab and Abihu died before their father: God judged Nadab and Abihu because they dared to bring strange fire before the LORD, blaspheming God’s commandments for sacrifice (Numbers 10:1-2).

8

b. Divided them according to the schedule of their service: David took the descendants of Aaron - the priestly family of Israel - and together with Zadok he divided them into 24 sections, to serve according to the schedule of their service.

i. “Two aspects of this service are emphasized - that it is to be regulated in an orderly system of twenty-four courses (1 Chronicles 24:1-19), and that it provides a pattern to be followed by the priests’ Levitical assistants (1 Chronicles 24:20-31).” (Selman)

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 24:1

The Hebrew of this verse reads, And to the sons of Aaron, their divisions מחלקותם ); the sons of Aaron: Nadeb and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. The word "divisions" is the same word that is translated "courses" in 1 Chronicles 24:6, and which verse also would read literally, "And David divided them divisions to the sons of Levi, to Gershon, Kohath, and Merari." Our present verse evidently continues both the subject and construction of that verse. Of the four sons (Exodus 6:23), two died without issue, viz. Nadab and Abihu (1 Chronicles 24:2); and the other two have to supply the "chief men of the house," viz. Eleazar sixteen, and Ithamar eight (1 Chronicles 24:4).

2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father did, and they had no sons; so Eleazar and Ithamar served as the priests.

CLARKE, "Nadab and Abihu died before their father - That is, during his lifetime.

Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office - These two served the office during the life of their father Aaron; after his death Eleazar succeeded in the high priesthood. And under Eli the high priest, the family of Ithamar re-entered into that office.

9

GILL, "But Nadab and Abihu died before their father,.... While he was living, see Lev_10:1.

and had no children, therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priests' office: otherwise, as Jarchi observes, had their brethren left children, they would have come into the office before them.\

JAMISON, "Nadab and Abihu died before their father — that is, not in his presence, but during his lifetime (see Num_3:4; Num_26:61).

therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office — In consequence of the death of his two oldest sons without issue, the descendants of Aaron were comprised in the families of Eleazar and Ithamar. Both of these sons discharged the priestly functions as assistants to their father. Eleazar succeeded him, and in his line the high priesthood continued until it was transferred to the family of Ithamar, in the person of Eli.

K&D, "Cf. Lev_10:1., Num_3:4. These priestly families David caused (1Ch_24:3) to be divided, along with the two high priests (see on 13:16), “according to their service.”

.office, official class, as in 1Ch_23:11 ,פקדה

ELLICOTT, (2) But Nadab and Abihu died before their father.—Leviticus 10:1-2 tells why: viz., because they offered “strange fire” before the Lord. (See also Numbers 3:4, from which our text appears to be derived.)

And had no children.—Literally, And sons had not become (been born) to them.

Therefore Eleazar and Ithamar.—And Eleazar and Ithamar acted as priests; Numbers adds, “before the face of Aaron their father.” It is implied that the office of the priesthood remained with the two lines, or houses, of Eleazar and Ithamar.

PARKER, ""But Nadab and Abihu died before their father."— 1 Chronicles 24:2.

This ought to be regarded as unnatural.—What is it that interferes with the regular flow and progress of natural law? The father should die first; the eldest in the family should be first married; the richest should be the kindest; the oldest should be the wisest: yet continually are all these supposed ordinances and laws turned upside down in practical life.—We should make an idol of continuity if we could reckon upon it in all forms and under all conditions. God destroys the monotony of life, and thus he animates men with various impulses, and brings some to reflection who might otherwise be heedless.—Let it

10

be known that every man shall live a certain number of days, and shall die at a well-known time; let it be known that men cannot succeed to office until this day ten years or twenty years; and life will become benumbed, and in many cases monotony will kill ambition, and put an end to healthy preparation.—Instead of this, however, we live in uncertainty; the king may die tomorrow, and the next man may be wanted; the father may pass away to-night, or the eldest son may die in the morning, and the father may have to follow his firstborn to the grave.—Thus God will not allow us to speculate in the future, to tell fortunes, to forecast events and destinies; he will compel us to live, so to say, from hand to mouth, a day at a time, not knowing what a day may bring forth.—Even insecurity may be so sanctified as to become a blessing.—We are always to take heed, to be watchful, to be on our guard; we know not at what hour the King may come; the only the thing we are certain of is that he will come; and being certain of this one fact we should strive after needful preparation.—We cannot tell who will die first, but we can all be prepared for death, and the father may be able to rejoice that his son has gone home first, and the son may be able to thank God that his father has completed a beautiful and useful life.

PULPIT, "(Comp. Leveticus 1 Chronicles 10:1, 1 Chronicles 10:2, for the death of these; and for their being childless, Numbers 3:2-4; Numbers 26:60, Numbers 26:61.)

3 With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar and Ahimelek a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into divisions for their appointed order of ministering.

BARNES, "Zadok and Ahimelech (rather Abiathar, see 1Ch_24:6) assisted David in drawing up the priestly courses, as the “captains of the host” assisted him in making the divisions of the singers 1Ch_25:1.

CLARKE, "And Ahimelech - Ahimelech is put here for Abiathar, who was high

11

priest in the days of David. Abiathar had also the name of Ahimelech, as well as his father. See Calmet.

GILL, "And David distributed them,.... The posterities of Eleazar and Ithamar into certain classes or courses:

both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar; these were the two principal men of the respective families, the one was high priest, and the other "sagan" or deputy; or they both officiated as high priests alternately, until the one was removed in Solomon's time, and the other established alone. And now their brethren the priests, who were under each of these, are the persons David divided into classes:

according to their offices in their service: to perform their office as priests in the service of the temple in their turns.

JAMISON, "Zadok ... and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar — This statement, taken in connection with 1Ch_24:6, is not a little perplexing, since (2Sa_15:24, 2Sa_15:35; 2Sa_20:25) Abiathar is mentioned as the person conjoined in David’s time with Zadok, in the collegiate exercise of the high priesthood. Some think that the words have been transposed, reading Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. But there is no ground for regarding the text as faulty. The high priests of the line of Ithamar were the following: Ahiah or Ahimelech, his son Abiathar, his son Ahimelech. We frequently find the grandfather and grandson called by the same name (see list of high priests of the line of Eleazar, 1Ch_6:30-41). Hence the author of the Chronicles was acquainted with Ahimelech, son of Abiathar, who, for some reason, discharged the duties of high priest in David’s reign, and during the lifetime of his father (for Abiathar was living in the time of Solomon, 1Ki_2:27) [Keil].

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:3. And David distributed them, &c. — To avoid all confusion, now that they were much increased, he distributed the priests, as he had done the Levites, into several courses, allotting to each of them the times wherein they should by turns have the government of holy ministrations.

ÉLLICOTT, " (3) And David distributed them.—The same phrase as at 1 Chronicles 13:3. (See Note there.)

Both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar.—This expression forms part of the subject of the Hebrew sentence. The construction is like that in 1 Chronicles 24:2, “And Nadab died, and Abihu.” Thus, “And David divided them, and Zadok and Ahimelech,” i.e., “And David, with Zadok and Ahimelech, divided them.” The meaning is that Zadok and Ahimelech, the heads of the houses of Eleazar and Ithamar, assisted David in the classification of the priests.

12

According to their offices.—Rather, According to their official class (1 Chronicles 23:11).

PULPIT, "The Hebrew of this verse reads, And David divided them, and Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimalech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices ,And the evident purport of it is that the three, David .( בעבדתם ) in their service ,( לכסדתם )Zadok, and Ahimelech, conjointly made the arrangements. This is virtually repeated in 1 Chronicles 24:6, 1 Chronicles 24:31 (see also 1 Chronicles 25:1 for an analogous case). For the "Ahimelech" of this verse and 1 Chronicles 24:6, 1 Chronicles 24:31, should be read "Abiathar," as shown in 1 Chronicles 18:16, by comparison of 1 Samuel 22:20; 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Kings 1:7, 1 Kings 1:8; Mark 2:26.

4 A larger number of leaders were found among Eleazar’s descendants than among Ithamar’s, and they were divided accordingly: sixteen heads of families from Eleazar’s descendants and eight heads of families from Ithamar’s descendants.

GILL, "Zadok ... and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar — This statement, taken in connection with 1Ch_24:6, is not a little perplexing, since (2Sa_15:24, 2Sa_15:35; 2Sa_20:25) Abiathar is mentioned as the person conjoined in David’s time with Zadok, in the collegiate exercise of the high priesthood. Some think that the words have been transposed, reading Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. But there is no ground for regarding the text as faulty. The high priests of the line of Ithamar were the following: Ahiah or Ahimelech, his son Abiathar, his son Ahimelech. We frequently find the grandfather and grandson called by the same name (see list of high priests of the line of Eleazar, 1Ch_6:30-41). Hence the author of the Chronicles was acquainted with Ahimelech, son of Abiathar, who, for some reason, discharged the duties of high priest in David’s reign, and during the lifetime of his father (for Abiathar was living in the time of Solomon, 1Ki_2:27) [Keil].

13

JAMISON, "there were more chief men found — The Hebrew may be translated, “There were more men as to heads of the sons of Eleazar.” It is true, in point of fact, that by the census the number of individuals belonging to the family of Eleazar was found greater than in that of Ithamar. And this, of necessity, led to there being more fathers’ houses, and consequently more chiefs or presidents in the former.

K&D, "As the sons of Eleazar proved to be more numerous in respect of the heads of the men than the sons of Ithamar, they (David, Zadok, and Ahimelech) divided them thus: “For the sons of Eleazar, heads of fathers'-houses, sixteen; and for the sons of

Ithamar, (heads) of fathers'-houses, eight.” לראשי הגברים means neither in respect to the

number of the men by the head (cf. 1Ch_23:3), nor with respect to the chiefs of the men, divided according to their fathers'-houses (Berth.). The supplying of the words, “divided

according to their fathers'-houses,” is perfectly arbitrary. The expression ראשי הגברים is

rather to be explained by the fact that, according to the natural articulations of the people, the fathers'-houses, i.e., the groups of related families comprehended under the

name בית־אבות, divided themselves further into individual households, whose heads were

called גברים, as is clear from Jos_7:16-18, because each household had in the man, הגבר,

its natural head. ראשי הגברים are therefore the heads, not of the fathers'-houses, but of the

individual households, considered in their relation to the men as heads of households.

Just as בית־אב sa tsuJ .s is a technical designation of the larger groups of households into

which the great families fell, so הגבר is the technical expression for the individual

households into which the fathers'-houses fell.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:4. Among the sons of Eleazar were sixteen chief men, &c. — He appointed, therefore, sixteen courses of the sons of Eleazar, under as many heads of their families, and half as many of the posterity of Ithamar.

ELLICOTT, " (4) And there were more chief men found.—Literally, And the sons of Eleazar were found more numerous as regards the heads of the men than the sons of Ithamar. The basis of division was not the individual members of the different families, but the heads of them. There were more head men, or heads of households, deriving from Eleazar than from Ithamar.

Chief men.—Heb., heads of the men, i.e., heads of single families or households; just as “heads of the fathers “denotes heads of groups of fathers or clans. (Comp. Joshua 7:14; Joshua 7:16-18.) Of course, as the heads of households were more numerous, the total number of priests claiming descent from Eleazar must likewise have been more numerous than their kinsmen the Ithamarites.

And thus were they divided . . . fathers.—Rather, And they divided them: to the sons of Eleazar, heads of father-houses, sixteen, and to the sons of Ithamar, to their father-

14

houses, eight (heads). They (i.e., David and the two high priests) divided them (1 Chronicles 24:3.)

PULPIT, "The simpler translation of this verse might run thus: And there were found (of) sons of Eleazar, more for chief men, than (of) sons of Ithamar, and they divided them—to sons of Eleazar, sixteen chiefs of fathers' houses; and to sons of Ithamar, eight.

5 They divided them impartially by casting lots, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar.

BARNES, "One sort with another - i. e., “the assignment of their order in the courses was made by lot to the families belonging to Eleazar, and to the families belonging to Ithamar, equally.” Both houses had furnished functionaries of the highest class, and therefore no preference was now given to either over the other.

CLARKE, "They divided by lot - This prevented jealousies: for, as all the families were equally noble, they had equal right to all ecclesiastical and civil distinctions.

GILL, "Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another,.... Which course should serve first, and which next, and so on; and who should be the chief to each course; which course was to serve a week, and then go out; and this method was taken to prevent envy, strife, and contention about precedence:

for the governors of the sanctuary; or of the holy things, or who presided in things ecclesiastical:

15

and governors of the house of God: or rather "governors of God", appointed by him judges in civil things:

were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar: there were, of both families, some employed both in sacred and civil things, and who presided in each.

JAMISON, "Thus were they divided by lot — This method of allocation was adopted manifestly to remove all cause of jealousy as to precedence and the right of performing particular duties.

K&D, "They divided them by lot, אלה עם־אלה, these with these, i.e., the one as the

other (cf. 1Ch_25:8), so that the classes of both were determined by lot, as both drew lots mutually. “For holy princes and princes of God were of the sons of Eleazar, and among the sons of Ithamar;” i.e., of both lines of priests holy princes had come, men who had held the highest priestly dignity. The high-priesthood, as is well known, went over entirely to Eleazar and his descendants, but had been held for a considerable period in the time of the judges by the descendants of Ithamar; see above, pp. 444f. In the settlement of the classes of priests for the service, therefore, neither of the lines was to

have an advantage, but the order was to be determined by lot for both. שרי קדש, cf. Isa_

2Ch_36:14, are the high priests and the heads of the priestly ,שרי הכהנים = ,43:28

families, the highest officers among the priests, but can hardly be the same as the

ἀρχιερεῖς of the gospel history; for the view that these ἀρχιερεῖς were the heads of the

twenty-four classes of priests cannot be made good: cf. Wichelhaus, Comment. zur

Leidensgesch. (Halle, 1855), S. 32ff. שרי האלהים would seem to denote the same, and to be

added as synonymous; but if there be a distinction between the two designations, we would take the princes of God to denote only the regular high priests, who could enter in before God into the most holy place.

COKE, ". Governors of the house of God— Governors of God, 1:e. the judges, says Houbigant. The ministers of religion are expressed in the foregoing words, the governors of the sanctuary. Grotius has very justly observed, that governors of God, never signify in the sacred writings those who minister to God, but governors in the common-wealth, chiefs, or judges.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:5. Thus were they divided by lot — That the business being committed, in this way, to the Divine disposal, there might be no occasion for complaint, and so all contentions might be prevented, as no man could be charged with partiality, nor could any say they had wrong done them. Solomon says, the lot causes contention to cease. It is evident from the Scriptures, that it was a very ancient custom to refer matters of a doubtful nature to the decision of the lot; and, in particular, persons were often chosen in this way to sacred offices. But, as it is an appeal to God, it ought to be managed

16

with a proper reverence and sincerity. Thus Matthias was chosen to the apostleship by lot with solemn prayer. “And I know not,” says Henry, “but it might still be used, in faith, in parallel cases, as an instituted ordinance.” One sort with another — Both the sons of Eleazar and those of Ithamar were thus chosen, who should wait together. Governors of the house of God — Hebrew, governors of God; that is, the judges, says Houbigant. The ministers of religion are expressed in the foregoing words, the governors of the sanctuary. It is very justly observed by Grotius, that governors of God never signify, in the sacred writings, those that minister to God, but governors in the commonwealth, chiefs, or judges. Were of the sons of Eleazar and the sons of Ithamar — These two families had obtained the chief functions, both in the temple and in the magistracy; which could not be distributed so well any way as by lot, without danger of envy among themselves.

ELLICOTT, " (5) Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another.—Literally, And they divided them by lots, these with those: i.e., the sons of Eleazar with those of Ithamar, the clans of each standing together, apart from those of the other, and the lots being drawn for each alternately. The object was to decide the question of precedence in the order of ministration (comp. Luke 1:5; Luke 1:8-9), the liturgical functions being, of course, the same for all.

For the governors of the sanctuary . . .—Better, for there had arisen holy princes (“lords spiritual”) and princes of God (both) from among the sons of Eleazar, and from among the sons of Ithamar. The decision was referred to the equal arbitrament of the lot, because there had been, and were, distinguished heads of priestly houses belonging to both lines of descent. “Princes of the sanctuary” (Isaiah 43:28)—the phrase is equivalent to “princes of the priests” (2 Chronicles 36:14). “Princes of God”—an expression (sârê ’ĕlôhîm) not found elsewhere; it is either synonymous with the last, or perhaps denotes the high priests. (Comp. Notes on 1 Chronicles 6:4-6.) The term “Prince of God” (nĕsî ’ĕlôhîm) is applied to Abraham (Genesis 23:6), apparently in the sense of mighty prince, which may be the meaning here.

POOLE, " Thus were they divided by lot; partly to prevent that envy or emulation which otherwise might arise among them; and partly that all men’s minds and consciences might be fully satisfied in the order now established by this Divine way of decision.

Governors of the house of God; but that is no other than the sanctuary; and so it may seem to make this division improper and irregular, the several members of it being altogether the same. Or rather, of the things of God, i.e. of all persons ministering in the sanctuary, and of all holy ministrations done in it, and of all other matters of the Lord, as they are called by way of distinction from the king’s matters, 2 Chronicles 19:11.

PULPIT, "Translate, And they divided them by lots, these with those; i.e. as there was no ground of choice between the two families, which differed only in number, and as the highest ecclesiastical places had been filled already by both of them, the impartiality of the "lot" was resorted to, for the settling of the order in which they would take the services now in question (1 Chronicles 25:8). The governors; read rather, the princes. The distinction intended between "the holy princes," or "princes of the sanctuary," on

17

the one hand, and "the princes of God" on the other, is not very clear. One instance of the former expression is found in Isaiah 43:28. Keil supposes there may be no distinction between them, but adds that if there is, he would take the "princes of God" to stand for the regular high priests exclusively, viz. those who could enter into the most holy place before God. The "princes of God" is a title evidently illustrated by the word "Israel" (Genesis 32:28).

6 The scribe Shemaiah son of Nethanel, a Levite, recorded their names in the presence of the king and of the officials: Zadok the priest, Ahimelek son of Abiathar and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites—one family being taken from Eleazar and then one from Ithamar.

BARNES, "Wrote them before the king - i. e., “wrote down their names as the lots were drawn forth.”

Ahimelech the son of Abiathar - A wrong reading. It should be “Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech.” See the 2Sa_8:17 note.

CLARKE, "And Shemaiah - “Moses the great scribe, who is called Shemaiah, the son of Nethaneel, of the tribe of Levi, wrote them down.” - T.

One principal household - for Eleazar - The family of Eleazar was the most illustrious of the sacerdotal families, because Eleazar was the first-born of Aaron, Ithamar’s family was the second in order and dignity; therefore one of the principal families of Eleazar was first taken, and then one of Ithamar’s, and thus alternately till the whole was finished.

18

GILL, "And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe,.... The Targum is, Moses the chief scribe, so called: one

of the Levites wrote them: the lots, and the names upon them, put into the urn, and as they came out, which was first, second, &c. and this was done

before the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the fathers of the priests and Levites; and in this public manner, before such great personages, and in the presence of those that were interested in the affair, that it might appear plainly no fraudulent methods were taken, and that there might be no suspicion of any:

one principal household being taken for Eleazar, and one for Ithamar; the sense of Jarchi as above, and other Jewish writers, is, that one was added to each family of Eleazar, and so made sixteen, and Ithamar's were retained, and left as at first, eight: but the sense is, that first one family of Eleazar was taken, and then one of Ithamar's family, and then one of Eleazar's again, and so on until sixteen were gone through; and then the other eight were divided under so many heads of the family of Eleazar.

JAMISON, "one principal household — The marginal reading is preferable, “one house of the father.” The lot was cast in a deliberate and solemn manner in presence of the king, the princes, the two high priests, and the chiefs of the priestly and Levitical families. The heads of families belonging to Eleazar and Ithamar were alternately brought forward to draw, and the name of each individual, as called, registered by an attendant secretary. To accommodate the casting of the lots to the inequality of the number, there being sixteen fathers’ houses of Eleazar, and only eight of Ithamar, it was arranged that every house of Ithamar should be followed by two of Eleazar, or, what is the same thing, that every two houses of Eleazar should be followed by one of Ithamar. If, then, we suppose a commencement to have been made by Eleazar, the order would be as follows: one and two, Eleazar; three, Ithamar; four and five, Eleazar; six, Ithamar; seven and eight, Eleazar; nine, Ithamar; and so forth [Bertheau]. The lot determined also the order of the priests’ service. That of the Levites was afterwards distributed by the same arrangement (1Ch_24:31).

K&D 6-18, "one principal household — The marginal reading is preferable, “one house of the father.” The lot was cast in a deliberate and solemn manner in presence of the king, the princes, the two high priests, and the chiefs of the priestly and Levitical families. The heads of families belonging to Eleazar and Ithamar were alternately brought forward to draw, and the name of each individual, as called, registered by an attendant secretary. To accommodate the casting of the lots to the inequality of the number, there being sixteen fathers’ houses of Eleazar, and only eight of Ithamar, it was arranged that every house of Ithamar should be followed by two of Eleazar, or, what is

19

the same thing, that every two houses of Eleazar should be followed by one of Ithamar. If, then, we suppose a commencement to have been made by Eleazar, the order would be as follows: one and two, Eleazar; three, Ithamar; four and five, Eleazar; six, Ithamar; seven and eight, Eleazar; nine, Ithamar; and so forth [Bertheau]. The lot determined also the order of the priests’ service. That of the Levites was afterwards distributed by the same arrangement (1Ch_24:31).

COKE, "1 Chronicles 24:6. One principal household being taken for Eleazar— That is, one of the principal families of Eleazar was first taken, and then one of Ithamar's, and thus alternately till the whole was finished. See Houbigant's note.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:6. Shemaiah, the scribe, wrote them before the king — Their names were written and put into an urn, out of which the lots were to be drawn: which, that there might be no suspicion of fraud, were drawn before the king, the princes, the high-priest and his assistant, and before the several families of priests and Levites. One principal household being taken for Eleazar, &c. — That is, one of the principal families of Eleazar was first taken, and then one of Ithamar’s, and thus alternately, till all the families of Ithamar had received their lot. And afterward all the lots came forth to the rest of Eleazar’s families, which were double in number to those of Ithamar.

ELLICOTT, " (6) And Shemaiah . . . wrote them.—Made a list of the names in the order determined by lot, as given below (1 Chronicles 24:7-18).

The chief of the fathers.—Better, the heads of the houses or clans.

One principal household being taken . . .—The Hebrew text is corrupt, but we may with great probability restore the original reading by the change of a single letter, and translate, one clan was drawn for Eleazar, and one drawn for Ithamar: i.e., alternately. So one Hebrew MS. The LXX. has, “one by one for Eleazar, and one by one for Ithamar.” (So some Hebrew MSS. The Syriac and Vulg. read, “one house for Eleazar, and another house for Ithamar.”) The chances would be that the Ithamarites would all be drawn before the Eleazarites. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 25:22-31, where ten “sons of the Hemanite” are left over, and drawn last.)

POOLE, " Or, the chief (which word is easily supplied out of the context) of one house of the fathers was taken (to wit, by lot)

for Eleazar, ( i.e. out of his family,) and that which was taken after it was

taken for Ithamar, i.e. out of his family. The meaning is, that the first lot fell to Eleazar, and the second to Ithamar, and the third to Eleazar, and the fourth to Ithamar; and so successively, until all the families of Ithamar had received their lots; and afterwards all the lots came forth to the rest of Eleazar’s families, which were double in number to those of Ithamar, as was said, 1 Chronicles 24:4.

20

PULPIT, "The person who acted as clerk or secretary on the occasion, and the whole number of the witnesses, and the lot-taking itself, are here given. The present Hebrew text repeats the word אחז (taken) twice, before the name of Ithamar, at the end of the sentence. The evident and easy correction of the first occurrence of which into אחד (one) will make the clause and sense correspond with what goes before. Bertheau, however, and Keil, and some others do not accept this correction, and would keep the present Hebrew text, the first-named, moreover, contending that the repetition of the word for "taking" points to two lots being represented by each house of Ithamar, whose total number was only eight, for one of Eleazar, whose total was sixteen. Not only does the repetition of the present Hebrew text not avail to authorize such a supposition, but the supposition itself would be unsupported and gratuitous. What is really told us amounts to this only, that the drawing was first from the collection of families under the name of Eleazar, and then from that descended from Ithamar. For anything we are here told, the urn of Ithamar can have held out only half as long as that of Eleazar, and it can be only conjecture to suppose that two lots were drawn from the urn of Eleazar for every one from that of Ithamar, so as to make them run out together at the end. Could any one of the names from sixteen to twenty-four that are recorded in this chapter as "coming forth" in the shape of a "lot," be identified as belonging to families descended from Ithamar, the question might be solved. Ahimelech the son of Abiathar; read, as above, 1 Chronicles 24:3, 1 Chronicles 18:16, etc; Abiathar the son of Abimelech.

7 The first lot fell to Jehoiarib,

the second to Jedaiah,

GILL 7-18, "one principal household — The marginal reading is preferable, “one house of the father.” The lot was cast in a deliberate and solemn manner in presence of the king, the princes, the two high priests, and the chiefs of the priestly and Levitical families. The heads of families belonging to Eleazar and Ithamar were alternately brought forward to draw, and the name of each individual, as called, registered by an attendant secretary. To accommodate the casting of the lots to the inequality of the number, there being sixteen fathers’ houses of Eleazar, and only eight of Ithamar, it was arranged that every house of Ithamar should be followed by two of Eleazar, or, what is the same thing, that every two houses of Eleazar should be followed by one of Ithamar. If, then, we suppose a commencement to have been made by Eleazar, the order would be

21

as follows: one and two, Eleazar; three, Ithamar; four and five, Eleazar; six, Ithamar; seven and eight, Eleazar; nine, Ithamar; and so forth [Bertheau]. The lot determined also the order of the priests’ service. That of the Levites was afterwards distributed by the same arrangement (1Ch_24:31).

ELLICOTT, " (7) Jehoiarib . . . Jedaiah.—See 1 Chronicles 9:10. The Maccabean princes were of the house of Jehoiarib (1 Maccabees 2:1).

Came forth.—From the urn (Joshua 16:1; Joshua 19:1).

Verses 7-10

(7-10) The order of the twenty-four classes of priests, as decided by the drawings. We have no means of discovering to which of the lines individual clans belonged, whether to that of Eleazar or to that of Ithamar.

GUZIK, "2. (1 Chronicles 24:7-19) The priesthood is divided by lot into 24 sections.

Now the first lot fell to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah, the third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim, the fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin, the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah, the ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah, the eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim, the thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab, the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer, the seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Happizzez, the nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezekel, the twenty-first to Jachin, the twenty-second to Gamul, the twenty-third to Delaiah, the twenty-fourth to Maaziah. This was the schedule of their service for coming into the house of the LORD according to their ordinance by the hand of Aaron their father, as the LORD God of Israel had commanded him.

a. This was the schedule of their service for coming into the house of the LORD: David knew that because there were so many descendants of Aaron by this time, the priests should be divided so they could fairly be assigned the privildged service of the temple.

i. “In later Jewish practice, the number of twenty-four courses was based on a lunar calendar of forty-eight weeks, with each course serving for a week at a time and thus twice in a year.” (Selman)

ii. “With the passage of time, some of the Davidic courses died out or had to be consolidated with others, and new ones were formed to take their places. At the first return from exile in 527 B.C., only four courses were registered. . . . By 520 twenty-two were again operative, (Nehemiah 12:1-7), but only half of them were the courses as originally organized by David.” (Payne)

PULPIT, "Jehoiarib. Written thus only here and in 1 Chronicles 9:10; elsewhere always Joiarib. He then is the head of the first of the twenty-four courses of priests in David's

22

time, and according to his plan. (For the evidence of the return of some of this family from the Exile, see Nehemiah 11:10, though the text of this clause is very suspicious; Nehemiah 12:6, Nehemiah 12:19; see also interesting article under this name, with tables, Smith, 'Bible Dictionary,' 1:946.) Jedaiah. (For the return of some of the descendants of this family, see Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 7:39; comp. also Nehemiah 12:6, Nehemiah 12:7, Nehemiah 12:19, Nehemiah 12:21.)

8 the third to Harim,

the fourth to Seorim,

ELLICOTT, " (8) Harim—i.e., hârûm, flat-nosed. (Comp. Latin Naso.) This name recurs in Ezra 2:39; Nehemiah 3:11.

Seorim (barley)—i.e., bearded (Latin, Barbatus), is not found elsewhere.

PULPIT, "Harim, 15). The sons of Harim mentioned in Ezra 2:32; Ezra 10:31; Nehemiah 7:35; Nehemiah 10:27, were not a priest-family. Seorim. This name does not occur again.

9 the fifth to Malkijah,

the sixth to Mijamin,

ELLICOTT, " (9) Malchijah.—Nehemiah 3:11.

Mijamin.—Looks like on the right hand. Perhaps the first syllable is a disguise of

23

Mê (water—a metaphorical term for son), and then the name would be equivalent to Benjamin (Nehemiah 12:5).

PULPIT, "Malehijah. An earlier priest of this same name is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:12, who is again mentioned in Nehemiah 11:12; Jeremiah 21:1; Jeremiah 38:1. The name in our present verse is probably the same as that found in Nehemiah 10:3 (see also Nehemiah 12:42). The Malchijah of Nehemiah 3:11 and Ezra 10:25 is the name of an Israelitish layman. Mijamin. In like manner, this as a family name reappears in Nehemiah 10:7; Nehemiah 12:5 (in the form Miamin), 17, 41 (in the form Miniamin); see also 2 Chronicles 31:15, where the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Peshito Syriac read Benjamin. The name as of a layman also appears in Ezra 10:25.

10 the seventh to Hakkoz,

the eighth to Abijah,

ELLICOTT, " (10) Hakkoz.—The thorn. (Comp. koz, thorn, 1 Chronicles 4:8.)

Abijah.—Called “Abia” (Luke 1:5). To this class or course of the priests belonged Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist.

PULPIT, "Hakkoa The first half of this word is the definite article, as may be seen in Nehemiah 3:4, Nehemiah 3:21 and Ezra 2:61, where the name is found, as in the cases above, for the priest-family. Abijah (see again Nehemiah 10:7; Luke 1:5). To this course, therefore, Zaharias, father of John the Baptist, belonged.

24

11 the ninth to Jeshua,

the tenth to Shekaniah,

ELLICOTT, " (11) Jeshuah.—Heb., Yĕshûa’; in Greek, ἰησοῦ, Jesus (Ezra 2:2). The name only occurs in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The Syriac and Arabic read “Elisha” here.

Shecaniah.—1 Chronicles 3:21. This was a common name in the post-exilic age (Iah is a neighbour).

PULPIT, "Jeshuah. In Ezra 2:36 and Nehemiah 7:39 certain "children of Jedaiah," who returned from Babylon, are mentioned as belonging to the "house of Jeshua," and distinguished presumably thereby from children of another Jedaiah. This accords with the fact that in Nehemiah 12:6, Nehemiah 12:7, and again in 19, 21, two families of the name Jedaiah are given in the priest-lists. We may, therefore, conclude that families descended from the Jeshuah of our present verse were among those who returned from captivity (Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 7:39). Shecaniah (see Nehemiah 12:3, where spelt Shechaniah). Of those similarly named in Ezra 8:3, Ezra 8:5, the former may possibly have been descendants of this Shecaniah, the latter not so.

12 the eleventh to Eliashib,

the twelfth to Jakim,

ELLICOTT, " (12) Eliashib (God will restore).—1 Chronicles 3:24.

Jakim (He, i.e., God, or Jah, will establish).—Equivalent to Eliakim and Jecamiah (1 Chronicles 8:19).

25

PULPIT, "Eliashib. Not the progenitor of the Eliashib of Nehemiah 3:1, Nehemiah 3:20, Nehemiah 3:21; for see 1 Chronicles 12:10, 1 Chronicles 12:22, 1 Chronicles 12:23, for the pedigree of the latter. Jakim, This name does not reappear.

13 the thirteenth to Huppah,

the fourteenth to Jeshebeab,

ELLICOTT, " (13) Huppah.—(Covering, canopy; Isaiah 4:5). Here only as a proper name; but comp. “Huppim” (1 Chronicles 7:12).

Joshebeab.—Only here. It means, May the Father (i.e., God) cause to lead captive! But the LXX. reads ιεσβααλ, or ισβααλ : i.e., Eshbaal, “man of Baal.” So Vulg., “Isbaab.”

14 the fifteenth to Bilgah,

the sixteenth to Immer,

ELLICOTT, " (14) Immer.—1 Chronicles 9:10; Jeremiah 20:1 (perhaps a lamb).

Bilgah.—Nehemiah 10:9 (“Bilgai”), 12:5 (smiling; comp. Isaac, the laugher).

PULPIT, "Bilgah… Immer. The former name reappears, not for the same per-sen, in Nehemiah 12:5, Nehemiah 12:18; and, under a slightly altered form, Bilgai, in Nehemiah 10:8. The latter is the name of a family known already (1 Chronicles

26

9:12), and which became much better known (Ezra 2:37; Ezra 10:20; Nehemiah 3:29; Nehemiah 7:40; Nehemiah 11:13; Jeremiah 20:1). The notices parallel to one another (Ezra 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61) are interesting, but obscure. They probably speak of a place called Immer, but even this is not quite clear.

15 the seventeenth to Hezir,

the eighteenth to Happizzez,

ELLICOTT, " (15) Hezir.—Hog. (See Nehemiah 10:21.) The Syriac and Arabic read “Ahaziah;” but Vulg. and LXX. prove “Hezir.”

Aphses.—Heb., ha-piççêç (the scatterer): here only. LXX. αφεσση; Vulg., “Aphses;” Syriac and Arabic, “Phasin.”

16 the nineteenth to Pethahiah,

the twentieth to Jehezkel,

ELLICOTT, " (16) Pethahiah.—Ezra 10:23, (Iah openeth, i.e., setteth free). (Comp. Jephthah: He, i.e., Iah, openeth.)

Jehezekel.—Heb., Yĕhezqêl: Ezekiel.

PULPIT, "Pethahiah… Jehezekel. The former name reappears as one of those who separated themselves from the alliances they had contracted in the land of their captivity (Ezra 10:23; Nehemiah 9:5). The latter is in its characters ( יחזקאל ) the

27

same with those of Ezekiel, though here Englished Jehezekel!

17 the twenty-first to Jakin,

the twenty-second to Gamul,

ELLICOTT, " (17) Jachin.—Genesis 46:10; 1 Kings 7:21 (He, i.e., Jah, setteth up, maketh firm). The same name as Jehoiachin.

Gamul.—Here only as proper name (weaned, Isaiah 11:8).

PULPIT, "Jachin… Gamul. The latter of these names is not found again in any connection with a priest-family. Of the former we read as well in 1 Chronicles 9:10 as in Nehemiah 11:10, and probably he is the Achim of Matthew 1:14.

18 the twenty-third to Delaiah

and the twenty-fourth to Maaziah.

ELLICOTT, " (18) Delaiah.—1 Chronicles 3:24, a common post-exilic name (Jah draws out, i.e., frees): but comp. Jeremiah 36:12, and Note on 1 Chronicles 3:1.

Maaziah.—Here only. Perhaps “Maadiah” (Nehemiah 12:5) should be read. So Syriac, “Ma’adyâ;” Arabic, “Mi’diyyâ.” But LXX. (Vat.), “Maasai” (? Maaseiah); Vuig., “Maaziau.”

PULPIT, "Delaiah… Maaziah. The spelling of the former of these names, as it appears here and in Jeremiah 36:12, Jeremiah 36:25, differs by the addition of a

28

shurek ( ו ) from the name, spelt the same in the English Version, found in 1 Chronicles 3:24; Nehemiah 6:10; Nehemiah 7:62; Ezra 2:60. The latter name recurs in Nehemiah 10:8, etc; though without a final shurek.

19 This was their appointed order of ministering when they entered the temple of the Lord, according to the regulations prescribed for them by their ancestor Aaron, as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded him.

BARNES, "These were the orderings ... - i. e., “this was the numerical order fixed for their ministerial attendance in the house of the Lord - an attendance which was after the manner determined for them by their forefather Aaron, according to instructions which he received from God.”

CLARKE, "Under Aaron their father - That is, they followed the order and plans laid down by Aaron during his lifetime.

GILL, "These were the orderings of them,.... Their classes or courses into which they were divided:

in their service to come into the house of the Lord; to perform their service in the temple, according to their turns, and in course as fixed by lot; one class or course served one week, and then went out, and another came in, each consisting of 1000 men, see 1Ch_23:4.

according to their manner; law, right, custom, here prescribed for them: under Aaron their father; that is, him who was high priest for the time being; who bore this name because his successor and representative, under whose inspection, direction, and

29

authority, all the rest of the priests were, and whom they were to obey in all things:

as the Lord God of Israel had commanded him; to take care they should be done.

K&D, "These were the orderings of them,.... Their classes or courses into which they were divided:

in their service to come into the house of the Lord; to perform their service in the temple, according to their turns, and in course as fixed by lot; one class or course served one week, and then went out, and another came in, each consisting of 1000 men, see 1Ch_23:4.

according to their manner; law, right, custom, here prescribed for them: under Aaron their father; that is, him who was high priest for the time being; who bore this name because his successor and representative, under whose inspection, direction, and authority, all the rest of the priests were, and whom they were to obey in all things:

as the Lord God of Israel had commanded him; to take care they should be done.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 24:19. Under Aaron their father— The high-priest is here called by the general name of Aaron, as being his successor. The meaning is, "under the inspection of the high-priest."

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:19. These were the orderings of them — In this order and method they were to come to perform the offices of the temple. To come into the house — To come into the temple every sabbath day, and to continue there till the next sabbath, when they were relieved by others. Under Aaron — Under the direction of the high-priest, whom he calls Aaron, because he represented Aaron’s person, and executed his office; and their father — Because of the authority which, by God’s appointment, he had over them.

ELLICOTT, " (19) These were the orderings of them in their service.—Better, These were their classes for their service.

According to their manner, under Aaron.—Better, according to their rule (or order; Vulg., ritum), ordained through Aaron, &c. (See Numbers 2:1; Numbers 4:1; Numbers 4:17.) All the sacerdotal functions were fixed, and each of the twenty-four classes undertook the weekly discharge of them in rotation with the rest, beginning on the Sabbath (2 Kings 11:9; 2 Chronicles 23:8). Josephus (Ant. vii. 14, 7) declares that the arrangements of David lasted down to his own day.

2. Recapitulation of the Levitical classes (1 Chronicles 24:20-31). (Comp. 1 Chronicles 23:12-23.)

POOLE, " These were the orderings of them in their service; in this order and method they were to come to perform the offices of the temple. To come into the house of the Lord, according to their manner, i.e. to come into the temple every sabbath day, and to continue there all the week long until the next sabbath, when they were relieved by

30

others, as the manner was: see 2 Kings 11:5 1 Chronicles 9:25.

Under Aaron their father, i.e. under the inspection and direction of the high priest, whom he calls Aaron, because he represented his person, and executed his office, and also came out of his loins, and

their father, because of the authority which by God’s appointment he had over them, and that love, reverence, and obedience which they owed to him.

PULPIT, "The order has been thus given of the twenty-four classes or courses of the priests. Each course served a week from the seventh day to the seventh (2 Kings 11:9; 2 Chronicles 23:8). An interesting allusion to this order of courses is tacitly made in Ezekiel 8:16-18, where the twenty-fifth idolater may be supposed to be the high priest. Some have, on very insufficient grounds, supposed that this "ordering" of courses was not really the institution of David, but attributed to him after the Exile for the sake of the authority of his name. In Nehemiah 12:1-7, moreover, the names do not appear as even twenty-four, but twenty-two—deficient by two!—a thing most easily to be accounted for. In addition to the direct scriptural witness on this subject, Josephus's ('Ant.,' Nehemiah 7:14) testimony confirms the account of our present chapter, while Movers and Dehler (in Herzog's 'R.E.,' 12:185) effectively combat the positions of De Wette and Gramberg, and of Herzberg, in his 'History of the People of Israel.'

The Rest of the Levites

20 As for the rest of the descendants of Levi:

from the sons of Amram: Shubael;

from the sons of Shubael: Jehdeiah.

BARNES, "The object of this second enumeration of the Levitical families (compare 1 Chr. 23:7-23) seems to be the designation of the heads of the families in David’s time. The omission of the Gershonites is curious, and can only be accounted for by supposing

31

that the author did not find any account of their heads in his authorities. The addition to the Merarites 1Ch_24:26-27 is also curious. It brings the number of families up to twenty-five, which is one more than we should have expected.

GILL, "The object of this second enumeration of the Levitical families (compare 1 Chr. 23:7-23) seems to be the designation of the heads of the families in David’s time. The omission of the Gershonites is curious, and can only be accounted for by supposing that the author did not find any account of their heads in his authorities. The addition to the Merarites 1Ch_24:26-27 is also curious. It brings the number of families up to twenty-five, which is one more than we should have expected.

HENRY 20-31, "The object of this second enumeration of the Levitical families (compare 1 Chr. 23:7-23) seems to be the designation of the heads of the families in David’s time. The omission of the Gershonites is curious, and can only be accounted for by supposing that the author did not find any account of their heads in his authorities. The addition to the Merarites 1Ch_24:26-27 is also curious. It brings the number of families up to twenty-five, which is one more than we should have expected.

K&D, "The classes of the Levites. - The superscription, “As to the other Levites” (1Ch_24:20), when compared with the subscription, “And they also cast lots, like to their brethren the sons of Aaron” (1Ch_24:31), leads us to expect a catalogue of these classes of Levites, which performed the service in the house of God at the hand of, i.e., as

assistants to, the priests. הנותרים are the Levites still remaining after the enumeration of

the priests. We might certainly regard the expression as including all the Levites except the Aaronites (or priests); but the statement of the subscription that they cast lots like the sons of Aaron, and the circumstance that in 1 Chron 25 the twenty-four orders of singers and musicians, in 1 Chron 26:1-19 the class of the doorkeepers, and in 1Ch_26:20-32 the overseers of the treasures, and the scribes and judges, are specially enumerated, prove that our passage treats only of the classes of the Levites who were employed about the worship. Bertheau has overlooked these circumstances, and, misled by false ideas as to the catalogue in 1 Chron 23:6-23, has moreover drawn the false conclusion that the catalogue in our verses is imperfect, from the circumstance that a part of the names of the fathers'-houses named in 23:6-23 recur here in 1Ch_23:20-29, and that we find a considerable number of the names which are contained in 1 Chron 23:6-23 to be omitted from them. In 1Ch_23:20-25, for example, we find only names of Kohathithes, and in 1Ch_23:26-29 of Merarites, and no Gershonites. But it by no means follows from that, that the classes of the Gershonites have been dropped out, or even omitted by the author of the Chronicle as an unnecessary repetition. This conclusion would only be warrantable if it were otherwise demonstrated, or demonstrable, that the Levites who were at the hand of the priests in carrying on the worship had been taken from all the three Levite families, and that consequently Gershonites also must have been included. But no such thing can be proved. Several fathers'-houses of the

32

Gershonites were, according to 1Ch_26:20., entrusted with the oversight of the treasures of the sanctuary. We have indeed no further accounts as to the employment of the other Gershonites; but the statements about the management of the treasures, and the scribes and judges, in 1Ch_26:20-32, are everywhere imperfect. David had appointed 6000 men to be scribes and judges: those mentioned in 1Ch_26:29-32 amounted to only 1700 and 2700, consequently only 4400 persons in all; so that it is quite possible the remaining 1600 were taken from among the Gershonites. Thus, therefore, from the fact that the Gershonites are omitted from our section, we cannot conclude that our catalogue is mutilated. In it all the chief branches of the Kohathites are named, viz., the two lines descended from Moses' sons (1Ch_24:20, 1Ch_24:21); then the Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites (1Ch_24:23-25), and the main branches of the Merarites (1Ch_24:26-30).

1Ch_24:20 is to be taken thus: Of the sons of Amram, i.e., of the Kohathite Amram, from whom Moses descended (1Ch_23:13), that is, of the chief Shubael, descended from Moses' son Gershon (1Ch_23:16), his son Jehdeiah, who as head and representative of the class made up of his sons, and perhaps also of his brothers, is alone mentioned.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:20. The rest of the sons of Levi — Either such as were only Levites, and not priests, or such as were not named or numbered before, in this or the former chapter. The sons of Shubael, Jehdeiah — Who being, as it seems, an eminent person, or having a very numerous family, was not reckoned with or under his father’s family, but was accounted as a distinct head of another family.

ELLICOTT, " (20) And the rest of the sons of Levi were these.—Rather, And for the sons of Levi that were left over; i.e., after the priests had been separately dealt with. The list begins with the Kohathite heads, omitting the Gershonites (1 Chronicles 23:7-11), perhaps owing to a lacuna in the chronicler’s MS. authority.

Of the sons of Amram; Shubael.—For the sons. Shubael is a variant of “Shebuel” (1 Chronicles 23:16). The same variation recurs in 1 Chronicles 25:4; 1 Chronicles 25:20. Shebuel was grandson to Moses (1 Chronicles 23:16). Here the name represents a Levitical house or class, of which, in David’s time Jehdeiah (Jah gladdens) was the head. The name “Jehdeiah” occurs again in 1 Chronicles 26:30, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. (Comp. “Jahdiel,” God gladdens, 1 Chronicles 5:24.)

COFFMAN, ""It should be remembered that these lists of names represent families rather than individuals, and that a number of these families continued into N.T. times (for example, Zacharias was of the line of Abijah, Luke 1:5)."[3]

Interesting as the omission is, we can give no reason for the omission of the family of Gershon.

The variations in these lists is of no importance. "Some of these courses died out, or had to be consolidated with others; and new ones were formed to take their place. At the time of the return from exile, 538 B.C., only four of these courses were operative."[4]

Any intelligent criticism of any of these lists would therefore have to begin with the exact

33

date of it.

GUZIK, "B. The rest of the sons of Levi.

1. (1 Chronicles 24:20-30) A list of the remaining sons of Levi.

And the rest of the sons of Levi: of the sons of Amram, Shubael; of the sons of Shubael, Jehdeiah. Concerning Rehabiah, of the sons of Rehabiah, the first was Isshiah. Of the Izharites, Shelomoth; of the sons of Shelomoth, Jahath. Of the sons of Hebron, Jeriah was the first, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth. Of the sons of Uzziel, Michah; of the sons of Michah, Shamir. The brother of Michah, Isshiah; of the sons of Isshiah, Zechariah. The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi; the son of Jaaziah, Beno. The sons of Merari by Jaaziah were Beno, Shoham, Zaccur, and Ibri. Of Mahli: Eleazar, who had no sons. Of Kish: the son of Kish, Jerahmeel. Also the sons of Mushi were Mahli, Eder, and Jerimoth. These were the sons of the Levites according to their fathers’ houses.

a. And the rest of the sons of Levi: These were the descendants of Kohath’s son Amram who were not of the family of Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:18-27).

POOLE, " The rest of the sons of Levi; either such as were only Levites, and not priests; or rather, such as were not named or numbered before in this or the former chapter.

Jehdeiah; who being, as it seems, an eminent person, or having a very numerous family, was not reckoned with or under his father’s family, but was accounted as a distinct head of another family.

PULPIT, "The rest of the sons of Levi designated here are explained sufficiently clearly by 1 Chronicles 24:30. They were those who were not of the sons of Aaron, not priests, but whose "office was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord" (1 Chronicles 23:28), for certain specified work, some of which was of the more menial character. These, of course, do not exhaust the whole of the non-priestly Levites; for we read distinctly in the following two chapters of other detachments of the non-priestly Levites, whose office was as singers, doorkeepers, and treasure-keepers. And this consideration may of itself possibly be a sufficient account of the absence of any of the family of Gershonites in the list of the present chapter, though they do appear to view for other work in 1 Chronicles 26:21, etc. Amram… Shubael. The latter of these two names marks the line of Moses, in his eider son, Gershon, whose son was Shebuel (1 Chronicles 23:15, 1 Chronicles 23:16), as the former is the name of the father of Moses, and eldest son of Kohath.

34

21 As for Rehabiah, from his sons:

Ishiah was the first.

K&D, "1Ch_24:21Of the father's-house Rehabiah, connected with Eliezer the second son of Moses (1Ch_

23:16); of the sons of this Rehabiah, Isshiah was the head.

ELLICOTT, "(21) Concerning Rehabiah: of the sons.—For Rehabiah: for the sons of Rehabiah, the chief (head) was Isshiah. 1 Chronicles 23:17 only says that the sons of Rehabiah were very numerous.

PULPIT, "Rehabiah. This name marks the line of Moses, in the person of his younger son, Eliezer, father of Rehabiah. And the practical result of these two verses is to give us the two "chiefs," or heads, or representatives, Jehdeiah and Isshiah, both Amramites.

22 From the Izharites: Shelomoth;

from the sons of Shelomoth: Jahath.

ELLICOTT, " (22) Of the Izharites.—For the Izharites. The Gentilic form of this designation indicates that Shubael, Rehabiah, and others of these proper names, are likewise names of houses or clans.

Shelomoth is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23:18, but not the chief, “Jahath.”

PULPIT, "Jahath. Here follows in order after the Amramites, Jahath, a descendant from Izhar, Kohath's second son (1 Chronicles 23:12, 1 Chronicles 23:18), through Shelomoth (otherwise Shelemith). This Jahath furnishes for us the third name of this series of "other sons of Levi." And Keil plausibly argues, from the absence of these three names from the list of 1 Chronicles 23:6,1 Chronicles 23:23, that, while that list is occupied with fathers' houses, this list is occupied with the official classes of the Levites who were to be engaged in the way already stated.

35

23 The sons of Hebron: Jeriah the first,[a] Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third and Jekameam the fourth.

BARNES, "Neither “Hebron” nor “the first” is found in the present Hebrew text; but they seem to have been rightly supplied by our translators from 1Ch_23:19. The four persons named appear to have been contemporaries of David, the heads of the Hebronite houses in his time (compare 1Ch_26:31).

ELLICOTT, "(23) And the sons of Hebron; Jeriah the first.—The Hebrew text is here mutilated. Our translators have emended it from 1 Chronicles 23:19. The names of the houses or classes are given, without those of the heads.

POOLE, "The first; which word is fitly supplied both out of the rest of this verse, the second, third, and fourth having a manifest reference to the first, and out of 1 Chronicles 23:19 26:31, where it is expressed.

PULPIT, "This verse is manifestly imperfect. What is necessary to fill up the evident gaps is to be found, however, in 1 Chronicles 23:19; also the pointed allusion to the time of David, in 1 Chronicles 26:31, is deserving of especial notice. The four names of this verse, then, are descendants of Kohath's third son, Hebron (1 Chronicles 23:12).

24 The son of Uzziel: Micah;

36

from the sons of Micah: Shamir.

ELLICOTT, " (24) The sons of Uzziel . . . of the sons of Michah.—With 1 Chronicles 24:24-25, comp. 1 Chronicles 23:20. “Jesiah” there is the same Hebrew name as is here spelt “Isshiah;” it should be Yishshîyah in both places.

Shamir and Zechariah are the heads of the bnê Micah and bnê Isshiah. Only five heads of the nine Kohathite houses are mentioned, viz., Jehdeiah, Issliiah, Jahath, Shamir, and Zechariah.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 24:24, 1 Chronicles 24:25

These verses give us Shamir and Zechariah, descendants of Uzziel, Kohath's fourth son (1 Chronicles 23:12), the former through Michah (1 Chronicles 23:20), and the latter through Michah's brother, Isshiah (1 Chronicles 23:20), called here "sons of Uzziel," but presumably not intended for immediate sons (Exodus 6:22). In all these fourteen heads were drawn from the four sons of Kohath.

25 The brother of Micah: Ishiah;

from the sons of Ishiah: Zechariah.

26 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi.

The son of Jaaziah: Beno.

BARNES, "The sons of Jaaziah, Beno - Beno is not really a name. It is the Hebrew for “his son,” and is to be attached to Jaaziah. Translate 1Ch_24:27, “and the

37

sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son (were) Shoham and Zaccur, and Ibri.” The meaning of the whole passage 1Ch_24:26-30 seems to be that there were three branches of the Merarites the Beni-Mahli, the Beni-Mushi, and the Beni-Jaaziah.

K&D, "1Ch_24:26-30The classes of the Merarites. As to Jaaziah and his sons, see the remarks on 1Ch_

23:31. As Mahli's son Eleazar had no sons, only Jerahmeel from his second son Kish, as head of the class formed by Mahli's sons, is named. Of Mushi's sons only the names of the four fathers'-houses into which they fell are mentioned, the chiefs of the classes not being noticed. The heads mentioned in our section are fifteen in all; and supposing that in the cases of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and of the Merarite branch of the Mushes, where the heads of the classes are not named, each father's-house formed only one class, we would have only fifteen classes. It is, however, quite conceivable that many of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and Mushes were so numerous as to form more than one class; and so out of the Levite families mentioned in 1Ch_24:20-29 twenty-four classes could be formed. The subscription, that they cast the lot like their brethren, makes this probable; and the analogy of the division of the musicians into twenty-four classes (1 Chron 25) turns the probability that the Levites who were appointed to perform service for the priests, were divided into the same number of classes, into a certainty, although we have no express statement to that effect, and in the whole Old Testament no information as to the order of succession of the Levites is anywhere to be found.

ELLICOTT, " (26) The sons of Merari.—1 Chronicles 24:26-30 : the Merarite heads. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 23:21-23.)

The sons of Jaaziah; Beno.—Beno is the Hebrew for “his son,” and can hardly be a proper name. The clause should be connected immediately with what follows in 1 Chronicles 24:27, and the whole translated thus: “The sons of Jaaziah his son—that is, sons of Merari belonging to Jaaziah his son—were Shoham, and Zaccur, and Ibri.”

Jaaziah appears as a third son of Merari, not mentioned elsewhere. (See Note on 1 Chronicles 23:23.) If the Hebrew text is substantially sound, it is implied that there existed in the days of David a group of Merarite houses calling themselves “sons of Jaaziah.”

The construction here suggested involves the rejection of the conjunction before “Shoham” in 1 Chronicles 24:27, and the removal of the paragraphic sign at the beginning of the verse.

38

27 The sons of Merari:

from Jaaziah: Beno, Shoham, Zakkur and Ibri.

ELLICOTT, " (27) Shoham (onyx) and Ibri (Hebrew) do not occur as individual names elsewhere, but there is no reason to doubt their genuineness.

Some commentators pronounce 1 Chronicles 24:26-27, spurious, against the evidence of the ancient versions.

POOLE, "Beno; whose name is here repeated with his brethren, because he was the first-born and head of the rest, who were all reckoned with and under his family, as if they had been branches of it.

28 From Mahli: Eleazar, who had no sons.

ELLICOTT, " (28) Of Mahli came Eleazar.—Literally, To Mahli, Eleazar; and there became not to him sons. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 23:22.) The clan Eleazar did not branch out into new clans, but, being few in number, amalgamated with that of Kish-Jerahmeel.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 24:26-29

We now pass from the Kohath family to that of Merari. For the oft-repeated Mahli and Mushi, they belonged to the time of Moses (Exodus 6:19; Numbers 3:33). The elder of these, Mahli, as already seen in 1 Chronicles 23:21, 1 Chronicles 23:22, had two sons, Eleazar and Kish, the sons of the latter of whom took the daughters of Eleazar, who had no sons, and thus kept only one house surviving, the head of which

39

was (1 Chronicles 23:29) Jerahmeel. This would seem to complete all that needs to be said of the Mahli line. Meantime, however, we are confronted by the contents of the latter half of our 1 Chronicles 23:26 and 1 Chronicles 23:27. These purport to give, amid some confusion of expression, sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son (Beno). No anterior authority, however, can be found for this Jaaziah. Neither of him nor of any of the three names (omitting Beno, which is evidently to be translated "his son") here linked on to his, is anything known. While we accept the text as it at present is, we have an additional branch with three families to add to the account of Merari—the branch of Jaaziah, the three families of Shoham, Zaeeur, Ibri. Even so we have in 1 Chronicles 23:27 to obliterate arbitrarily the conjunction van, prefixed to the name Shoham. Under these circumstances, Keil impatiently rejects these clauses altogether, as an interpolation, though one of which he can give no account, and adds up, in consequence, the families of Levi (exclusive of the priests) to twenty-two instead of the unexplained twenty-five of the present text. On the other hand, Bertheau retains the present reading, and accepts Jaaziah as a third branch of the family of Merari. If this were so, it is surprising that nowhere else is room found for the slightest mention of Jaaziah, nor any other mention of these supposed descendants.

29 From Kish: the son of Kish:

Jerahmeel.

ELLICOTT, "(29) Concerning Kish.—Literally, To Kish, the sons of Kish, Jerahmeel. The plural, “sons of Kish,” as in 1 Chronicles 23:22.

30 And the sons of Mushi: Mahli, Eder and Jerimoth.

40

These were the Levites, according to their families.

ELLICOTT, " (30) The sons also of Mushi.—So 1 Chronicles 23:23. (See Notes there.) Only the names of the houses or classes are mentioned, without those of the chiefs. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 24:23, supra.)

These were the sons of the Levites after the house of their fathers.—Rather, according to their father-houses (clans). This subscription proves that the original of 1 Chronicles 24:20-30 contained a complete catalogue of the Levitical houses or clans, exclusive of the Aaronites. How far the apparent defects of the present Hebrew text reproduce those of its archetype, and how far they are due to errors of transcription, cannot now be decided.

PULPIT, "The three sons of Mushi here given agree with 1 Chronicles 23:23. It is to be observed that, in the foregoing verses, we have no expressed sum of the families or heads to which they add up. Hence Bertheau finds twenty-five in all, which he would reduce to the twenty-four he wants by omitting, without any adequate justificacation, the Mahli of 1 Chronicles 23:30. Others, omitting the three names of Shoham, Zaccur, Ibri, bring the twenty-five to twenty-two. Keil finds only fifteen "heads" or "classes," but surmises that the Hebronite and Mushite "fathers' houses" may have been numerous enough to find more than one "class;" and thereby to make up the twenty-four classes which he desires as well for symmetry's sake as for the patent suggestions of 1 Chronicles 23:31.

31 They also cast lots, just as their relatives the descendants of Aaron did, in the presence of King David and of Zadok, Ahimelek, and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites. The families of the oldest brother were treated the

41

same as those of the youngest.

BARNES, "The principal fathers over against their younger brethren - i. e., “all the Levitical houses enumerated drew lots in their courses on equal terms, the older families having no advantage over the younger ones.” As there were 24 courses of the priests, so we must suppose that there were 24 of the Levites, though the number of the families as given in the text 1 Chr. 23:7-23; 1Ch_24:20-30 is 25.

CLARKE, "These likewise cast lots - The Levites were divided into twenty-four orders; and these were appointed by lot to serve under the twenty-four orders of the priests: the first order of Levities under the first order of priests, and so on. The meaning is not very clear: “both elder and younger,” says Bishop Patrick, “had their places by lot, not by seniority of houses. They who were of greater dignity drew lots against those who were of less; and were to take their courses according to the lot they drew.” This may have been the case; but we are very little interested in the subject.

GILL, "These likewise cast lots - The Levites were divided into twenty-four orders; and these were appointed by lot to serve under the twenty-four orders of the priests: the first order of Levities under the first order of priests, and so on. The meaning is not very clear: “both elder and younger,” says Bishop Patrick, “had their places by lot, not by seniority of houses. They who were of greater dignity drew lots against those who were of less; and were to take their courses according to the lot they drew.” This may have been the case; but we are very little interested in the subject.

K&D, "1Ch_24:31

אבות as ,בית־אבות is used for אבות as in 1Ch_24:6. In the last clause ,לפני דויד וגו

stands in הראש .in these catalogues ראשי בית־אבות stands frequently for ראשי

apposition to בית־אבות, the father's-house; the head even as his younger

brother, i.e., he who was the head of the father's-house as etc., i.e., the oldest among the brethren as his younger brethren. The Vulgate gives the meaning correctly: tam majores quam minores; omnes sors aequaliter dividebat.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 24:31. Even the principal fathers over against their younger brethren— The meaning, says Bishop Patrick, is, that both elder

42

and younger had their places by lot, not by seniority of houses: they who were of greater dignity drew lots against those who were of less, and all were to take their courses according to the lot that they drew.

REFLECTIONS.—1st, The family of Eleazar, being most numerous, had sixteen courses; Ithamar only eight. That there might be no dispute about precedence, God appoints the determination of the order in which they should minister to be by lot: and these courses, though interrupted probably during the reigns of wicked kings, or in the captivity, yet subsisted still at their return, and till the destruction of the second temple. In Luke 1:5 we find John the Baptist's father of the course of Abijah, 1 Chronicles 24:10. Note; Order and regularity in God's worship must be carefully preserved.

2nd, The Levites, divided into the same number of courses as the priests, cast lots also to determine their order of service. When God determined their lot, there could be no room for strife. The priests are called their brethren, because, though the Levites were in a station inferior, yet they were employed in the same sacred service, and to be regarded, not as servants, but as assistants in their work.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 24:31. These likewise cast lots — There was the like solemnity used in their distribution as there was in that of the priests, by casting lots; whereby they knew what Levites should wait in every course with the sons of Aaron. Even the principal fathers over against their younger brethren — These words are somewhat obscure, but the meaning, says Bishop Patrick, is, that both elder and younger had their places by lot, not by seniority of houses: they who were of greater dignity drew lots against those who were of less: and they were to take their courses as they fell either to the elder or the younger family.

ELLICOTT, " (31) These likewise cast lots over against their brethren the sons of Aaron.—Rather, Just like, in the same way as their brethren, the priests. The same compound preposition (le‘ummath) recurs in 1 Chronicles 26:12; 1 Chronicles 26:16. In 2 Samuel 16:13 it has the sense of over against, or parallel with. The lots were cast, as in the case of the priests, to determine the order according to which the classes were to serve in rotation.

Their brethren the sons of Aaron.—This expression seems to indicate that the preceding list does not include all the Levites, but only those who assisted the priests in the Temple services: that is, the 24,000 of 1 Chronicles 23:4. The chronicler naturally returned to them after his account of the priestly classes. Hence, perhaps, the omission of the Gershonite houses is intentional. The narrative proceeds to treat of the Levites who were not in immediate attendance on the priesthood in 1 Chronicles 25, 26

43

The chief of the fathers.—Rather, the chiefs of the clans.

Even the principal fathers over against their younger brethren.—Rather, clans—the chief just like his younger brother. The word “fathers” (âbôth) is a brief form of “father-houses” (bêth- âbôth). The meaning appears to be that all the Levitical houses received their position by lot, senior and junior branches alike. The order, as thus determined, is not communicated; nor is it expressly stated that the Levitical classes were twenty-four in number, but it appears highly probable, both from the data of the text, and from the analogy of the classes of the priests and the musicians (1 Chronicles 25).

GUZIK, "2. (1 Chronicles 24:31) How their lots were chosen.

These also cast lots just as their brothers the sons of Aaron did, in the presence of King David, Zadok, Ahimelech, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and Levites. The chief fathers did just as their younger brethren.

a. These also cast lots just as their brothers the sons of Aaron did: These other descendants of the family of Kohath were divided according to the schedule for their service, along the same pattern as the priests.

b. The chief fathers did just as their younger brethren: “The lots of the elder and younger brethren were promiscuously put together, and the order was settled as the lots came forth, without any regard to the age, or dignity, or number of the persons or families, the youngest family having the first course if they had the first lot.” (Poole)

i. “There was a tactful mingling in the arrangement of the older and the younger men, so that in this highest and holiest national service the experience of age and the enthusiasm of youth were naturally inspiring.” (Morgan)

POOLE, " Over against their brethren the sons of Aaron, i.e. answerable for number and order to those of the priests, so as there should be a several course of the Levites for each course of the priests. This is expressed concerning the singers, 1Ch 25, and the like is implied concerning the porters, 1Ch 26, and is here sufficiently intimated concerning those Levites which were employed in other sacred ministrations.

The principal fathers over against their younger brethren; the lots of the elder and younger brethren were promiscuously put together, and the order was settled as the lots came forth, without any regard to the age, or dignity, or number of the persons or families, the youngest family having thee first course if they had the first lot, &c.

44

PULPIT, "Over against… over against. This translation of the Hebrew ( לעמת ) is obscure and awkward. The meaning is "equally with," or "correspondingly with" ( 1 Chronicles 26:12, 1 Chronicles 26:16, etc.). The root means "communion," and the word is found only in the constructive state. The Vulgate shows the translation, Omnes sors aequaliter dividebat; tam majores quam minores.

Footnotes:

1 Chronicles 24:23 Two Hebrew manuscripts and some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 23:19); most Hebrew manuscripts The sons of Jeriah:

45