I CHRONICLES 6 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Levi

1 [a]The sons of Levi:Gershon, Kohath and Merari.

CLARKE, "The sons of Levi - It has been well remarked that the genealogy of Levi is given here more ample and correct than that of any of the others.

And this is perhaps an additional proof that the author was a priest, felt much for the priesthood, and took care to give the genealogy of the Levitical and sacerdotal families, from the most correct tables; for with such tables we may presume he was intimately acquainted.GILL, "The sons of Levi,.... After an account of the chief of the tribes of Judah and Simeon, of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, follows that of Levi, and his posterity; the kingdom being given to Judah, the birthright to Joseph, and the priesthood to Levi: the immediate sons of Levi were Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; as in Gen_46:11, from these sprung the three families of the Levites.

HENRY 1-30, "The priests and Levites were more concerned than any other Israelites to preserve their pedigree clear and to be able to prove it, because all the honours and privileges of their office depended upon their descent. And we read of those who, though perhaps they really were children of the priests, yet, because they could not find the register of their genealogies, nor make out their descent by any authentic record, were, as polluted, put from the priesthood, and forbidden to eat of the holy things, Ezr_2:62, Ezr_2:63. It is but very little that is here recorded of the genealogies of this sacred tribe. I. The first fathers of it are here named twice, 1Ch_6:1, 1Ch_6:16. Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, are three names which we were very conversant with in the book of Numbers, when the families of the Levites were marshalled and had their work assigned to them. Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam, we have known much more of than their names, and cannot pass them over here without remembering that this was that Moses and Aaron 1

whom God honoured in making them instruments of Israel's deliverance and settlement and figures of him that was to come, Moses as a prophet and Aaron as a priest. And the mention of Nadab and Abihu (though, having no children, there was no occasion to bring them into the genealogy) cannot but remind us of the terrors of that divine justice which they were made monuments of for offering strange fire, that we may always fear before him. 2. The line of Eleazar, the successor of Aaron, is here drawn down to the time of the captivity, 1Ch_6:4-15. It begins with Eleazar, who came out of the house of bondage in Egypt, and ends with Jehozadak, who went into the house of bondage in Babylon. Thus, for their sins, they were left as they were found, which might also intimate that the Levitical priesthood did not make anything perfect, but this was to be done by the bringing in of a better hope. All these here named were not high priests; for, in the time of the judges, that dignity was, upon some occasion or other, brought into the family of Ithamar, of which Eli was; but in Zadok it returned again to the right line. Of Azariah it is here said (v. 10), He it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built. It is supposed that this was that Azariah who bravely opposed the presumption of king Uzziah when he invaded the priest's office (2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_26:18), though he ventured his neck by so doing. This was done like a priest, like one that was truly zealous for his God. He that thus boldly maintained and defended the priest's office, and made good its barriers against such a daring insult, might well be said to execute it; and this honour is put upon him for it; while Urijah, one of his successors, for a base compliance with King Ahaz, in building him an idolatrous altar, has the disgrace put upon him of being left out of this genealogy, as perhaps some others are. But some think that this remark upon this Azariah should have been added to his grandfather of the same name (1Ch_6:9), who was the son of Ahimaaz, and that he was the priest who first officiated in Solomon's temple. 3. Some other of the families of the Levites are here accounted for. One of the families of Gershom (that of Libni) is here drawn down as far as Samuel, who had the honour of a prophet added to that of a Levite. One of the families of Merari (that of Mahli) is likewise drawn down for several descents, 1Ch_6:29, 1Ch_6:30.K&D 1-15, "(5:27-41). The family of Aaron, or the high-priestly line of Aaron, to the time of the Babylonian exile. - 1Ch_6:1-3. In order to exhibit the connection of Aharon (or Aaron) with the patriarch Levi, the enumeration begins with the three sons of Levi, who are given in 1Ch_6:1 as in Gen_46:11; Exo_6:16, and in other passages. Of Levi's grandchildren, only the four sons of Kohath (1Ch_6:2) are noticed; and of these, again, Amram is the only one whose descendants - Aaron, Moses, and Miriam - are named (1Ch_6:3); and thereafter only Aaron's sons are introduced, in order that the enumeration of his family in the high-priestly line of Eleazar might follow. With 1Ch_6:2cf. Exo_1:18, and on 1Ch_6:34 see the commentary on Exo_6:20. With the sons of Aaron (1Ch_6:44) compare besides Exo_6:23, also Num_3:2-4, and 1Ch_24:1-2. As Nadab and Abihu were slain when they offered strange fire before Jahve (Lev_10:1.), Aaron's race was continued only by his sons Eleazar and Ithamar. After Aaron's death, his eldest son Eleazar was chosen by God to be his successor in the high priest's office, and thus the line of Eleazar came into possession of the high-priestly dignity.

PULPIT, "1Ch_6:1-3The tribe of Levi is now taken. The first three verses prepare the way for running rapidly down the line of high priest descent, from Aaron’s son Eleazar to Jehozadak, who is

2

reached at the twenty-fifth name from Levi, though not necessarily the twenty-fifth generation, as there appear (1Ch_6:11-13) to be some omissions. Nor are all the names which are given those of high priests, for the genealogy of Jehozadak did not always pass though such.1Ch_6:1This verse gives the three branches of Levi,and is in agreement with the enumeration of them in Gen_46:11 and Exo_6:16, viz. Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. We have not the third parallel passage in the place of mention of the other tribes (Num_1:47-54), but it is compensated for somewhat later (Num_3:14-20).

ELLICOTT, "The tribe of Levi, its principal genealogies, and its cities. (1) The genealogy of Aaron, including his descent from Levi, and his successors in the line of Eleazar until the Babylonian exile (1 Chronicles 6:1-15). (2) A double series of the sons of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the three sons of Levi, to whom also the ancestry of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan is traced (1 Chronicles 6:16-48). (3) A repetition of the line of Aaron, from Eleazar to the age of David and Solomon, as prelude to the account of the cities of the Levites (1 Chronicles 6:49-81).

(1-15) THE LINE OF AARON THROUGH ELEAZAR TO JEHOZADAK.

(1-3) Aaron’s descent from Levi.

(1) The sons of Levi; Gershon . . .—So Genesis 46:11; Exodus 6:16, and uniformly in the Pentateuch. In 1 Chronicles 6:16 we have the spelling Gershom, which perhaps indicates a difference of source.

(2) The sons of Kohath.—The names are the same as in Exodus 6:18. Kŏhath, or Kĕhath, was the chief house of Levi. The name is put second in the series, perhaps for euphonic reasons. (Comp. “Sheni, Ham, and Japhet” with Genesis 9:24; Genesis 10:21.)

(3) And the children.—Heb., sons (bnê ‘Âmrâm).

Aaron, and Moses.—Exodus 6:20.

And Miriam.—Numbers 26:59 : “the prophetess, the sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20).

3

The sons also of Aaron.—Heb., ‘Aharon; Arab., Hârûn. Exodus 6:23, Numbers 26:60 name the four sons of Aaron in the same order as here. “Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord” (Numbers 26:61). A fuller account is given in Leviticus 10:1-7.

PARKER, "Verses 1-81

Aaron—Eleazar—Unknown Workers—Religious Uses of Music

1 Chronicles 6

This chapter traces the line of Aaron through Eleazar to Jeho-zadak. The chronicler takes infinite pains to trace the genealogy of Aaron from the period of his descent from Levi through his successors in the line of Eleazar until the Babylonian exile, and after setting forth the double series of the three sons of Levi, viz, Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, he repeats the line of Aaron from Eleazar to the age of David and Solomon as preliminary to an account of cities of the Levites given in 1 Chronicles 6:49-81. We ought now to be in good company seeing that we are in the lineage of priests. Every man"s white robe will symbolize his holy character, and every man"s official duties will indicate the nobler exercises of spiritual worship. Society has a right to draw inferences from the occupations of men. No surgeon should be inhuman because by profession he is a healer and restorer. No lawyer should be seditious, rebellious, dishonourable, because he is supposed to know the law and to have entered upon its exposition, because of his love of high study and the discipline of citizenship. If this is so in high professions, what shall be said of the priests of the living God? From them we look for whatsoever things are true, lovely, pure, honest, and of good report, and in so far as they fall short, they themselves must bear the responsibility, for they, and they only, are to blame for every lapse. But are we to look for absolute perfectness even in consecrated men? We may look for it, but certainly we shall not find it in any real sense. It is unjust to expect more from men than men can render. There must however be a steady determination to realise the ideal and to attain the divine. The apostle Paul did not count himself to have attained, but he continually pressed toward the Mark , and by so much proved the earnestness of his spirit. There is an infinite difference between falling short of an ideal and seeking to accommodate the life to the lowest level of purpose and service. It should never be forgotten that the man who selects a high ideal is himself the creator of the very standard which his enemies may turn into a taunt against him. If he had not made known his determination to climb the highest of all hills he might have secured some reputation by ascending much lower elevations. When he said he meant to go to heaven, he put into the hands of his enemies a rod with which they might chastise him. It must therefore never be forgotten that even an imperfect Christian may be a better man than the loudest boaster of virtue who knows nothing of spiritual motive or ideal standards. As a speck is more easily seen upon a white surface than upon a coloured one, so the 4

flaws and drawbacks of Christians are the more conspicuous because of the dazzling purity of the Christianity which is professed.

We read of Eleazar that he was "priest in Aaron"s room." This reminds us of the commonplace, that the first and best of the priests must succumb to the law of death. When God appointed Aaron as priest, he did not only elevate an individual, he founded an office which was not to be abrogated until it was fulfilled as to its highest purpose in the man Christ Jesus. Aaron, therefore, may be said to have continued to the very end of the priesthood, which was begun in him through his legitimate successors. It is nothing to the point to say that the individual man has died, if so be the office is continued in full vigour and efficiency. The popular view is that the king never dies. So may it be said of the Christian ministry. Consecrated apostles, enterprising evangelists, learned teachers, individually die and are forgotten, but the great work of the ministry never ceases. Nor does the ministry ever go permanently back in efficiency. On the surface there may be great differences as to what is called pulpit power, but within the view of God, the motion of Christian influence is always towards increase and consolidation. The sentence however that Eleazar was priest in the room of Aaron is pathetic, as reminding us how difficult it is to fill the room which great men have occupied. In many instances we do not know how much a man has been really doing until we endeavour to find a successor to bear his mantle and carry forward his obligations. No man is less valued than a spiritual teacher. In many cases he is regarded as little better than an intruder and a meddler, who comes with an uncertain message, and is expected to deliver it in the least offensive form. When to outward disadvantages, often concealed in the form of distrust or contempt, there is added a sense of personal inferiority to the Aaron who went before, the position of the Christian teacher becomes one of positive distress. The only mitigation of such sorrow must come from looking at the work rather than at the worker, steadfastly looking beyond and having respect to the recompense of the reward. If Eleazar thinks only of Aaron, he may well tremble to succeed so renowned a priest; the Christian teacher however is not to think that he has succeeded Paul or John , but to consider that he directly represents Jesus Christ, and that to represent Jesus Christ is to be assured of spiritual sustenance and final reward.

In this chapter as in others, we come upon a long list of unfamed priests and workers. Who ever heard of Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Ahitub, Ahimaaz, or Johanan! There were twenty-two successors of Aaron in the interval between his death and the Babylonian exile. It is quite uncertain how many centuries that interval comprised; but in the lengthened period through which the succession ran we cannot but be struck with the absence of illustrious names. What social advantages are necessary to the development of men of supreme power? Can such men be born in slavery? Are they the product of ignorance and darkness? Are the great men of any period the natural issue of their times, or are they created on purpose to throw their times into contrast. Of some of these men we hear a little, but that little only shows how far short they fall of the highest reputation. Of Uzzi we hardly know more than that he was contemporary with Eli. Scripture is absolutely silent as regards the six persons named in 1 Chronicles 6:6 and 1 Chronicles 6:7. We know little more of Zadok than that he was appointed sole high priest by Solomon who deposed Abiathar ( 1 Kings 2:27, 1 Kings 2:35). Ahimaaz is chiefly known as a young man and a fleet runner, who rendered service to king David at the 5

time of the revolt of Absalom. Johanan is utterly unknown. Yet all these men were either priests, or workers, or recognised persons in the social and official circles to which they belonged. So again and again we come upon the familiar lesson that there is a middle point between renown and contempt; there is a point of life-influence—thorough downright good work which never blossoms into the kind of conspicuousness which belongs to world-wide and enduring fame. Even amongst the disciples of Christ there were only three who really stood out so as to attract the attention of all men. At the last indeed, one did stand out, not in fame, but in infamy, a man whose name can never be pronounced without horror and disgust. It must ever be true that the great majority of men must work within narrow limits and be content with the eulogium of domestic recognition. At the last the whole matter of reputation will be adjusted and determined by the Judge of the whole earth. The first may be last, and the last may be first. The very fact that all our awards may be reversed should make us cautious in the distribution of primacies which concern themselves more with the coronation of genius than with the recognition and encouragement of simpler merits. We are not to hesitate to give honour to whom honour is due, but we should never be so far carried away with pomp and grandeur, however real, as to neglect the least of Christ"s servants or the humblest ministrants who wait upon his altar.

In reading 1 Chronicles 6:19—"And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers"—we must remember that the word "families" does not mean single households but groups of households or clans. This is important as showing the beginning of an enlargement which is to continue until the whole world shall be regarded as constituting one family. Towards this consummation we can but proceed with painful slowness. The work of grace within us is long in subduing the idea that God is partial in his choices and blessings. The heart almost secretly cherishes the idea that walls of separation between men and men must in some degree continue for ever. It is hard for one nation to believe that other nations are as near to God as themselves. All this may not be admitted in theory, but an examination of the heart will lead to the conclusion that every man clings more or less to the notion that God is interested in his fortunes more than in the fortunes of other men. The spread of Christianity is important in a social as well as in a theological sense as tending to the instruction of men in mutual interpretation of motive and purpose. Christianity brings men together; never divides and antagonises men; it always points towards brotherhood, mutual confidence, reciprocal honour, and united action. All this is possible of Christianity simply because Christianity represents the second Adam, the one man who idealises and crowns humanity. Nothing is more noticeable in the progress of Christianity than the disillusioning of the apostolic mind as to God"s partiality for the Jews. [See the case of Peter and Cornelius as representing the whole Biblical idea upon this question of humanity.] Christianity is opposed to all limitation, narrowness, bigotry, exclusiveness; its noble watchword is the world, the whole world, the whole world for Christ.

In the thirty-first verse we are introduced to what may be called the larger ministry.

"And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the Lord, 6

after that the ark had rest." ( 1 Chronicles 6:31).

They were made to stand, according to a literal interpretation, by the sides [hands] of song as if to minister to the sacred music. They continue ministering, before the dwelling of the tent of meeting, with the music. The religious uses of music is a question which the Church has hardly yet considered. Possibly there will never be wanting those who look upon music as an alien, and regard every advance made by it with suspicion and condemnation. There are not wanting those who would describe thorough attention to music in the church as turning the church into a concert room. All such opposition however must end in nothing. It is now beginning to be recognised that music may be turned into a grand evangelical instrument, and the sneer about "singing the Gospel" is gradually losing the confidence of those who first ignorantly applauded. As a matter of observation and experience it is beyond all doubt that people will gather in great numbers to listen to music when no attraction of an ordinary kind will bring them to the sanctuary.

The wise religious guides of any age will watch the temper of the people, and will respond to it in a way which will involve nothing of degradation, but which will secure the attention which may be turned to the highest ends. On all such matters argument is simply needless. Obstinate bigotry is not to be put down by reasoning; it is simply left to be converted by events. Let the church be open night and day for music; let the music always be religiously rendered; let every singer make the words heard as well as the notes; and in the end it will be found that the music of the appeal has found an entrance for the truth of the doctrine. The service of song in the house of the Lord should be the most beautiful of all religious exercises. The heavenly ones are continually praising God in the upper sanctuary. We read nothing of preaching in heaven, but we do read of songs and harps, thanksgivings, and of praises louder than the sound of many waters. We are perfectly well aware that there are persons who would pervert the use of music and do injury to the very spirit of the Church, but we must not take our rule of procedure from them; but endeavour to displace them by a right adaptation of music; and to supersede them by pointing out and following a more excellent way.

2 The sons of Kohath:

Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.7

GILL. "And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel,.... Given in the same order as in Exo_6:18; see Gill on Exo_6:18.

PULPIT, "1Ch_6:2The second son, Kohath, rather Kehath, is at once singled out, in order to get at the priest line. He was one of the travellers with Jacob into Egypt, was probably about twenty years the junior of Joseph, lived thirty years after his death, and attained the age of one hundred and thirty-three years, after a residence in Egypt of about one hundred and fifteen years in all. The Kohathites are expressly mentioned in their sacred duties in the time of David (1Ch_15:5-8), and in the time of Hezekiah (2Ch_29:12-14). The four sons of Kohath are next instanced, in order to get another step nearer the clear beginning of the priest line. This is done in the person of the oldest brother, Amram, who became father of Aaron and Moses and Miriam.

3 The children of Amram:

Aaron, Moses and Miriam.

The sons of Aaron:

Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

8

GILL 3-15, "And the children of Amram, Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam,.... Very memorable persons: Aaron was the high priest, Moses the prophet and lawgiver, and Miriam a prophetess, see Mic_6:4, the sons also of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar; the two first were destroyed by fire from heaven for offering strange fire, Lev_10:1 and the third succeeded his father in the high priesthood; the line of which is drawn from Aaron through him unto the Babylonish captivity, from hence to the end of the fifteenth verse, where it ends: Jehozadak is the same with Josedech, Hag_1:1 who went young into Babylon, and whose son Joshua, born in the captivity, came out of it on the proclamation of Cyrus, Ezr_2:2. According to Josephus (e), and other Jewish writers (f), in the times of Uzzi, 1Ch_6:6 the priesthood was translated into the family of Ithamar, of which Eli was the first high priest; where it continued to the times of Solomon, when it was restored to Zadok, of the line of Eleazar. It is particularly observed of Azariah, 1Ch_6:10 that he it was that executed the priest's office in the temple built by Solomon; not that he was the first that officiated in it, that was Zadok; but this seems to be Azariah, who was the high priest in the times of Uzziah, who opposed him when he would have offered incense in the temple, 2Ch_26:17, which may be the reason why he is so particularly taken notice of here; though some think this is to be understood of Johanan, the father of Azariah, supposed to the same with Jehoiada, who, in the times of Athaliah, was the instrument of preserving both church and state, 2Ki_11:4, the temple in which he ministered is described as built by Solomon, because at the time of the writing of this there was another temple built, or building, by Zerubbabel. TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:3 And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.Ver. 3. And Miriam] See Micah 6:4. {See Trapp on "Micah 6:4"}

PULPIT, "1Ch_6:3Once more, Aaron is singled out, and Eleazar, the third of his four sons, fixes the exact channel of descent required.

4 Eleazar was the father of Phinehas,

9

Phinehas the father of Abishua,

CLARKE, "Eleazar begat Phinehas - As the high priesthood continued in this family for a long time, the sacred historian confines himself to this chiefly, omitting Nadab and Abihu, and even the family of Ithamar.

K&D, "1Ch_6:4-15(5:30-41). In 1Ch_6:4-15 the descendants of Eleazar are enumerated in twenty-two

generations; the word ִליד he begat,” being repeated with every name. The son so“ ,הbegotten was, when he lived after his father, the heir of the high-priestly dignity. Thus Phinehas the son of Eleazar (Exo_6:25) is found in possession of it in Jdg_20:28. From this the older commentators have rightly drawn the inference that the purpose of the enumeration in 1Ch_6:4-15 was to communicate the succession of high priests from Eleazar, who died shortly after Joshua (Jos_24:33), to Jehozadak, whom Nebuchadnezzar caused to be carried away into Babylon. From the death of Aaron in the fortieth year after Israel came forth from Egypt, till the building of the temple in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, 400 years elapsed (480 - _40 = 440, 1Ki_6:1). From the building of the temple to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by the Chaldaeans there was an interval of 423 years (36 years under Solomon, and 387 years during which the kingdom of Judah existed; see the chronological table to 1 Kings 12). Between the death of Aaron, therefore, and the time when Jehozadak was led away into captivity, supposing that that event occurred only under Zedekiah, lay a period of 440 + 423 = 863 years. For this period twenty-two generations appear too few, for then the average duration of each life would be 39 1/4 years. Such an estimate would certainly appear a very high one, but it does not pass the bounds of possibility, as cases may have occurred in which the son died before the father, when consequently the grandson would succeed the grandfather in the office of high priest, and the son would be omitted in our register. The ever-recurring ִליד ה cannot be brought forward in opposition to this supposition, because ִליד ה esuace in the genealogical lists may express mediate procreation, and the grandson may be introduced as begotten by the grandfather. On the supposition of the existence of such cases, we should have to regard the average above mentioned as the average time during which each of the high priests held the office. But against such an interpretation of this list of the posterity of Eleazar two somewhat serious difficulties are raised. The less serious of these consists in this, that in the view of the author of our register, the line of Eleazar remained an uninterrupted possession of the high-priestly dignity; but in the historical books of the Old Testament another line of high priests, beginning with Eli, is mentioned, which, according to 1Ch_24:5, and Joseph. Ant. v. 11. 5, belonged to the family of Ithamar. The list is as follows: Eli (1Sa_2:20); his son Phinehas, who, however, died before Eli (1Sa_4:11; his son Ahitub (1Sa_14:3); his son Ahijah, who was also called Ahimelech (1Sa_14:3; 1Sa_22:9, 1Sa_22:11, 1Sa_22:20); his son Abiathar (1Sa_22:20), from whom Solomon took away the high-priesthood (1Ki_2:26.), and set Zadok in his place (1Ki_2:35). According to Josephus,

10

loc. cit., the high-priestly dignity remained with the line of Eleazar, from Eleazar to Ozi it then fell to Eli and his descendants, until with Zadok it returned to ;(1Ch_6:4-6 ,ֻעִּזי)the line of Eleazar. These statements manifestly rest upon truthful historical tradition; for the supposition that at the death of Ozi the high-priesthood was transferred from the line of Eleazar to the line of Ithamar through Eli, is supported by the circumstance that from the beginning of the judgeship of Eli to the beginning of the reign of Solomon a period of 139 years elapsed, which is filled up in both lines by five names, - Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahijah, and Abiathar in the passages above quoted; and Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in 1Ch_6:6-8 of our chapter. But the further opinion expressed by Joseph. Antt. viii. 1. 3, that the descendants of Eleazar, during the time in which Eli and his descendants were in possession of the priesthood, lived as private persons, plainly rests on a conjecture, the incorrectness of which is made manifest by some distinct statements of the Old Testament: for, according to 2Sa_8:17 and 2Sa_20:25, Zadok of Eleazar's line, and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, were high priests in the time of David; cf. 1Ch_24:5. The transfer of the high-priestly dignity, or rather of the official exercise of the high-priesthood, to Eli, one of Ithamar's line, after Ozi's death, was, as we have already remarked on 1Sa_2:27., probably brought about by circumstances or relations which are not now known to us, but without an extinction of the right of Ozi's descendants to the succession in dignity. But when the wave of judgment broke over the house of Eli, the ark was taken by the Philistines; and after it had been sent back into the land of Israel, it was not again placed beside the tabernacle, but remained during seventy years in the house of Abinadab (1 Sam 4:4-7:2). Years afterwards David caused it to be brought to Jerusalem, and erected a separate tent for it on Zion, while the tabernacle had meanwhile been transferred to Gibeon, where it continued to be the place where sacrifices were offered till the building of the temple.

Thus there arose two places of worship, and in connection with them separate spheres of action for the high priests of both lines, - Zadok performing the duties of the priestly office at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39; cf. 1Ki_3:4.), while Abiathar discharged its functions in Jerusalem. But without doubt not only Zadok, but also his father Ahitub before him, had discharged the duties of high priest in the tabernacle at Gibeon, while the connection of Eli's sons with the office came to an end with the slaughter of Ahijah (Ahimelech) and all the priesthood at Nob (1 Sam 22); for Abiathar, the only son of Ahimelech, and the single survivor of that massacre, fled to David, and accompanied him continuously in his flight before Saul (1Sa_22:20-23). But, not content with the slaughter of the priests in Nob, Saul also smote the city itself with the edge of the sword; whence it is probable, although all definite information to that effect is wanting, that it was in consequence of this catastrophe that the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon and the high-priesthood entrusted to Zadok's father, a man of the line of Eleazar, because the only son of Ahimelech, and the only representative of Ithamar's line, had fled to David. If this view be correct, of the ancestors of Ahitub, only Amariah, Meraioth, and Zerahiah did not hold the office of high priest. But if these had neither been supplanted by Eli nor had rendered themselves unworthy of the office by criminal conduct; if the only reason why the possession of the high-priesthood was transferred to Eli was, that Ozi's son Zerahiah was not equal to the discharge of the duties of the office under the difficult circumstances of the time; and if Eli's grandson Ahitub succeeded his grandfather in the office at a time when God had already announced to Eli by prophets the approaching ruin of his house, then Zerahiah, Meraioth, and Amariah, although not de facto in possession of the high-priesthood, might still be looked upon as de jure holders of the dignity, and so be introduced in the genealogies of Eleazar as such. In this way the 11

difficulty is completely overcome.But it is somewhat more difficulty to explain the other fact, that our register on the one hand gives too many names for the earlier period and too few for the later time, and on the other hand is contradicted by some definite statements of the historical books. We find too few names for the time from the death of Aaron to the death of Uzzi (Ozi), when Eli became high priest, - a period of 299 years (vide the Chronological View of the Period of the Judges, ii. 1, S. 217). Five high priests - Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, and Uzzi - are too few; for in that case each one of them must have discharged the office for 60 years, and have begotten the son who succeeded him in the office only in his 60th year, or the grandson must have regularly succeeded the grandfather in the office, - all of which suppositions appear somewhat incredible. Clearly, therefore, intermediate names must have been omitted in our register. To the period from Eli till the deposition of Abiathar, in the beginning of Solomon's reign - which, according to the chronological survey, was a period of 139 years - the last five names from Zerahiah to Zadok correspond; and as 24 years are thus assigned to each, and Zadok held the office for a number of years more under Solomon, we may reckon an average of 30 years to each generation. For the following period of about 417 years from Solomon, or the completion of the temple, till the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans, the twelve names from Ahimaaz the son of Zadok to Jehozadak, who was led away into captivity, give the not incredible average of from 34 to 35 years for each generation, so that in this part of our register not many breaks need be supposed. But if we examine the names enumerated, we find (1) that no mention is made of the high priest Jehoiada, who raised the youthful Joash to the throne, and was his adviser during the first years of his reign (2 Kings 11, and 2Ch_22:10; 2Ch_24:2), and that under Ahaz, Urijah, who indeed is called

only ַהֹּכֵהן, but who was certainly high priest (2Ki_16:10.), is omitted; and (2) we find that the name Azariah occurs three times (1Ch_6:9, 1Ch_6:10, and 1Ch_6:11), on which Berth. remarks: “Azariah is the name of the high priest in the time of Solomon (1Ki_4:2), in the time of Uzziah (2Ch_26:17), and in the time of Hezekiah (2Ch_31:10).” Besides this, we meet with an Amariah, the fifth after Zadok, whom Lightf., Oehler, and others consider to be the high priest of that name under Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_19:11. And finally, (3) in the historical account in 2Ki_22:4., Hilkiah is mentioned as high priest under Josiah, while according to our register (1Ch_6:13) Hilkiah begat Azariah; whence we must conclude either that Hilkiah is not the high priest of that name under Josiah, or Azariah is not the person of that name who lived in the time of Hezekiah. As regards the omission of the names Urijah and Jehoiada in our register, Urijah may have been passed over as an unimportant man; but Jehoiada had exerted far too important an influence on the fate of the kingdom of Judah to allow of his being so overlooked. The only possibilities in his case are, either that he occurs in our register under another name, owing to his having had, like so many others, two different names, or that the name ָיָדע ְיה has fallen out through an old error in the transcription of the genealogical list. The latter supposition, viz., that Jehoiada has fallen out before Johanan, is the more probable. Judging from 2Ki_12:3 and 2Ch_24:2, Jehoiada died under Joash, at least five or ten years before the king, and consequently from 127 to 132 years after Solomon, at the advanced age of 130 years (2Ch_24:15). He was therefore born shortly before or after the death of Solomon, being a great-grandson of Zadok, who may have died a considerable time before Solomon, as he had filled the office of high priest at Gibeon under David for a period of 30 years.

Then, if we turn our attention to the thrice recurring name Azariah, we see that the 12

Azariah mentioned in 1Ki_4:2 cannot be regarded as the high priest; for the word ֹּכֵהן in this passage does not denote the high priest, but the viceroy of the kingdom (vide on the passage). But besides, this Azariah cannot be the same person as the Azariah in 1Ch_6:9of our genealogy, because he is called a son of Zadok, while our Azariah is introduced as the son of Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, and consequently as a grandson of Zadok; and the grandson of Zadok who is mentioned as being high priest along with Abiathar, 1Ki_4:4, could not have occupied in this grandfather's time the first place among the highest public officials of Solomon. The Azariah mentioned in 1Ki_4:2 as the son of Zadok must not be considered to be a brother of the Ahimaaz of our register, for we very seldom find a nephew and uncle called by the same name. As to the Azariah of 1Ch_6:10, the son of Johanan, it is remarked, “This is he who was priest (or who held the priest's office; ִּכֵהן, cf. Exo_40:13; Lev_16:32) in the house (temple) which Solomon had built in Jerusalem.” R. Sal. and Kimchi have connected this remark with the events narrated in 2Ch_26:17, referring it to the special jealousy of King Uzziah's encroachments on the priest's office, in arrogating to himself in the temple the priestly function of offering incense in the holy place. Against this, indeed, J. H. Mich. has raised the objection, quod tamen chronologiae rationes vix admittunt; and it is true that this encroachment of Uzziah's happened 200 years after Solomon's death, while the Azariah mentioned in our register is the fourth after Zadok. But if the name Jehoiada has been dropped out before Johanan, and the Jehoiada held the high priest's office for a considerable time under Joash, the high-priesthood of his grandson Azariah would coincide with Uzziah's reign, when of course the chronological objection to the above-mentioned explanation of the words וגו ִּכֵהן ֲאֶׁשר הּוא is removed.

(Note: Bertheau's explanation is inadmissible. He says: “If we consider that in the long line of the high priests, many of them bearing the same name, it would naturally suggest itself to distinguish the Azariah who first discharged the duties of his office in the temple, in order to bring a fixed chronology into the enumeration of the names; and if we recollect that a high priest Azariah, the son, or according to our passage more definitely the grandson, of Zadok, lived in the time of Solomon; and finally, if we consider the passage 1Ch_6:32, we must hold that the words, 'He it is who discharged the duties of priest in the temple which Solomon had built in Jerusalem,' originally stood after the name Azariah in v. 9; cf. 1Ki_4:2.” All justification of the proposed transposition is completely taken away by the fact that the Azariah of 1Ki_4:2 was neither high priest nor the same person as the Azariah in v. 10 of our register; and it is impossible that a grandson of Zadok whom Solomon appointed to the high-priesthood, instead of Abiathar, can have been the first who discharged the duties of high priest in the temple. Oehler's opinion (in Herzog's Realencyklop. vi. 205), that the Amariah who follows Azariah (1Ch_6:11) is identical with the Amariah under Jehoshaphat, is not less improbable; for Jehoshaphat was king sixty-one years after Solomon's death, and during these sixty-one years the four high priests who are named between Zadok and Amariah could not have succeeded each other.)But lastly, the difficulty connected with the fact that in our passage Azariah follows Hilkiah, while in 2Ki_22:4. and 2Ch_31:10, 2Ch_31:13, Azariah occurs as high priest under King Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the time of his great-grandson Josiah, cannot be cleared away by merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah and Azariah. For, apart altogether from the improbability of such a transposition having taken place in a register formed as this is, “Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, and Azariah

13

begat,” the main objection to it is the fact that between Azariah, 1Ch_6:13, who lived under Uzziah, and Hilkiah four names are introduced; so that on this supposition, during the time which elapsed between Uzziah's forcing his way into the temple till the passover under Hezekiah, i.e., during a period of from 55 to 60 years, four generations must have followed one another, which is quite impossible. In addition to this, between Hezekiah and Josiah came the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, who reigned 55 years and 2 years respectively; and from the passover of Hezekiah to the finding of the book of the law by the high priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year of Josiah, about 90 years had elapsed, whence it is clear that on chronological grounds Hilkiah cannot well have been the successor of Azariah in the high-priesthood. The Azariah of v. 11f., therefore, cannot be identified with the Azariah who was high priest under Hezekiah (2Ch_31:10); and no explanation seems possible, other than the supposition that between Ahitub and Zadok the begetting of Azariah has been dropped out. On this assumption the Hilkiah mentioned in v. 13 may be the high priest in the time of Josiah, although between him and the time when Jehozadak was led away into exile three names, including that of Jehozadak, are mentioned, while from the eighteenth year of Josiah till the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans only 30 years elapsed. For Hilkiah may have been in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign very old; and at the destruction of Jerusalem, not Jehozadak, but his father Seraiah the grandson of Hilkiah, was high priest, and was executed at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_25:18, 2Ki_25:21), from which we may conclude that Jehozadak was led away captive in his early years. The order in which the names occur in our register, moreover, is confirmed by Ezr_7:1-5, where, in the statement as to the family of Ezra, the names from Seraiah onwards to Amariah ben-Azariah occur in the same order. The correspondence would seem to exclude any alterations of the order, either by transposition of names or by the insertion of some which had been dropped; but yet it only proves that both these genealogies have been derived from the same authority, and does not at all remove the possibility of this authority itself having had some defects. The probability of such breaks as we suppose in the case of Jehoiada and Azariah, who lived under Hezekiah, is shown, apart altogether from the reasons which have been already brought forward in support of it, by the fact that our register has only eleven generations from Zadok, the contemporary of Solomon, to Seraiah, who was slain at the destruction of Jerusalem; while the royal house of David shows seventeen generations, viz., the twenty kings of Judah, omitting Athaliah, and Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, the last two as being brothers of Jehoiakim (1Ch_3:10-24). Even supposing that the king's sons were, as a rule, earlier married, and begat children earlier than the priests, yet the difference between eleven and seventeen generations for the same period is too great, and is of itself sufficient to suggest that in our register of the high priests names are wanting, and that the three or four high priests known to us from the historical books who are wanting - Amariah under Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada under Joash, (Urijah under Ahaz,) and Azariah under Hezekiah - were either passed over or had fallen out of the list made use of by the author of the Chronicle.(Note: The extra-biblical information concerning the prae-exilic high priests in Josephus and the Seder Olam, is, in so far as it differs from the account of the Old Testament, without any historical warrAnt. Vide the comparison of these in Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, Opp. ed. ii. vol. i. p. 682ff.; Selden, De success, in pontific. lib. i.; and Reland, Antiquitatt. ss. ii. c. 2.)

14

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:4 Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua,Ver. 4. And Eleazar begat Phineas.] Famous for his zeal, and God’s promise thereupon, that he and his should be priests before him for ever. [Numbers 25:13] How Eli, of the lineage of Ithamar, came to be high priest, is nowhere expressed; but in this catalogue is no mention of him or his sons, but only of such as sprang from Eleazar.ELLICOTT, "(4-15) Twenty-two successors of Aaron, for the interval between his death and the Babylonian exile (circ. 588 B.C.). How many centuries that interval comprises is uncertain. The Exodus has been placed at various dates from 1648 B.C. (Hales), and 1491 (Usher) to circ. 1330 (Lepsius and other modern scholars), and even so late as 1265. It is premature, therefore, to object, as some have done, that twenty-two generations are too few for the period they are supposed to cover. If the later dates assigned for the Exodus be nearer the truth, an allowance of about thirty years to the generation would justify the list. At least we have no right to say that the list requires a reckoning of forty or fifty years to the generation. On the other hand, it may well be the case that some links in the chain are wanting. Comp. Ezra 7:1-7, where this list recurs in an abridged form, giving only fifteen names instead of twenty-two.(4) Eleazar begat Phinehas.—Numbers 20:22-28 tells how Moses, by Divine command, made Eleazar priest in Aaron’s room. Joshua 14:1; Joshua 17:4 represent him as acting with Joshua in Canaan. Joshua 24:33 records his death and place of burial. For Phinehas, son of Eleazar, see Exodus 6:25; Numbers 25:7; Numbers 25:11; Judges 20:28 (as ministering before the Ark at Bethel). The list before us appears to ignore the line of Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining son. 1 Chronicles 24:1-6, however, proves that the chronicler was well aware that there had been other personages of high-priestly rank besides those registered here (see especially 1 Chronicles 6:5 : “for there had been princes of the sanctuary and princes of God, of the sons of Eleazar and of the sons of Ithamar”). The line of Eleazar alone is here recorded as being at once the elder and legitimate, and also the permanent one from the time of Solomon onwards.PULPIT, "1Ch_6:4Eleazar. From this name inclusive follow the twenty-two, which terminate with Jehozadak, who indeed never attained him s elf to the office of high priest, but was son of Geraiah, last high priest before the Captivity, and father of Jeshua, high priest, who returned with Zerubbabel from the Captivity. It has been pointed out by Lord A. C. Hervey that the name Jehozadak is of the same meaning with Zedekiah, the last king before the Captivity; and that Jeshua is the same in meaning with Joshua, the leader of the tribes into Canaan. The two elder brothers of Eleazar, viz. Nadab and Abihu, died without issue (Le Jos_10:1; Num_3:4, Num_3:32; Num_20:28; Num_24:1-3). It is somewhat obscurely said that the sacred office remained in the family of Eleazar till, in the person of Eli, it passed awhile into that of Ithamar, his brother (1Ki_2:26, 1Ki_2:27; Jos_8:1, § 3), to be recovered again in the Zadok of our verse 9 (1Ch_24:3, 1Ch_24:4). Phinehas; a memorable man (Num_25:7-13; Jos_22:10-33; Jdg_20:28; Psa_106:30, Psa_106:31; which Grove well compares with Gen_15:6; Rom_4:3). Abishua; only mentioned in this chapter and Ezr_7:1-5. Josephus (Ezr_8:1, § 3) asserts that he it was

15

who was succeeded in the high priesthood, not by any one of his own descendants, but by Eli, till Zedok, in the time of David, all the intervening members of the Eleazar family being private individuals. But no reliance can be placed on this assertion, for see Josephus again (Ezr_5:11, § 5).

5 Abishua the father of Bukki,Bukki the father of Uzzi,

JAMISON, "Uzzi — It is supposed that, in his days, the high priesthood was, for unrecorded reasons, transferred from Eleazar’s family to Ithamar’s, in which it continued for several generations.TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:5 And Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi,Ver. 5. And Bukki begat Uzzi.] In this man’s time it is supposed that Eli (and so his posterity after him) got the high priest’s office - sed quo iure quave iniuria, parum constat - till after four generations it was resettled by Solomon upon Zadok, the son of Ahitub, [1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 2:35] who [with his descendants] were high priests till after the captivity.BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:5. Bukki begat Uzzi — In whose days it is supposed that the high- priesthood was translated from Eleazar’s family to Ithamar’s, for some cause now unknown, in whose line it continued for some successions.ELLICOTT, "(5) Uzzi is assumed to have been contemporary with Eli, whose immediate descendants to the fourth generation exercised the office of the high-priest, according to the data of the Books of Samuel and Kings. The line of Eli is as follows: Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar. (See 1 Samuel 1:28; 1 Samuel 2:4; 1 Samuel 2:11; 1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Samuel 22:20; 1 Kings 2:26-27.)

PULPIT, "1Ch_6:5-7Of the five succeeding names, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, it may

16

be said that they reappear in the list of Ezr_7:1-28; but that little or nothing else is known of them. Lightfoot (’Temple Service,’ 4. § 1) supposes that the change of priesthood family to Ithamar took place after Meraioth. But it is just as probable that the gap between Abishua and Eli, or possibly even between Phinehas and Eli, was filled by holders of the high priest office unknown by name to us.

6 Uzzi the father of Zerahiah,Zerahiah the father of Meraioth,

ELLICOTT, "(6) Zerahiah begat Meraioth.—Scripture is silent as regards the six persons named in 1 Chronicles 6:6-7. That the line of Eleazar abstained from the priestly functions during the ascendency of the house of Ithamar-Eli, is probably nothing more than a groundless guess on the part of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 1, 3). The indications of the Scriptures point the other way. Zadok and Abiathar enjoyed a co-ordinate authority in the time of David (1 Samuel 20:25), and proofs are not wanting of the existence of more than one recognised sanctuary, in which the representatives of both houses might severally officiate. (See Note on 1 Chronicles 16:39.)

7 Meraioth the father of Amariah,Amariah the father of Ahitub,

8 Ahitub the father of Zadok,17

Zadok the father of Ahimaaz,

CLARKE, "Ahitub begat Zadok - Through this person the high priesthood came again into the family of Eleazar.

PULPIT, "1Ch_6:8Ahitub. With this name begins the light again. Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, and Azariah are of frequent mention in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Ahitub, here and elsewhere plainly given as father of Zadok, seems to be given as father of Meraioth in 1Ch_9:11 and Neh_11:11, and grandfather of Zadok; and in both passages is termed "ruler of the house of God"—an expression probably equivalent to high priest, as Azariah, high priest in the reign of Hezekiah, is also so described (2Ch_31:13). The recurrence of the two names Ahitub and Zadok in verses 11 and 12 is very possibly the result of some error; and it is in favour of such a supposition, in some form of it, at all events, that in that place, where, including Shallum (or Meshullam), only three steps are found, several more seem to be required—the period one of some one hundred and eighty years, and filled in the list of Judah’s kings by as many as nine in succession. On the other hand, it is open to question whether the recurrence of the names Ahitub and Zadok be not legitimate. And this may then be the solution of 1Ch_9:11 and Neh_11:11, as above, with their insertion of Meraioth—still other names being absent which would make up the requisite number of generations. Zadok. The earliest glimpse we get of him is in 1Ch_12:28, where he is introduced as "a young man mighty of valour," who now casts in his lot with David at Hebron, on Saul’s death. In 2Sa_15:24, 2Sa_15:29, 2Sa_15:35, we find him and Abiathar the recognized priests. In 1Ki_1:7, 1Ki_1:8, we find him true to David when Abiathar joined Adonijah—the punishment of the latter and the reward of the former being recorded in 1Ki_2:27, 1Ki_2:35, respectively. Up to that time it is evident. that Abiathar had precedence in rank over Zadok. His death is not recorded, but it must be assigned to a date previous to the dedication of the temple, from the account of which (1Ki_8:1-66.) his name is entirely absent. The last allusions to him are in 1Ki_4:2, 1Ki_4:4; in the latter of which verses (specially coupled as the name is with the deposed Abiathar) the notice is probably as merely historical as it certainly is in the former. This same verse states that Azariah was "the priest," and that he was son, i.q. grandson, of Zadok, proving, with very little doubt, that the explanatory parenthesis of our verse. 10 should follow the Azariah mentioned in the previous verse.(8) Zadok was appointed sole high-priest by Solomon, who deposed Abiathar (1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 2:35).

Ahimaaz.—2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 17:17; cf. 2 Samuel 18:27. In all these passages Ahimaaz appears as a young man and a fleet runner, who did service to David in the time 18

of Absalom’s revolt. He nowhere appears as high-priest.

Azariah.—See 1 Kings 4:2, which mentions “Azariah son of Zadok the priest,” in a list of Solomon’s grandees. The remark in 1 Chronicles 6:10, “he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem,” enigmatical where it stands, is intelligible if connected with Azariah son of Ahimaaz; contrasting him with his grandfather, Zadok, who had ministered at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39); and with the other high-priests who were his namesakes, as the first Azariah. Solomon reigned forty years. Azariah, therefore, may have succeeded to the priesthood before his death.

ELLICOTT, "

9 Ahimaaz the father of Azariah,Azariah the father of Johanan,

BARNES, "Ahimaaz begat Azariah - It must, apparently, be this Azariah, and not the son of Johanan 1Ch_6:10, who was high priest at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple. For Zadok, who lived into the reign of Solomon 1Ki_4:4 cannot have been succeeded by a great-great-grandson. The notice in 1Ch_6:10, which is attached to the second Azariah, must, beyond a doubt, belong properly to the first.

PULPIT, "1Ch_6:9Ahimaaz. The first important notice of him is found in 2Sa_15:36, and the last in 2Sa_19:29. He is not to be identified with Solomon’s "officer" in Naphtali (1Ki_4:15). Azariah. As above said, it is almost without a doubt after this Azariah (1Ki_4:2) that the parenthetical comment of next verse should be read. Again, this Azariah must not be identified with him of the time of King Uzziah (2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_26:20), who must have been nearly a century later, and was contemporary with Isaiah, Joel, and Amos.

19

10 Johanan the father of Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the temple Solomon built in Jerusalem),

CLARKE, "Johanan - Supposed to be the same as Jehoiada.Executed the priest’s office - Probably this refers to the dignified manner in which Azariah opposed King Uzziah, who wished to invade the priest’s office, and offer incense in the temple. See 2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_26:18.JAMISON, "he it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem — It is doubtful whether the person in favor of whom this testimony is borne be Johanan or Azariah. If the former, he is the same as Jehoiada, who rendered important public services (2Ki_11:1-20); if the latter, it refers to the worthy and independent part he acted in resisting the unwarrantable encroachments of Uzziah (2Ch_26:17).in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem — described in this particular manner to distinguish it from the second temple, which was in existence at the time when this history was written.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:10. He it is that executed the priest’s office, &c. — So did all the rest: but it is implied that he did it worthily; he filled his place well, and valiantly discharged his office. For it is supposed this was that Azariah who boldly opposed the presumption of King Uzziah, when he invaded the priest’s office, 2 Chronicles 26:17. This remark may, however, relate to Johanan, otherwise called Jehoiada, who is so highly commended for the good service which he did to the house of God, and of the king; of whom see 2 Kings 11. In the temple that Solomon built — In Solomon’s temple; so denominated to distinguish it from the second temple, which was built, or in building, when these books were written.PULPIT, "1Ch_6:10Of Johanan and Azariah, his son, nothing can be found with any certainty. It is presumable that they were priests in the reigns of Abijah and Asa.

20

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he [it is] that executed the priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)

Ver. 10. And Johanan.] Alias Jehoiadah. [2 Chronicles 23:1]

He it is that executed the priest’s office.] Whether we understand it of the father or the son, we do not amiss: Nam uterque se strenue gessit in sacerdotio, they were gallant men both.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:10. He it is that executed the priest's office, &c.— Some suppose that this Azariah is he who strenuously opposed king Uzziah; and that, therefore, he is thus mentioned. Houbigant thinks that he was the son of Zadok, mentioned 1 Kings 4:2.

ELLICOTT, "(10) Johanan begat Azariah.—Johanan is un. known. The name Azariah occurs thrice in the present list—viz., in 1 Chronicles 6:9-10; 1 Chronicles 6:13. We have already identified the first with the son, or rather grandson, of Zadok, who is mentioned in 1 Kings 4:2. A high-priest (Azariah) withstood King Uzziah’s assumption of priestly privilege (2 Chronicles 26:17), circ. 740 B.C. The Jewish exegetes Rashi and Kimchi supposed him to be identical with Azariah son of Johanan, fancifully explaining the remark, “he it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple,” &c., as a reference to his bold defence of the priestly prerogative against the king himself. If this were right, several names would be omitted in 1 Chronicles 6:9-10. But we have seen that the remark in question really belongs to a former Azariah, and has been transposed from its original position in 1 Chronicles 6:9 by the inadvertence of some copyist. Another Azariah is mentioned (2 Chronicles 31:10) as “chief priest of the house of Zadok,” early in the reign of Hezekiah. Him, too, we fail to identify with either of the Azariahs of the present list. (See 1 Chronicles 6:13, Note.)

11 Azariah the father of Amariah,Amariah the father of Ahitub,

BARNES, "Ahitub - Between Amariah and Hilkiah 1Ch_6:13 this genealogy is most certainly defective, as it gives three generations only for a period for which nine

21

generations are furnished by the list of the kings of Judah, and which cannot be estimated as much short of 200 years. Further, no one of the names in this part of the list occurs among the High priests of the period, several of whom are mentioned both in the Second Book of Chronicles and in Kings; the explanation of which seems to be that the present is not a list of high priests, but the genealogy of Jozadak or Jehozadak, whose line of descent partly coincided with the list of High priests, partly differed from it. Where it coincided, all the names are given; where it differed, some are omitted, in order (probably) to render the entire list from Phinehas a multiple of seven. See the note at 1Ch_6:20.

ELLICOTT, "(11) Azariah begat Amariah.—Perhaps the Amariah of 2 Chronicles 19:11, who was high-priest under Jehoshaphat.PULPIT. "Amariah. High priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:11; see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' sub voce, 2). A step ascertainable as this helps to keep the line and chronology steady amid surrounding obscurity.

12 Ahitub the father of Zadok,Zadok the father of Shallum,

ELLICOTT, "(12) And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum.—See 1 Chronicles 6:8 : “And Ahitub begat Zadok.” The recurrence of names in the same families is almost too common to require notice, except where confusion of distinct persons has resulted or is likely to result, as in the instance of those among our Lord’s immediate followers, who bore the names of Simon, Judas, and James.Somewhere about this part of the list we miss the name of Jehoiada, the famous king-maker, who put down Athaliah and set up Joash (2 Chronicles 23). In like manner, Urijah, the too compliant high-priest of the reign of Ahaz, who flourished a generation or so later, is conspicuous here by omission (2 Kings 16:10-16).Urijah may have been omitted because of his unworthy connivance in an unlawful worship, not, however, as “an unimportant man,” as Keil thinks. (Comp. Isaiah 8:2.) But if the list is a list of actual high-priests, Jehoiada can only have been

22

omitted by accident, unless indeed he is represented in it by an unrecognised alias. Double names are common in Scripture, from Jacob-Israel, Esau-Edom, downwards.

PULPIT, "Amariah. High priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:11; see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' sub voce, 2). A step ascertainable as this helps to keep the line and chronology steady amid surrounding obscurity.

13 Shallum the father of Hilkiah,Hilkiah the father of Azariah,

ELLICOTT, "(13) Hilkiah begat Azariah.—Hilkiah is probably the well-known high-priest who “found the Book of the Law” which led to the great reformation of Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:8, seq.). Azariah, his son, is not elsewhere mentioned. The Azariah of 2 Chronicles 31:10, who figures as high-priest under Hezekiah, at least eighty years earlier, is absent from this list.

PULPIT, "Shallum, called in 1 Chronicles 9:11 and Nehemiah 11:11 Meshullam. There are at fewest fifteen persons of this name. The present is named as ancestor of Ezra (Ezra 7:2). Hillkiah. There are seven persons of this name. The present was the celebrated one of them all; and from three chief circumstances:

14 Azariah the father of Seraiah,

23

and Seraiah the father of Jozadak.[b]

CLARKE, "Seraiah - He was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar, 2Ki_25:18, 2Ki_25:21.

JAMISON, "Azariah begat Seraiah — He filled the supreme pontifical office at the destruction of Jerusalem, and, along with his deputy and others, he was executed by Nebuchadnezzar’s orders at Riblah (2Ki_25:18, 2Ki_25:21). The line of high priests, under the first temple, which from Zadok amounted to twelve, terminated with him.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:14 And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak,Ver. 14. And Azariah begat Seraiah.] Who was the father, or grandfather, of Ezra the scribe. [Ezra 7:1]

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:14. Azariah begat Seraiah, &c.— Seraiah was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar. In him ended the succession of high-priests under the first temple. Their number from Zadok amounted to twelve.

ELLICOTT, "(14) Seraiah begat Jehozadak.—Seraiah was still high-priest at the moment of the fall of Jerusalem (588 B.C. ). Nebuchadnezzar caused him to be put to death at Riblah (2 Kings 25:18-21; Jeremiah 52:24, seq.) From Azariah (1 Chronicles 6:10) to Seraiah we find only ten names. In the list of the kings of Judah for about the same interval eighteen names occur (see 1 Chronicles 3:10-16). This fact undoubtedly suggests the omission of some generations from the list before us.The use of the word “begat” throughout the series is not to be pressed to the contrary conclusion. Like the term “son” in Ezra 7:3 (“Azariah, son of Meraioth,” though six intermediate names are given in Chron.), it is a somewhat elastic technical formula in these genealogies.

24

PULPIT, "Azariah. The third occurrence of this name in this list. This person is found again in Ezra 2:1-70 :l, but is wanting in Nehemiah 11:11. Seraiah; found also in Nehemiah 11:11, in a list which omits the preceding Azariah, and in Ezra 7:1. The end of his high priesthood and of himself is recorded with that of Zephaniah (2 Kings 25:18, 2 Kings 25:21), and (not the Seraiah, "the quiet prince," of Jeremiah 51:59-64) he is also spoken of in Jeremiah 52:24-27. He was high priest in the time of Zedekiah.

15 Jozadak was deported when the Lord sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

BARNES, "Jehozadak - The meaning of the name is “Jehovah is righteous.” It has been noted as remarkable that the heads of both the priestly and the royal stock carried to Babylon should have had names (Zedekiah and Jehozadak) composed of the same elements, and assertive of the “justice of God,” which their sufferings showed forth so signally.

K&D, "1Ch_6:15(5:41). Jehozadak is the father of Joshua who returned from exile with Zerubbabel, and was the first high priest in the restored community (Ezr_3:2; Ezr_5:2; Hag_1:1).

After ָהַל, “he went forth,” ָלה ַּבּג is to be supplied from וגו ת ”he went into exile“ ,ְּבַהְגלto Babylon; cf. Jer_49:3.TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:15 And Jehozadak went [into captivity], when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.Ver. 15. And Jehozadak went into captivity.] Where he begat Joshua, the high priest,

25

who helped Zerubbabel in rebuilding the city and temple. [Haggai 1:1]ELLICOTT, "(15) And Jehozadak went into captivity.—The Heb. is went away. Our version rightly supplies into captivity. (Comp. Jeremiah 49:3.) Jehozadak was presumably a child at the time; half a century later a son of his, the high-priest Jeshua or Joshua, returned with Zerubbabel at the head of the first colony of restored exiles, 536 B.C. (Haggai 1:1; Ezra 3:2).When the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.—The chronicler is generally charged with a strong Levitical and priestly bias, in unfavourable contrast to the “prophetical” tendency of the writers of Samuel and Kings. The sentiment of this verse, however, and of many other passages, is thoroughly accordant with the point of view of the greater prophets. Isaiah, e.g., never wearies of proclaiming that the Assyrian conquerors were mere instruments in the hands of Jehovah, unconsciously executing His fore-ordained purposes.Nebuchadnezzar.—So the name is spelt in Kings, Chronicles, and Daniel, but incorrectly. Jeremiah 24:2, &c., reads Nebuchadrezzar, which is nearer the true name, Nabium-kudurri-açur (Nebo protect the crown).PULPIT, "Jehozadak. He did not share the violent end of his father, nor did he attain his father's high priest office, but lived to the end a captive (see note on 1 Chronicles 6:4). Where this name occurs in Haggai and Zechariah, it is the same in the Hebrew as here, though Englished in the Authorized Version as Josedech. Where it occurs in Ezra and Nehemiah, the shorter form of Jozadak is found in the Hebrew as in the Authorized Version.

16 The sons of Levi:Gershon,[c] Kohath and Merari.

GILL 16-19, "The sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Which is repeated from 1Ch_6:1 for the sake of their posterity, whose names are given in the three following verses, in the same manner as in Exo_6:17.

26

JAMISON 16-48, "The sons of Levi; Gershom, etc. — This repetition (see 1Ch_6:1) is made, as the historian here begins to trace the genealogy of the Levitical families who were not priests. The list is a long one, comprising the chiefs or heads of their several families until David’s reign, who made a new and different classification of them by courses.K&D 16-81, "(Ch. 6). The families and cities of the Levites. - Vv. 1-34. Register of the

families of the Levites. - This is introduced by an enumeration of the sons and grandsons of Levi (1Ch_6:16-19), which is followed by lists of families in six lines of descent: (a) the descendants of Gershon (1Ch_6:20-21), of Kohath (1Ch_6:22-28), and of Merari (1Ch_6:29-30); and (b) the genealogies of David's chief musicians (1Ch_6:31, 1Ch_6:32), of Heman the Kohathite (1Ch_6:33-38), of Asaph the Gershonite (1Ch_6:39-43), and of Ethan the Merarite (1Ch_6:44-47); and in 1Ch_6:48, 1Ch_6:49, some notes as to the service performed by the other Levites and the priests are added.(6:1-4). The sons of Levi are in 1Ch_6:1 again enumerated as in 1Ch_6:1; then in 1Ch_6:16-22 the sons of these three sons, i.e., the grandsons of Levi, are introduced, while in 1Ch_6:1 only the sons of Kohath are mentioned. The only object of this enumeration is to make quite clear the descent of the Levitic families which follow. The name of the first son of Levi is in 1Ch_6:16, 1Ch_6:17, 1Ch_6:20, etc. of this chapter ֵּגְרֹׁשם, which was the name of Moses' son, cf. 1Ch_23:15.; whereas in 1Ch_6:1 and in the

Pentateuch we find a different pronunciation, viz., ן The names of Levi's grandsons .ֵּגְרׁשin 1Ch_6:17-22 coincide with the statements of the Pentateuch, Exo_6:17-19, and Num_3:17-20, cf. Num_26:57. Bertheau and other commentators consider the words in 1Ch_6:17, “and these are the families of Levi according to their fathers,” to be a “concluding subscription” to the statements of 1Ch_6:15-17, and would remove ְו before ֵאֶּלה, as not compatible with this supposition. But in this he is wrong: for although the similar statement in Exo_6:20 is a subscription, yet it is in Num_3:20 a superscription, and must in our verse also be so understood; for otherwise the enumeration of the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, which follows, would be brought in very abruptly, without any connecting particle, and the ְו before ֵאֶּלה points to the same conclusion.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:16. The sons of Levi, Gershom, &c. — This he repeats as the foundation of the following genealogy of those Levites who were not priests.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:16. &c. The sons of Levi— This pedigree of the posterity of Levi is given again, 1 Chronicles 6:43. It appears most probable, that in this catalogue the name of the son of Gershom was omitted, and לבני Libni, inserted, from בנו beno, his son, since the name of Gershom's son in the Syriac and Arabic, 1Chronicles 6:20, is said to be Nahath instead of Jahath, as we find it in the second

27

catalogue. See Pilkington, p. 29.

ELLICOTT, "Verses 16-19

(16-19) The three branches of Levi with their main subdivisions. Parallel passages, Exodus 6:16-19; Numbers 3:17-20.

(16) Gershom.—See Note on 1 Chronicles 6:1. In the Pentateuch, Gershom is son of Moses; Gershon, son of Levi.

(19) And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers.—The word’families” (Heb., mishpehuth) does not mean single households, but groups of households, or clans. The sentence concludes the short list of the great Levitical houses, just as at Exodus 6:19. (See also Numbers 3:20, where a like formula appears to introduce what follows.)

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:16-19These verses have a re-enumeration of the three sons of Levi, and differ from the enumeration of 1 Chronicles 6:1, in being followed by the sons of each of these three, and afterwards by the line of descendants from each, instead of by the sons of only one, Kohath, and his descendant in only one stem, the high priest stem, and with only one object. All these names agree with Exodus 6:17-19 and Numbers 3:17-20 (comp. also Numbers 3:21-36 with Numbers 26:57-60), with the trifling exceptions already alluded to, in the Hebrew spelling of Gershom and the Authorized Version spelling of Shimei and the Authorized Version Mahali of Exodus 6:19. The latter half of Exodus 6:19, according to the Hebrew, should rather refer to what has preceded, and be a "subscription," though it might best suit the connection to regard it as introducing what was to follow, and as being a "superscription." Bertheau holds with the former of these views, Keil with the latter.

28

17 These are the names of the sons of Gershon:Libni and Shimei.

18 The sons of Kohath:

Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.

19 The sons of Merari:

Mahli and Mushi.

These are the clans of the Levites listed according to their fathers:

BENSON, "Verse 19-201 Chronicles 6:19-20. The families of the Levites according to their fathers —

29

That is, these were the heads of the families which sprang from them. And it is thought the following catalogue contains the successive heads or chiefs of their several families until the times of David, by whom they were distributed into several courses. Zimmah his son — His grandson by his son Shimei, as appears from 1 Chronicles 6:42-43; the names of father and son being often used in Scripture of more remote progenitors or successors.

20 Of Gershon:

Libni his son, Jahath his son,

Zimmah his son,

barnes, "Of Gershom - The names in this list are curiously different from those in 1Ch_6:41-43, which yet appear to represent the same line reversed. Probably both lists are more or less corrupted, and, as in many genealogies, omission is made, to reduce the number of the names to seven. Compare e. g. 1Ch_6:22-28 with 1Ch_6:33-38. Compare the other genealogy ties of this chapter; and see also Matt. 1:1-17.

GILL, "Of Gershon, Libni his son,.... Whose genealogy runs thus, Jahath, called Jehiel, 1Ch_23:8. Zimmah, between whom was Shimei, 1Ch_6:42. Joah, the same with Ethan, 1Ch_6:42. Iddo, called Adaiah, 1Ch_6:41. Zerah, Jeaterai, whose name was also Ethni, 1Ch_6:41, the posterity of Shimei, the brother of Libni, are omitted.

JAMISON, "Zimmah his son — his grandson (1Ch_6:42).

30

ELLICOTT, " (20) Of Gershom.—Literally, to—i.e., belonging to Gershom.Libni his son.—See Numbers 3:21, “To Gershon, the clan of the Libnite, and the clan of the Shimeite; these are the clans of the Gershonite.”The names Jahath, Zimmah, and Zerah recur in the line of Asaph, 1 Chronicles 6:41-43 below (see the Note there). Jeaterai, in whom the present series culminates, is wholly unknown. At the time when the list was first drawn up, the name may have represented a famous chieftain or family. It has the ending of a patronymic or gentilic term, and perhaps should be read with different vowels, we ‘Ithrai, or ‘Ithri, “and the Ithrite” (comp. ‘Ishai for Yishai), a clan of which came two of David’s heroes (1 Chronicles 11:40).Verse 20-21(20, 21) The genealogy of the Gershonites in seven successive generations. It does not occur in the Pentateuch. This and the two following lists of Kohathites and Merarites are symmetrical in plan, but not in the number of names included.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:20-21

(A) These verses apparently give seven lineal descendants of Gershom, through his eldest son Libni. The question is whether this list of seven is part of the longer list of thirteen from Gershom (1 Chronicles 6:39-43). terminating with Asaph; and it seems impossible to decide the question satisfactorily. From the occurrence of the name Shimei in this latter, though in the wrong place, viz. after Jahath in the descending order, instead of before him, some think, Keil and Zockler among them, that it is a line from Shimei, the brother of Libni, and second son of Gershom. If this be so, the occurrence of three names, the same and in the same order, is a thing to be remarked, though possible enough in itself. But if not, then either the names Joah, Iddo, Jeaterai, in the former list, must be interchangeable with Ethan, Adaiah, Ethni, respectively in the latter (a thing which the similarity of the Hebrew letters might render credible), while the Shimei of 1 Chronicles 6:42 is omitted from 1 Chronicles 6:20, and the Libni of 1 Chronicles 6:20 from 1 Chronicles 6:43; or the one list must pick up some links and leave others, and the other do likewise, whilst those taken the same by both are in the minority. This last supposition may be the more probable, though not free from difficulty. Zimmah. Beside the uncertainty of the identity of this Zimmah with the same name in 1 Chronicles 6:42, it is very

31

remarkable that we find a Zimmah, also father of a Joah, in 2 Chronicles 29:12; also in this same passage we find three other reproductions of a similar kind—father and son-of what have first been found in this sixth chapter, viz. "Mahath, son of Amasai" (2 Chronicles 29:35); "Joel, son of Azariah" (verse 36); "Kish, son of Abdi" (verse 44). It seems as though the individual descendant was quoted in these instances by the name of the ancestor at a certain point.

21 Joah his son,Iddo his son, Zerah his sonand Jeatherai his son.

GILL, "The sons of Kohath, Amminadab,.... The same with Izhar, 1Ch_6:2 the posterity of his brethren, Amram, Hebron, and Uzziel, are omitted; and his genealogy is carried to a considerable length, for the sake of Samuel the prophet, who sprang from him: it stands thus, Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph, Assir, Tahath, Uriel, called Zephaniah, 1Ch_6:36 Uzziah, the same with Azariah, 1Ch_6:36. Shaul, whose name is Joel, 1Ch_6:36 then through the sons of Elkanah, before mentioned, Amasai, Ahimoth, called Mahath, 1Ch_6:35 another Elkanah, Zophai, or Zuph, 1Ch_6:35. Nahath, the same with Toah, 1Ch_6:34 and Tohu, 1Sa_1:1, Eliab, called Eliel, 1Ch_6:34, and Elihu, 1Sa_1:1, Jeroham, another Elkanah, the father of Samuel the prophet, whose firstborn was Vashni, and whose name also was Joel, 1Ch_6:33 and so here it is read in the Syriac and Arabic versions: and his second son Abiah.

22 The descendants of Kohath:32

Amminadab his son, Korah his son,Assir his son,

CLARKE, "Korah - See the history of this man, and his rebellion, Numbers 16:1-33.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:22 The sons of Kohath; Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son,Ver. 22. Korah his son.] This was that sinner against his own soul, [Numbers 16:1] whom the earth swallowed up quick. Howbeit his children came to good, many of them, as Elkanah, Samuel, the sons of Korah, in David’s days. Dathan and Abiram, his fellow sinners, are stigmatised for their stubbornness, [Numbers 26:9] as before them was Cain, [Genesis 4:15] and after them Ahaz. [2 Chronicles 28:22]

ELLICOTT, "Verse 22-23

(22–23) The sons of Kohath. As the text stands we have here a threefold list, each portion of which is isolated from the rest, and begins afresh with the word onê (the sons of).

(22) Amminadab his son.—Amminadab is not mentioned as a son of Kohath in the Pentateuch or elsewhere. Korah, here called son of Amminadab, is called son of Izhar, son of Kohath, Exodus 6:21. (See 1 Chronicles 6:18, supra, and 1 Chronicles 6:38, infra.) Some assume that Amminadab is a “by-name” of Izhar (so Margin). It is more likely that the name Izhar has dropped out of the text of 1 Chronicles 6:22.

(22, 23) Assir his son, Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son.—Comp. Exodus 6:24 : “And the sons of Korah, Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph, these are the sons of

33

Korah.” The connection, then, is as follows:—

The conjunction and, in 1 Chronicles 6:23, seems to hint that the connection is no longer one of direct descent, but that the three, Assir, Elkanah, and Ebiasaph, are to be regarded as brothers.

(23) And Assir his son.—Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:37 below, in the line of Heman, which in great part coincides with the present series. There we read, “Assir, son of Ebiasaph, son of Korah.” The present Assir is therefore son of Ebiasaph, and nephew of the former Assir (1 Chronicles 6:22). The form of a direct descent is now resumed and continued with Tahath, son of Assir (1 Chronicles 6:24).

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:22-28

(B) These verses give descendants, probably twenty-one in number, from Levi, through his second son, Kohath, to Joel, eldest son of Samuel and (verse 33) father of Heman. The descendants of Kohath through his eldest son, Amram, have been given from verses 3-15. But the descendants now to he spoken of are through another son, here called Am-minadab, a name not appearing among the four of verse 2, but apparently standing for the Izhar of that verse. For he is said to have a son Korah, by whom, indeed, the genealogy moves on, while in verses 37, 38. and Numbers 16:1, Korah is said to be the son of Izhar. Without the occurrence of this clue, we should have been at a loss to tell who Amminadab was, as we are now at a loss to explain the unexplained substitution of this new name. The Vatican Septuagint has Amminadab, while the Alexandrine has altered to Izhar, probably deeming the other name a mere error.

1 Chronicles 6:22, 1 Chronicles 6:23

Korah (comp. Numbers 16:27, Numbers 16:32, Numbers 16:33, with Numbers 26:9-11). From Exodus 6:24 we also learn that the throe next in lineal succession to Korah, were Assir, Elkanah, and Ebiasaph, or Abiasaph; though Elkanah and Assir

34

are omitted from verse 37, in the ascending line.

23 Elkanah his son,

Ebiasaph his son, Assir his son,

24 Tahath his son, Uriel his son,

Uzziah his son and Shaul his son.

ELLICOTT, " (24) In the corresponding verse of the genealogy of Heman below (1 Chronicles 6:38) the names are Tahath, Zephaniah, Azariah, and Joel. It is easy to suppose that as the two series diverge after Tahath, Uriel and Zephaniah are two different sons of Tahath. But we notice (1) that Uzziah (1 Chronicles 6:24) may = Azariah, 1 Chronicles 6:36 (comp. King Uzziah—Azariah, 2 Kings 15:1; 2 Chronicles 26:1); (2) that although there is an apparent break between 1 Chronicles 6:24-25, so that a new list begins with the sons of Elkanah (1 Chronicles 6:25), yet 1 Chronicles 6:35-36 speak of an “Amasai, son of Elkanah,” in exact agreement with 1

35

Chronicles 6:25; and (3) that the correspondence between the two lists (1 Chronicles 6:22-30; 1 Chronicles 6:33-38) is so close, that it is difficult not to assume their substantial identity. Uriel may have been also known as Zephaniah, and Shaul as Joel.

JAMISON, "Uriel — or Zephaniah (1Ch_6:36).

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:24-28Tahath. From this name onwards to the end of 1 Chronicles 6:28 we must have recourse to the reversed list of 1 Chronicles 6:33 37, in order to make out our way. Even then we shall scarcely have a chain of all the licks; e.g. there is no evidence here (as there is in the case of Amminadab above) that Uriel and Zephaniah designate the same person. The lists may be brought, however, into pretty close harmony without any violent suppositions or substitutions, thus: Tahath, Uriel, Zephaniah, Uzziah (i.q. Azariah), Shaul (i.q. Joel), Elkanah, Amasai, Ahimoth (i.q. Mahath), Elkanah Zophai (i.q. Zuph), Nahath (i.q. Toah, Tohu, 1 Samuel 1:1), Eliab (i.q. Eliel, Elihu, 1 Samuel 1:1), Jeroham, Elkanah, Samuel (i.q. Shemuel), Joel (1 Samuel 8:2, which distinctly gives Joel as firstborn son, and supplies the explanation of the Vashni here by expressly mentioning Abish as "his second" son).

25 The descendants of Elkanah:Amasai, Ahimoth,

ELLICOTT, "(25) And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai.—See last Note. It is natural to identify the Elkanah of 1 Chronicles 6:36 with this one. The posterity of both are so nearly the same; otherwise we might have taken the present Elkanah for the person

36

mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:23.

26 Elkanah his son,[d] Zophai his son,Nahath his son,

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:26. As for Elkanah, &c. — This was another Elkanah, son or grandson of the former Elkanah, and either the son or brother of Ahimoth, last mentioned, or of Amasai. Nahath his son — Called also Toah, 1 Chronicles 6:34, and Tohu, 1 Samuel 1:1. The Elkanah mentioned in the next verse was the father of the Prophet Samuel, whose name therefore follows.ELLICOTT, " (26) The Hebrew text reads: “Elkanah his son—Elkanah—Zophai his son,” &c. Zophai might mean the Zophite. The LXX. has (1 Chronicles 6:25) “And sons of Elkanah, Amessi and Ahimoth;” (1 Chronicles 6:26) “Elkanah his son, Souphi his son,” &c. So the Syriac. That this is correct appears from comparison of Heman’s pedigree (1 Chronicles 6:35). The second Elkanah in 1 Chronicles 6:26 is therefore an intrusion, due perhaps to some scribe who remembered 1 Samuel 1:1, where Zophim occurs just before Elkanah. In 1 Chronicles 6:35 Elkanah is son of Mahath, son of Amasai. Perhaps Mahath is identical with the Ahimoth of 1 Chronicles 6:25; if so, the true reading of 1 Chronicles 6:25-26 would be: “And sons of Elkanah: Amasai his son, Ahimoth (Mahath) his son, Elkanah his son, Zophai his son,” &c. Zophai is to Zuph (1 Chronicles 6:35) as Chelubai (1 Chronicles 2:9) to Chelub (1 Chronicles 4:11). Nahath looks like a transformation of Toah (1 Chronicles 6:34), and Eliab (1 Chronicles 6:27)—“El is father”—may be a by-form of Eliel (ibid.) “El is el.” Jeroham and Elkanah go back to Eliel in 1 Chronicles 6:34, just as they spring from Eliab here. The two series again coincide.

37

27 Eliab his son,Jeroham his son, Elkanah his sonand Samuel his son.[e]

JAMISON, "Elkanah — the father of the prophet Samuel (1Sa_1:1).

28 The sons of Samuel:

Joel[f] the firstborn

and Abijah the second son.

BARNES, "Vashni - The true name of Samuel’s first-born, which was “Joel” (see the margin and references), has here dropped out; and the word properly meaning “and his second (son)” has been taken as the name of the first.

CLARKE, "The first-born Vashni, and Abiah - There is a great mistake in this verse: in 1Sa_8:2 we read, Now the name of his (Samuel’s) first-born was Joel; and the name of his second Abiah. The word יואל Joel is lost out of the text in this place, and ושני vesheni, which signifies the second, and which refers to Abiah, is made here into a proper

38

name. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Chaldee, copy this blunder; but the Syriac and Arabic read as in 1Sa_8:2. The MSS. have all copied the corrupted Hebrew in this place. Jarchi labors to restore the true reading, and yet preserve the integrity of the text, by paraphrasing thus: “And the second, (ושני vesheni), in respect of the first, he was Abiah; and the second, in respect of Abiah, he was Joel.”

These, Joel and Abiah, were the two sons of Samuel, who administered justice so badly that the people, being oppressed, began to murmur, and demanded a king. See 1Sa_8:1, etc.JAMISON, "the sons of Samuel — The sons of Samuel are here named Vashni and

Abiah. The first-born is called Joel (1Sa_8:2); and this name is given to him in 1Ch_6:33. It is now generally thought by the best critics that, through an error of the copyists, an omission has been made of the oldest son’s name, and that Vashni, which is not the name of a person, merely signifies “and the second.” This critical emendation of the text makes all clear, as well as consistent with other passages relating to the family of Samuel.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:28 And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni, and Abiah.Ver. 28. The firstborn Vashni.] Alias Joel. [1 Samuel 8:2] The Septuagint render the text thus: And the sons of Samuel were, the firstborn, Joel; and the second (Vashni signifieth, And the second), Abiah.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:28. The sons of Samuel— The sons of Samuel, Joel his first-born, Abiah his second. See 1 Chronicles 6:33 and 1 Samuel 8:2. At the end of the 27th verse, instead of Elkanah his son, read Samuel his son. Houbigant.

REFLECTIONS.—1st, As Judah had the pre-eminence, and Joseph the birthright, Levi had the honour of the priesthood. Among the descendants of Kohath were Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, whose names are great in God's book. Two of the sons of Aaron, on whom the priesthood was settled, suffered for their daring presumption. In the others, the priestly line was maintained. The line of Eleazar to the captivity is drawn, during which the high-priesthood in general continued in that family; though, in the time of the judges, we find it for a while transferred to the descendants of Ithamar, till Solomon again restored Zadok. Azariah is mentioned as officiating in Solomon's temple, perhaps when Uzziah invaded the

39

priest's office, whom he so nobly withstood. They who have a zeal for God, fear not to testify against the sins of the greatest men, though at the hazard of prison or death.

2nd, When David had brought up the ark from Obed-edom's house, he appointed a solemn choir of Levites, for the constant singing of God's praises; at the head of which were Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, one out of each of the three great houses of Levi, with their children, as many as were musical at least. The other Levites, according to the classes into which they were divided, did the rest of the service, kept the gates, prepared the sacrifices, &c. Note; (1.) The work of praise in the great congregation should be as much the minister's care, as the work of prayer. It is a sure sign of a decay of godliness, when there is a neglect of divine psalmody. (2.) That only is to God a pleasing service of song, when in the heart, as well as the lips, we make melody to God. (3.) In God's house there must be no idlers; the work is important, and calls for labour and diligence." (28) And the sons of Samuel.—Heb., Shemuel The third break in the Kohathite

list.

We see from 1 Chronicles 6:33-34 that Samuel (Shemuel, name of God) is son of Elkanah, son of Jeroham; hence we might suppose that the clause “Samuel his son” has been accidentally omitted at the end of 1 Chronicles 6:27. But it is quite possible that the writer assumed the connection to be too well known to require specification, or that he has here thrown together three independent genealogical fragments. Comp. with 1 Chronicles 6:27-28 the pedigree of Elkanah, 1 Samuel 1:1 : “Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph.” Here again the names vary, yet not so as to obliterate their identity. Elihu (“El is He”) = Eliab, Eliel; Tohu, a fuller form of Toah = Nahath.

The firstborn Vashni, and Abiah.—Vashni is not a proper name, but a corrupt form of the Hebrew phrase “and the second” (shçnî, secundus). The sons of the prophet Samuel were Joel, the firstborn, and Abiah, 1 Samuel 8:2 (see also 1 Chronicles 6:33 below). Joel has fallen out of the text here; it should run, “Joel the firstborn, and the second Abiah.”

40

Reviewing the Kohathite list (22-28) we conclude that it represents three statistical fragments which have been put in juxtaposition by the chronicler or the author whom he has followed, and that in accordance with the real connection between the members, as appears on comparison with the continuous list which immediately follows in 1 Chronicles 6:33-38. The fact that “Samuel his son” is the missing link between 1 Chronicles 6:27-28, makes it likely that “Elkanah his son” is the true connection between 1 Chronicles 6:24-25.

From Levi to the sons of Samuel about twenty generations are reckoned. Usher’s chronology dates the descent of Jacob and his sons into Egypt at 1706 B.C. Twenty generations are six hundred years. The sons of Samuel would, according to this, be living about 1106 B.C. and later. Ruth 4:18-22 reckons only ten generations from Judah to Jesse, the father of David. This again shows that in their genealogical tables the Hebrews did not uniformly supply every link, but were often content with a statement of the principal names.

3rdly, Sacrificing was peculiarly appropriated to the priests, the sons of Aaron. They alone shed the blood of atonement, and burnt incense; and herein they were typical of him, who, himself both priest and sacrifice, by one oblation of himself once offered, hath obtained eternal redemption for us.

ELLICOTT

29 The descendants of Merari:Mahli, Libni his son,Shimei his son, Uzzah his son,

41

GILL, "The sons of Merari; Mahli,.... The posterity of his brother Mushi are omitted; his genealogy is drawn thus, Libni, Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, Asaiah.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 29-30(29, 30) A short list of Merarite names. (Comp. Numbers 3:20, and 1 Chronicles 6:14, supra, for the two sons of Merari, Mahli and Mushi, after whom the clans of the Merarites were designated. The present list traces the line of Mahli to the seventh generation; all the names are alike unknown. Below, 1 Chronicles 6:44-47, we have another line going back to Mushi, brother of Mahli. Why has the chronicler preserved the three lists of 1 Chronicles 6:19-30? The process from Levi to the worthless sons of Samuel, and the utterly unknown names of Jeaterai and Asaiah, reads like an anti-climax. But it is not to be forgotten that these no longer significant fragments are genuine relics of ancient family registers, and as such may have had more than a merely antiquarian value in the days of the chronicler.

1 Chronicles 6:31-32 are a prelude to the pedigrees of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, the three great masters of David’s choirs (33-48). The nature, time, and place of their special duties are described.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:29, 1 Chronicles 6:30

(C) In 1 Chronicles 6:19 the two sons of Merari, viz. Mahli and Mushi, are given. Here one of them, Mahli, is repeated, with six descendants, of no one of whom have we any other information. From comparison of Numbers 3:20 and Numbers 26:58 there can be no doubt that Mahli and Mushi were brothers, each of whom founded a family. The descending line of Mushi, unalluded to here, comes to the surface in Numbers 26:44-47.

30 Shimea his son, Haggiah his son42

and Asaiah his son.

The Temple Musicians

31 These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the Lord after the ark came to rest there.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:31. And these — Whose names follow, are they whom David set over the service — Appointed to minister to God by singing songs of praise in his house; after that the ark had rest — After David had brought it from the house of Obed-edom, and settled it in Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 8:17.

CLARKE, "After that the ark had rest - The Targum says, “These are they whom David set over the service of the singing, in the house of the sanctuary, or tabernacle of the Lord, at the time in which the ark was brought into it;” that is, when it was brought from the house of Obed-edom.GILL, "And these are they,.... Who follow; the account of whom begins 1Ch_6:33, whom David set over the service of the song in the house of the Lord: whom

43

he appointed chief musicians, and masters of the chorus, to manage and conduct that part of divine service in the sanctuary, singing the praises of God, both with vocal and instrumental music: after the ark had rest; which was when it was brought from the house of Obededom to the city of David, and was placed in a tabernacle he provided for it, 2Sa_6:12, where it remained until the temple was built, when and which was the only time it was removed, whereas before it had been removed from place to place, and so till now had no rest; though some understand this of the ceasing or silence of the oracle over the ark, which was neither consulted by Solomon and his successors, nor any of the high priests afterwards (g).

HENRY 31-53, "When the Levites were first ordained in the wilderness much of the work then appointed them lay in carrying and taking care of the tabernacle and the utensils of it, while they were in their march through the wilderness. In David's time their number was increased; and, though the greater part of them was dispersed all the nation over, to teach the people the good knowledge of the Lord, yet those that attended the house of God were so numerous that there was not constant work for them all; and therefore David, by special commission and direction from God, new-modelled the Levites, as we shall find in the latter part of this book. Here we are told what the work was which he assigned them.

I. Singing-work, 1Ch_6:31. David was raised up on high to be the sweet psalmist of Israel (2Sa_23:1), not only to pen psalms, but to appoint the singing of them in the house of the Lord (not so much because he was musical as because he was devout), and this he did after that the ark had rest. While that was in captivity, obscure, and unsettled, the harps were hung upon the willow-trees: singing was then thought unseasonable (when the bridegroom is taken away they shall fast); but the harps being resumed, and the songs revived, at the bringing up of the ark, they were continued afterwards. For we should rejoice as much in the prolonging of our spiritual privileges as in the restoring of them. When the service of the ark was much superseded by its rest they had other work cut out for them (for Levites should never be idle) and were employed in the service of song. Thus when the people of God come to the rest which remains for them above they shall take leave of all their burdens and be employed in everlasting songs. These singers kept up that service in the tabernacle till the temple was built, and then they waited on their office there, 1Ch_6:32. When they came to that stately magnificent house they kept as close both to their office and to their order as they had done in the tabernacle. It is a pity that the preferment of the Levites should ever make them remiss in their business. We have here an account of the three great masters who were employed in the service of the sacred song, with their respective families; for they waited with their children, that is, such as descended from them or were allied to them, 1Ch_6:33. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were the three that were appointed to this service, one of each of the three houses of the Levites, that there might be an equality in the distribution of this work and honour, and that every one might know his post, such an admirable order was there in this choir service. 1. Of the house of Kohath was Heman with his family (1Ch_6:33), a man of a sorrowful spirit, if it be the same Heman that penned the 88th psalm, and yet a singer. He was the grandson of Samuel the prophet, the son of Joel, of whom it is said that he walked not in the ways of Samuel (1Sa_8:2, 1Sa_8:3); but it seems, though the son did not, the grandson did. Thus does the blessing entailed on the seed of the upright sometimes pass over one generation and fasten upon 44

the next. And this Heman, though the grandson of that mighty prince, did not think it below him to be a precentor in the house of God. David himself was willing to be a door-keeper. Rather we may look upon this preferment of the grandson in the church as a recompense for the humble modest resignation which the grandfather made of his authority in the state. Many such ways God has of making up his people's losses and balancing their disgraces. Perhaps David, in making Heman the chief, had some respect to his old friend Samuel. 2. Of the house of Gershom was Asaph, called his brother,because in the same office and of the same tribe, though of another family. He was posted on Heman's right hand in the choir, 1Ch_6:39. Several of the psalms bear his name, being either penned by him or tuned by him as the chief musician. It is plain that he was the penman of some psalms; for we read of those that praised the Lord in the words of David and of Asaph. He was a seer as well as a singer, 2Ch_29:30. His pedigree is traced up here, through names utterly unknown, as high as Levi, 1Ch_6:39-43. 3. Of the house of Merari was Ethan (1Ch_6:44), who was appointed to Heman's left hand. His pedigree is also traced up to Levi, 1Ch_6:47. If these were the Heman and Ethan that penned the 88th and 89th psalms, there appears no reason here why they should be called Ezrahites (see the titles of those psalms), as there does why those should be called so who are mentioned 1Ch_2:6, and who were the sons of Zerah.II. There was serving-work, abundance of service to be done in the tabernacle of the house of God (1Ch_6:48), to provide water and fuel, - to wash and sweep, and carry out ashes, - to kill, and flay, and boil the sacrifices; and to all such services there were Levites appointed, those of other families, or perhaps those that were not fit to be singers, that had either no good voice or no good ear. As every one has received the gift, so let him minister. Those that could not sing must not therefore be laid aside as good for nothing; though they were not fit for that service, there was other service they might be useful in.III. There was sacrificing-work, and that was to be done by the priests only, 1Ch_6:49. They only were to sprinkle the blood and burn the incense; as for the work of the most holy place, that was to be done by the high priest only. Each had his work, and they both needed one another and both helped one another in it. Concerning the work of the priests we are here told, 1. What was the end they were to have in their eye. They were to make an atonement for Israel, to mediate between the people and God; not to magnify and enrich themselves, but to serve the public. They were ordained for men. 2. What was the rule they were to have in their eye. They presided in God's house, yet must do as they were bidden, according to all that God commanded. That law the highest are subject to.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:31-48In the early verses of this section we may notice, if not the first beginning, yet some of the earliest crystallization of the forms of religious services. It was given to David to settle the ark after its travels through the wilderness, its sojourn in various places since then, doubtless always within the care of some Levitical family (except when taken by enemies, 1 Samuel 4:11; 1 Samuel 5:1-12; 1 Samuel 6:1-21.), and in especial its prolonged twenty years' sojourn .at Kirjath-jearim (1 Samuel 7:1, 1 Samuel 7:2;

45

2 Samuel 6:1-19; 1 Chronicles 13:3-14; 1 Chronicles 15:1-3; 1 Chronicles 17:5). It now had rest, though its place of rest was only within "curtains" (2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Chronicles 17:1), i.e. in a special separate tent prepared for it by David, which tent was probably the suggestion, and as it were the nucleus, of the coming grand temple itself—the house of God. The event was naturally one of great joy and thanksgiving, of which David himself was the chief leader (2 Samuel 6:17-21; 1 Chronicles 16:1-3); but it appears also that it furnished the occasion of appointing fixed choir conductors, leaders of the service of song" (1 Chronicles 16:4-7, 1 Chronicles 16:37, 1 Chronicles 16:41, 1 Chronicles 16:42; 1 Chronicles 25:1-7).

BI, "And these are they whom David let over the service of song lit the house of the Lord.The ministry of songI. Song an element of Christian worship.II. Song an expression of human feeling.III. Song a power for which its possessors are responsible. (J. Wolfendale.)

Religious worshipI. Worship varied in its forms.II. Lively in its spirit.III. Orderly in its method.IV. Universal in its participation. (J. Wolfendale.).

32 They ministered with music before the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, until Solomon built the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. They performed their duties according to the regulations laid down for them.

46

BARNES, "1Ch_6:32They waited on their office - On the establishment and continuance of the choral service in the temple, see 2Ch_5:12, 2Ch_29:27-30; 2Ch_35:15.

GILL, "And they ministered before the dwelling place of the tabernacles of the congregation with singing,.... Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; this service they performed before the ark, which was in a tent or tabernacle David pitched for it; and which the Targum here calls the tabernacle of time, or a temporary tabernacle: until Solomon had built the house of the Lord in Jerusalem; the temple there: and then they waited on their office according to their order; performed it in the manner prescribed by David, see 1Ch_25:1.

JAMISON, "before the dwelling-place, etc. — that is, in the tent which David had erected for receiving the ark after it was removed from the house of Obed-edom [2Sa_6:17]. This was a considerable time before the temple was built.

they waited on their office according to their order — which David, doubtless by the direction of the Holy Spirit, had instituted for the better regulation of divine worship.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:32. They ministered before the tabernacle, &c. — Which David had prepared for the ark when it came to Jerusalem. According to their order — The order which David himself had constituted a little before his death, as we read in the latter end of this book.WHEDON, " 32. Before the dwellingplace of the tabernacle — The dwelling, (mishcan,) as distinguished from the tabernacle, (ohel,) was the board structure and its covering of ornamented curtains which formed the principal part of the sacred tent. Those who ministered before the mishcan must have occupied the court, where the laver and the altar of burnt offering stood.

According to their order — The order assigned to them by David. On the divisions 47

and arrangement of the sons of Levi, see chaps. 23-26.

ELLICOTT, " (31) Set over the service of song.—Literally, made stand by the sides (hands) of song, as if to minister to the sacred music. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 25:2-3, where the same peculiar phrase recurs, and Psalms 123:2, “as the eyes of slaves are unto the hand of their Lord.” Comp. also the common heading of the Psalms, “to the conductor or precentor;” Authorised Version, “chief musician.”)

In the house of the Lord.—In David’s time, a tent, as next verse declares.

After that the ark had rest.—Perhaps locative: at the restin-place of the Ark (comp. Genesis 8:9). From the time of its capture by the Philistines (2 Samuel 6:17), the Ark had no certain dwelling till it was lodged in the tent which David spread for it on Mount Zion.ELLICOTT, " (32) And they ministered.—“And they continued ministering, before the dwelling of the Tent of Meeting, with the music.”

PULPIT, "Instances full of illustration of this ministering… with singing and waiting on their office are found in 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 29:26-31; 2 Chronicles 35:15, 2 Chronicles 35:16.

The dwelling place of the tabernacle.—A defining genitive, like River of Jordan, or City of Jerusalem. In the court before this sacred dwelling wherein the Lord met His people, the services of sacrifice and song were carried on. The tent of the Ark in the city of David (see 1 Chronicles 16:1) is here called by the old name of the Mosaic Tabernacle, ‘ôhel mô’çd, “tent of tryst, or meeting,” i.e., of God with man. The ancient tent appears to have stood at Shiloh, and at Bethel (Judges 20:26-28) in the days of the Judges, at Nob in the reign of Saul, and later at Gibeon. (See 1 Chronicles 21:29, and 2 Chronicles 1:3.)

Until Solomon had built the house.—The Ark, and the worship of which it was the 48

centre, were then transferred to the more august abode of Solomon’s Temple.

And then they waited.—Omit then and read “and they stood at their service according to their privilege.” The place and precedence of the choirs and their leaders were fixed by David (1 Chronicles 16:37). Standing was the normal posture for singing.

33 Here are the men who served, together with their sons:From the Kohathites:Heman, the musician,the son of Joel, the son of Samuel,

GILL 33-38, "And these are they that waited with their children,.... They and their posterity, who officiated in the service of singing psalms in the sanctuary: the three heads of them were of the three families of the Levites, as follow: of the sons of the Kohathites, Heman a singer; the chief of the singers, and who composed psalms and hymns, which are in the book of Psalms: the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel; or Samuel. This Heman was grandson of Samuel the prophet; for whose sake his genealogy is traced up to Jacob or Israel in the following verses, and stands thus; after Samuel, Elkanah, Jeroham, Eliel, Toah, Zuph, Elkanah, Mahath, Amasai, Elkanah, Joel, Azariah, Zephaniah, Tahath, Assir, Ebiasaph, Korah, Izhar, Kohath, Levi, Israel.

JAMISON, "Shemuel — that is, Samuel. This is the exact representation of the Hebrew name.

49

ELLICOTT, " (33) And these are they that waited (stood) with their children.—The main sentence which began at 1 Chronicles 6:31, and was suspended by the parenthetic 1 Chronicles 6:32, is now resumed. The persons meant are the three chiefs of the Levitical guilds of musicians, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan; their “children” are the members of those guilds. (Comp. the phrase, “sons of the prophets,” i.e., members of prophetic guilds, 2 Kings 9:1; Amos 7:14.) 1 Chronicles 25:1-7 supplies the names of the principal “sons” of the three masters. Their Levitical descent is shown in the genealogies here traced up from themselves to Levi. First we have the pedigree of Heman (1 Chronicles 6:33-38) the Kohathite.

Heman a singer.—Rather, the singer or minstrel. Heman, as representing the chief branch of the Levites, is primus inter pares as regards the other master singers. His choir occupied the centre, having on its right that of the Gershonite Asaph, on its left that of the Merarite Ethan (1 Chronicles 6:39; 1 Chronicles 6:44), so that Heman would conduct the whole body of musicians, when the three choirs chanted in concert. The word “minstrel” is more appropriate than “singer” because the original term (ham’shôrçr) implies singing which the singer himself accompanies with an instrument of music. (See 1 Chronicles 25:6; LXX., ὁ ψαλτῳδὸς.)

Son of Joel, the son of Shemuel.—It is interesting to learn that Heman, the great minstrel, was a grandson of Samuel the great prophet. (For the connection between music and prophecy, see 2 Kings 3:15; 1 Samuel 10:5-6; and below, 1 Chronicles 25:1, Note.) Considering that some have denied that Samuel was a Levite, the point of contact here noted looks like an undesigned coincidence.TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:33 And these [are] they that waited with their children. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman a singer, the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel,

Ver. 33. Heman.] He was Samuel’s grandchild, by Joel. The posterity (haply, not immediate) of the righteous shall be blessed.PULPIT. "We have now the name and pedigree of each of the three chief singers or musicians (their duty was both vocal and instrumental) of David's appointment, beginning, according to the analogy of 1 Chronicles 6:2, supra, with Heman, the

50

descendant of Kohath, instead of Asaph from Gershom. So the place of Heman was still the place of honor, in the centre, with Asaph on the right and Ethan on the left (1 Chronicles 6:39, 1 Chronicles 6:44). Heman is the twenty-first according to this list (1 Chronicles 6:33-38) after Levi, but the genealogy is indistinct (see above, 1 Chronicles 6:22-28) between Shemuel and Assir, and according to Hervey, Heman comes fourteenth after Levi. This Heman is to be distinguished from Heman the "son of Zerah" (1 Chronicles 2:6), and with but little doubt, therefore, from Heman the Ezrahite (Zerahite) of Psalms 88:1-18. On the other hand, a theory has been suggested by Lord Arthur C. Hervey which might reconcile the two. He supposes that if Heman the Kohathite (or his father) had married an heiress of the house of Zerah, he might have become reckoned in the line of Zerah as well as in that of Kohath.

34 the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham,the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,

35 the son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah,the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,

36 the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel,the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,

37 the son of Tahath, the son of Assir,51

the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,

38 the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath,the son of Levi, the son of Israel;

ELLICOTT, "(38) Son of Israel.—Asaph and Ethan are traced to Levi. It was not needful to repeat “son of Israel” in each case. For further remarks on the names in 1 Chronicles 6:34-38 see above Notes on 22-28, the lines being identical. The numerous variants, however, seem to imply that the author drew from different documents.

39 and Heman’s associate Asaph, who served at his right hand:Asaph son of Berekiah, the son of Shimea,, "

BARNES, "1Ch_6:39His brother Asaph - Not “brother” in the ordinary sense of the term, since Asaph was the son of Berachiah, and a Gershonite, not a Kohathite. “Brother” here may mean “fellow-craftsman” (compare 1Ch_25:7).

CLARKE, "Asaph - This person, with Heman, the sons of Kora, Ethan, Jeduthun, 52

etc., are celebrated in these books, and in the Psalms, for their skill in singing, and the part they performed in the public worship of God.It is very likely that their singing was only a kind of recitative or chanting, such as we still find in the synagogues. It does not appear that God had especially appointed these singers, much less any musical instruments, (the silver trumpets excepted), to be employed in his service. Musical instruments in the house of God are, at least under the Gospel, repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, and tend not a little to corrupt the worship of God. Those who are fond of music in the theater are fond of it in the house of God when they go thither; and some, professing Christianity, set up such a spurious worship in order to draw people to hear the Gospel! This is doing evil that good may come of it; and by this means, light and trifling people are introduced into the Church of Christ, and when in, are generally very troublesome, hard to be pleased, and difficult to be saved.

GILL 39-43, "And his brother Asaph,.... That is, Heman's brother; so Asaph was, as he was a descendant from the same original ancestor Levi, yet in the line of Gershon; and as being of the same office, a precentor, or chief singer: who stood on his right hand; he was next to Heman; Heman stood in the middle, which was the most honourable (h), and Asaph on his right hand, and Ethan, after mentioned, on his left; even Asaph, whose name is often met with in the book of Psalms; and his genealogy here stands thus, as traced up to Levi, viz. Berechiah, Shimea, Michael, Baaseiah, Malchiah, Ethni, Zerah, Adaiah, Ethan, Zimmah, Shimei, Jahath, Gershon, Levi.

GILL, "And his brother Asaph,.... That is, Heman's brother; so Asaph was, as he was a descendant from the same original ancestor Levi, yet in the line of Gershon; and as being of the same office, a precentor, or chief singer: who stood on his right hand; he was next to Heman; Heman stood in the middle, which was the most honourable (h), and Asaph on his right hand, and Ethan, after mentioned, on his left; even Asaph, whose name is often met with in the book of Psalms; and his genealogy here stands thus, as traced up to Levi, viz. Berechiah, Shimea, Michael, Baaseiah, Malchiah, Ethni, Zerah, Adaiah, Ethan, Zimmah, Shimei, Jahath, Gershon, Levi.

JAMISON, "his brother Asaph — They were brothers naturally, both being descended from Levi, as well as officially, both being of the Levitical order.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:39. His brother Asaph — Asaph is here called Heman’s brother, according to the Hebrew phraseology, by which all near relations are

53

brothers; and because he was of the same office and employment.

ELLICOTT, " (39) His brother Asaph.—Asaph was Heman’s brother (1) as a Levite; (2) as a choir-master.The striking agreement of the line of Heman with that of the Kohathites, detailed in 1 Chronicles 6:22-28 above, has led critics to look for a like coincidence between the line of Asaph as given here, and that of the Gershonites in 1 Chronicles 6:20-21. There, however, we have only seven names, here there are thirteen. Still we observe that in the former passage the three names, Jahath, Zimmah, and Zerah appear in the same order of lineal descent from Gershon as in the present list; while the Adaiah of 1 Chronicles 6:41 obviously answers to the Iddo of 1 Chronicles 6:21, and Ethni (1 Chronicles 6:41) is in Hebrew writing not unlike Jeaterai; and we are already familiar with the fact that genealogies sometimes recur in abbreviated forms. (Comp. Ezra 7:1-5, with the line of Aaron in the present chapter.) Upon the whole, therefore, if the suggested identifications be correct, it appears that Asaph’s pedigree has really been partially anticipated in 1 Chronicles 6:20-21.

ELLICOTT, "(39-43) The pedigree of Asaph the Gershonite, traced back through thirteen names to Levi. That of Heman names twenty ancestors for the same period of time. This is one more illustration of the common usage of overleaping names in these genealogies.

PULPIT, "Asaph is called brother of Heman, either as brother in office or generally as relative in the degree of cousin by many removes. He stands fourteenth in line of descent after Levi, while Ethan (1 Chronicles 6:44) stands thirteenth. If the line of Heman (as given in 1 Chronicles 6:33-38) were correct. it would force on us the conviction that there are several omissions in these two lines; but if these are correct, we must conclude that there are unwarranted additions in the other. On the names of Asaph's ancestors, see notes on 1 Chronicles 6:20, 1 Chronicles 6:21. From 2 Chronicles 29:30 it seems plain that Asaph was himself a composer of psalms, and not simply either the musician or rehearser of those of David.

1 Chronicles 6:44

54

Ethan. This passage and 1 Chronicles 15:19 are the leading passages for this name Ethan. But in succeeding references (and they are not a few) to the three chief leaders of song, the name appears as Jeduthun; unless, as seems scarcely credible, two different persons are designated. The occasion and significance of the alteration of the name are not stated, however, and elude detection so far. In 2 Chronicles 35:15 the title of "king's seer" ( ֹחֶזה ) is added to the name Jeduthun, which is variously spelt ( ְיֻדתּון יתדּותּון יְרִיתּון). This arrangement of chief singers, one from each of the three branches of Levi's family, lasted unbroken to Josiah's reign (2Chronicles 35:13); and the representatives of Jeduthun, at all events, are mentioned in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 11:17, Nehemiah 11:18). Kishi. The most frequent form of this name is Kish ( ִקיׁש, equivalent to the Vulgate Cis), if, indeed, the form of this verse and that of 1 Chronicles 15:17, Kushaiah ( קּוָׁשָיהּו ), are not merely the fruit of a corrupt text.

40 the son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah,[g]the son of Malkijah,

41 the son of Ethni,the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah,

42 the son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah,the son of Shimei,

55

JAMISON, "Ethan — or Jeduthun (1Ch_9:16; 2Ch_35:15).

43 the son of Jahath,the son of Gershon, the son of Levi;

44 and from their associates, the Merarites, at his left hand:Ethan son of Kishi, the son of Abdi,the son of Malluk,

BARNES, "1Ch_6:44Ethan - Or Jeduthun (see the margin). Corruption will scarcely account for the two forms of the name, since Ethan is used persistently up to a certain point 1Ch_15:19, after which we have uniformly “Jeduthun.” The case seems to be rather one in which a new name was taken after a while, which thenceforth superseded the old. Compare Abraham, Sarah, Joshua, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, etc.

GILL 44-47, "And their brethren, the sons of Merari,.... Who were the brethren of the Kohathites and Gershonites, descending from the same ancestor Levi: stood on the left hand; that is, of Heman, see 1Ch_6:39, the chief of whom was Ethan, sometimes called Jeduthun, 1Ch_16:41 and often in the book of Psalms; his genealogy is traced up to Levi thus; Kishi, called Kushaiah, 1Ch_15:17 Abdi, Malluch, Hashabiah, Amaziah, Hilkiah, Amzi, Bani, Shamer, Mahli, Mushi, Merari, Levi.

56

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:44. The sons of Merari stood on the left hand — The children of the next son of Levi are here mentioned, who had the lowest place assigned them, because they were of the youngest family. So there were three principal singers, who were masters and governors of the whole choir: Heman, descended from Koath, was the prime, who, together with his sons, stood in the middle: Asaph, descended from Gershom, with his sons, stood on his right hand: and Ethan, (called also Jeduthun, 1 Chronicles 9:16; 2 Chronicles 35:15, and in the title of divers Psalms,) descended from Merari, on the left.

ELLICOTT, " (44-47) The pedigree of Ethan the Merarite, traced back through twelve names to Levi. Ethan is no doubt the same as Jeduthun, 1 Chronicles 25:1; 2 Chronicles 35:15.

(44) And their brethren the sons of Merari.—We should say their comrades or kinsmen (see Note on 1 Chronicles 6:39). “Brethren,” or “brothers,” is the natural style for the members of a guild, whether religious like the monastic bodies, or commercial like the city companies of London, or benevolent like the Freemasons. The plural pronoun refers to the two preceding guilds of Heman and Asaph. The Ethanites stood on the left of the Hemanites in the sanctuary, as the Asaphites stood on their right, and this arrangement was hereditary.

Kishi is a contraction of Kushaiah, like Zabdi of Zebadiah.

(47) Son of Manli, the son of Mushi.—In 1 Chronicles 6:19 Mahli and Mushi appear as two sons of Merari; so also at Lev. 3:20. Mahli son of Mushi here must be nephew of the Mahli of those two passages, if the genealogical form is in each case to be understood literally. It is difficult on a first inspection to perceive any connection between the present list and that of the Merarites in 1 Chronicles 6:29-30. The series there is:

57

Mahli, Libni, Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, and Asaiah.

Here we have:

Mushi, Mahli, Shamer, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, Kishi, and Ethan.

Now it is quite possible that both lines spring from Mushi son of Merari. We have only to suppose that the name of Mushi has either dropped out or been omitted by design in 1 Chronicles 6:29. In that case, of course, Mahli in each line becomes identical. Next we remark that Libni in Hebrew adds but one letter (1) to Bani; and these two may be variants of the same name. The second line is again more complete than the first, as it supplies Shamer (Shemer) between Mahli and Bani-Libni. Further. Uzzi and Amzi express the same idea—that of strength—and may therefore indicate identity of person. The names Shimei and Shimeah are perhaps inadvertent duplicates of each other; which may also be the case with Amzi and Amaziah in the second series. Haggiah perhaps answers to Hilkiah.

Thus it may be right to regard this pedigree of Ethan as related to the Merarite line of 1 Chronicles 6:29-30, in the same way as those of Heman and Asaph are related to the first drafts of the Kohathite and Gershonite lines of descent, although the connection is not so evident in the present instance, owing perhaps to corruption of the text.

1 Chronicles 6:48-49 constitute the transition from the pedigrees of the three Levitical choir-masters to the line of the sons of Aaron—Eleazar, which is here repeated from Aaron to Ahimaaz. The form of the list is, however, different. Instead of “Eleazar begat Phinehas,” it runs “Phinehas his son” &c. It is more likely that the chronicler found this list already connected with what follows in the source which he used for this section, than that he merely chose to repeat part of what he had already given under a slightly altered form.

58

45 the son of Hashabiah,the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah,

46 the son of Amzi, the son of Bani,the son of Shemer,

47 the son of Mahli,the son of Mushi, the son of Merari,the son of Levi.

48 Their fellow Levites were assigned to all the other duties of the tabernacle, the house of God.

GILL, "Their brethren also the Levites,.... Who were not skilled in singing, and employed in that service, even the rest of the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites: were appointed unto all manner of service of the tabernacle of the house of

59

God; some were porters at the gates; others had the care of the vessels; others slew the beasts for sacrifices, flayed them, and cut them up, and brought the pieces to the altar of burnt offerings, for the priests to offer.

JAMISON, "Their brethren also the Levites were appointed unto all manner of service — Those of them who were endowed with musical tastes and talents were employed in various other departments of the temple service.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:48. Their brethren were appointed, &c. — Such of them as had no skill in singing were otherwise employed; being porters, keepers of the vessels of the sanctuary, occupied in preparing the sacrifices, and such like things. It is observable, that in all the genealogies of the Levites, there is not a word said of the sons of Moses and their posterity, he having no ambition to prefer them unto any great office.

ELLICOTT, " (48) Their brethren also the Levites.—That is, the Levites who were not musicians—the remaining Levites.

Appointed.—Literally, given—that is, to Aaron and his sons as their assistants; Numbers 3:9 (Heb.), “And thou shalt give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons, given are they to him from amongst the sons of Israel.” The word is nethûnîm. (Comp. nethînim, an identical form, as the name of a well-known class of Temple-servants.)Tabernacle.—Rather, dwelling-place (mishkan).

PULPIT, "The all manner of service, from that of the three "leaders of song" on their "cymbals of brass" (1 Chronicles 15:19) down through the other Levitical grades, is fully illustrated in many places (1 Chronicles 15:18-24; 1 Chronicles 16:37-42; 1 Chronicles 23:2-32; 1 Chronicles 25:1-8; 1 Chronicles 26:1-26).

BI, "And these are they whom David let over the service of song lit the house of the Lord.

60

The ministry of songI. Song an element of Christian worship.II. Song an expression of human feeling.III. Song a power for which its possessors are responsible. (J. Wolfendale.)

Religious worshipI. Worship varied in its forms.II. Lively in its spirit.III. Orderly in its method.IV. Universal in its participation. (J. Wolfendale.).

49 But Aaron and his descendants were the ones who presented offerings on the altar of burnt offering and on the altar of incense in connection with all that was done in the Most Holy Place, making atonement for Israel, in accordance with all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.

GILL 49-53, "But Aaron and his sons,.... Those that descended from him, though of the same tribe of Levi were all priests: and they offered upon the altar of burnt offerings; the daily sacrifice, and all the offerings of the people brought to them: and on the altar of incense; they burnt incense night and morning: and were appointed

61

for all the work of the place most holy; such as were high priests of the line of Eleazar, whose work it was to go into the most holy place once a year: to make atonement for all Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God commanded; in Lev_16:1 which see; and on mention of this, a list of the high priests from Aaron, in the line of Eleazar, is given, to the times of Solomon, in the four following verses, just in the same order as in 1Ch_6:4.

JAMISON, "1Ch_6:49-81. Office of Aaron and his sons.But Aaron and his sons offered, etc. — The office and duties of the high priests having been already described, the names of those who successively filled that important office are recorded.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:49. But Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar — The noblest part of the ministry was reserved for them. Aaron alone, and his successors in the high-priesthood, made atonement and ministered in the most holy place. But his sons, the other priests, offered on the altars of burnt- offering, and of incense.

ELLICOTT, " (49) But Aaron and his sons offered.—Literally, And Aaron and his sons were offering. The participle denotes unintermitted action. “Aaron and his sons” is a technical name for the priests, to whom, according to this passage, three functions pertained: (1) sacrifice on the altars of burnt-offering and inconse; (2) the work of the most holy place (Holy of holies); (3) atonement for Israel by special rites of sacrifice and purification.

According to all that Moses . . . commanded.—This refers to the entire ministry of the priests. The time in question is the Davidic age.

The servant of God.—Comp. Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:1; Joshua 1:13. After his death, Moses is thrice called “servant of Jehovah,” in whose earthly household he had been faithful as a servant (Hebrews 3:5). He fore-figures in grand if imperfect outline that other servant of Jehovah, of whom the second half of Isaiah has so much discourse. “Servant of God” (Elohîm) the chronicler writes, because in his day

62

the NAME was held in ever-increasing awe.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:49-53

These verses allude to the more special functions of "Aaron and his sons," as they are here called, i.e; his lineal descendants (1 Chronicles 6:4-15; Ezra 7:2-5), whose names, stopping at Ahimaaz, the eleventh generation, are the same with those of 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. The manifest inference is that the present enumeration, stopping with the name of one contemporary with David (2 Samuel 15:27), was borrowed from tables of the date of David, and not of the date of the Captivity (veres 15).

1 Chronicles 6:49

The altar of the burnt offering (Le 1 Chronicles 1:3-17). The altar of incense (Exodus 25:6; Exodus 30:1-7, Exodus 30:7-9, Exodus 30:34-38; Le Exodus 16:12). Most holy (Le 1 Chronicles 16:12, 1 Chronicles 16:14, 1 Chronicles 16:15, 1 Chronicles 16:17, 1 Chronicles 16:20). An atonement for Israel (Le 1 Chronicles 16:3-19; 1 Chronicles 23:26-32; Numbers 29:1-40.. 7-11).

50 These were the descendants of Aaron:Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son,Abishua his son,

BARNES, "The sons of Aaron - This list, a mere repetition of that in 1Ch_6:3-8, came, probably, from a different source - a source belonging to the time of David, with whom Ahimaaz (the last name on the list) was contemporary. The other list 1Ch_6:4-15

63

came, no doubt, from a document belonging to the time of the captivity (see 1Ch_6:15).CLARKE, "These are the sons of Aaron - We have already had a list of these,

(see 1Ch_6:3-16); this is a second, but less extensive, and is a proof that the writer of this book had several lists before him, from which he borrowed as he judged proper.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:50. These are the sons of Aaron — Having mentioned the work of the high-priests, he here briefly rehearseth the names of the persons who successively performed it.

ELLICOTT, "(50-53) If the chronicler, and not his source, be held responsible for this repetition of the Aaronite line, we may regard it as an instance of his inartificial method of making a new start. He is about to pass from the Levitical genealogies to their cities and domains, and he first partially recapitulates the line of Aaron’s sons, because their seats are to be described first. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:1-2 with 16, 18.) He stops at Ahimaaz, who lived in the age of David and Solomon, because, apparently, the preceding section was mainly concerned with the Levites of that epoch.

PULPIT, "Eleazar. The third son of Aaron (by Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, and descended from Judah through Pharez) is the sea whose descendants are given here, inasmuch as he was appointed chief of the Levites (Numbers 3:32); ministered as a priest with his brother Ithamar, even before the death of Aaron; and succeeded him as high priest (Numbers 20:28). It was in Eleazar's family that the high priesthood remained (as above) till the time of Eli, who was descended from Ithamar, and it returned again to the line of Eleazar in Zadok, fulfilling the intimation of 1 Samuel 2:30.

51 Bukki his son,

64

Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son,

52 Meraioth his son, Amariah his son,Ahitub his son,

53 Zadok his son and Ahimaaz his son.

54 These were the locations of their settlements allotted as their territory (they were assigned to the descendants of Aaron who were from the Kohathite clan, because the first lot was for them):

BARNES, "Their’s was the lot - i. e. “the first lot.” The Kohathites had the first lot among the Levitical families, as being the family whereto the high priesthood was attached (compare Jos_21:10).

CLARKE, "Theirs was the lot - All the tribes and families obtained their respective inheritances by lot, but to the sons of Aaron was the first lot; and so the Syriac and Arabic have understood this place. The first lot, says Jarchi, fell to Judah, that they might give to the priests and the Levites the cities marked below. See an account of the possessions of the priests and Levites, Jos_20:1-9, 21.GILL 54-81, "Now these are their dwelling places,.... The dwelling places of the

65

priests and Levites, assigned and given to them in the several tribes of Israel; and the account of them agrees with that in Jos_21:1 with some few variations of names of places, which have been there observed: see the notes there; only in 1Ch_6:57 two cities are omitted, Juttah and Gibeon, through want of care in transcribing, since they are said to be "thirteen", as they should be, whereas eleven only are mentioned. The Jews say (h), the cities of the suburbs (those here mentioned) ceased from the time the first temple was destroyed; and yet Ezra, who lived after the captivity, and the building the second temple, here gives a very particular account of them; the suburbs belonging to every city, which he particularly mentions, were 2000 cubits, both to the cities of refuge, and the rest, Num_35:5 Hebron, the first city mentioned in the next verse, was a city of refuge, and had suburbs of such a space; and it is remarkable, that some of the temples with the Heathens, which were asylums, or places of refuge, had the space of 2000 paces assigned them for the same sanctity and privilege (i). HENRY 54-81, "We have here an account of the Levites' cities. They are here called

their castles (1Ch_6:54), not only because walled and fortified, and well guarded by the country (for it is the interest of every nation to protect its ministers), but because they and their possessions were, in a particular manner, the care of the divine providence: as God was their portion, so God was their protection; and a cottage will be a castle to those that abide under the shadow of the Almighty. This account is much the same with that which we had, Jos. 21. We need not be critical in comparing them (what good will it do us?) nor will it do any hurt to the credit of the holy scripture if the names of some of the places be not spelt just the same here as they were there. We know it is common for cities to have several names. Sarum and Salisbury, Salop and Shrewsbury, are more unlike than Hilen (1Ch_6:58) and Holon (Jos_21:15), Ashan (1Ch_6:59) and Ain (Jos_21:16), Alemeth (1Ch_6:60) and Almon (Jos_21:18); and time changes names. We are only to observe that in this appointment of cities for the Levites God took care, 1. For the accomplishment of dying Jacob's prediction concerning this tribe, that it should be scattered in Israel, Gen_49:7. 2. For the diffusing of the knowledge of himself and his law to all parts of the land of Israel. Every tribe had Levites' cities in it; and so every room was furnished with a candle, so that none could be ignorant of his duty but it was either his own fault or the Levites'. 3. For a comfortable maintenance for those that ministered in holy things. Besides their tithes and offerings, they had glebe-lands and cities of their own to dwell in. Some of the most considerable cities of Israel fell to the Levites' lot. Every tribe had benefit by the Levites, and therefore every tribe must contribute to their support. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth, and do it cheerfully.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:54. Throughout their castles — So called, not only because walled and well guarded by the country, but because they and their possessions were in a particular manner the care of Divine Providence. As God was their portion, so God was their protector. And a cottage will be a castle to those that abide under the shadow of the Almighty. Theirs was the lot — Or, the first lot.TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:54 Now these [are] their dwelling places throughout their castles in their coasts, of the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites: for

66

theirs was the lot.

Ver. 54. Throughout their castles.] Or, Palaces. The priests dwelt not in poor cottages, but in fair and fitting houses.WHEDON, "54. Throughout their castles — Rather, according to their castles, or encampments. These “castles” are thought by some to have been some kind of watchtower, from which the trumpets were sounded — a use similar to that made by the Moslems of their minarets. But most expositors, as Gesenius, Furst, Keil, Zochler, take the word in the sense of hamlet, district, or circle of dwellings, such as were assigned to the Levites among the several tribes.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:54. For theirs was the lot— The first lot. Syriac and Houbigant. See Joshua 21:10.

ELLICOTT, " (54) Render, “And these were their seats according to their encampments within their border.” This, as the heading to all that follows, should be stopped off therefrom. It does not occur in Joshua 21, and may indicate an intermediate source used by the chronicler. The variant spellings of proper names, many of which are not mere copyists’ blunders, point in the same direction.

Of the sons of Aaron.—Rather, “to the sons of Aaron, of the clan of the Kohathites—for to them had fallen the lot—they gave to them Hebron,” &c. Joshua 21:10 has, “for to them the lot had fallen first.”(54-81) The Levitical cities, beginning with those of the Aavonites, the principal

branch of the Kohathite clan. This list deals with the same topic as Joshua 21:3-40, with which, upon the whole, it is in substantial agreement. 1 Chronicles 6:54-60 are parallel to Joshua 21:10-19.

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:54-81

The writer returns upon his steps to give the cities and dwelling-places of the 67

Levites, beginning with the priestly members of the Kohathite line (1 Chronicles 6:54-61), then taking those of the Gershomite (1 Chronicles 6:62) and Merarite lines (1 Chronicles 6:63-65) in order; and again in the same order disposing of the members not priestly (1 Chronicles 6:66-70; 71-76; 77-81) of the same three branches.

1 Chronicles 6:54-61, 1 Chronicles 6:64-70

And these are their dwellings according to their enclosures in their territories, ִטירֹוָתם means the settlements of whatever people in question, surrounded and protected by whatever fence or defence customary. For theirs was the lot is more intelligible with the addition of the word "first," supplied in Jos 31:10, i.e. theirs was the first lot. The whole drift of the present passage, with the remainder of the chapter, is made entirely plain by Numbers 8-35:1 and Joshua 10-21:1 . But the omission and the alteration of individual names of places occasion some delay. Our verse 55 is given somewhat more fully in Joshua 21:11; our verse 56 is identical with Joshua 21:12; and our verses 60-57 correspond substantially with Joshua 19-21:13 , but from this latter source we are glad to supply the two names Juttah and Gibeon, without which we cannot add up correctly the thirteen cities of verse 60. Also in Joshua, our Hilen, Ashan, and Alemsth appear as Holon, Ain, and Almon respectively, although in regard to the intermediate name of these three the places cannot be accepted as identical, for they are mentioned side by side in Joshua 19:7and in 1 Chronicles 4:32, but we must admit an error involved. Verse 56 (see Joshua 14:14; Joshua 21:12). Verse 61 seems to be an anticipation of verses 70-66 , with which verses, if we incorporate it, we shall obtain substantially the same results as are found in Joshua 21:5, Joshua 26-21:20 ; but again we are glad of the latter source to supply for us the two places, Eltekeh and Gibbethon, necessary to enable us to count up the ten cities of our verse 61, while our Jokmeam, Aner, and Bileam appear as probably the corrected readings of Kibzaim, Tanach, and Gath-rimmon respectively in Joshua. The sons of Kohath, left (verse 61), the residue (Authorized Version, verse 66), the remnant (verse 70), point (as above) to the non-priestly descendants in the Kohath line. Summing up, we see that the Kohathite priests had thirteen cities from the allotments of Judah and Simeon and Benjamin, and the Ko-hathite non-priests had ten, from Ephraim, Dan, and West Manasseh. One might detect in all this some germ of the more modern parochial system, so far at least as regards the distributed residence of a clerical and ministerial order, though not with

68

sacred buildings similarly distributed.

55 They were given Hebron in Judah with its surrounding pasturelands.

TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:55 And they gave them Hebron in the land of Judah, and the suburbs thereof round about it.Ver. 55. Hebron, the city of refuge.] The six cities of refuge were cities of the Levites, where guilty persons might be instructed and comforted, King James was wont to say, that if God did allow him to kill a man by any means, he should think God did not love him.

ELLICOTT, " (55) Hebron.—Josh., “the city of Arba, the father of the Anak, that is, Hebron.”

In the land of Judah.—Josh., “hill-country” (har for ha’areç).

Suburbs.—The Hebrew migrashîm, pastures or commons, as opposed to arable land (Authorised version, “fields;” Heb., sadeh). Numbers 35:3-5 defines the extent of the Levitical domain round the cities where they dwelt.

Verse 55-56

(55, 56) Closely answering to Joshua 21:11-12.

69

56 But the fields and villages around the city were given to Caleb son of Jephunneh.

BARNES, "The writer evidently had before him Josh. 21, which he followed, as to its matter, closely. In some cases he perhaps modernised the ancient names (1Ch_6:58, 1Ch_6:60, 1Ch_6:72, etc.); in a few he substituted for the old an entirely new name, the modern apellation, probably, of the ancient site 1Ch_6:70, 1Ch_6:77. At one time, it would seem, his intention was to give the cities of the priests only, and to content himself with stating the mere number of the rest. His account of the matter was then brought to a conclusion, and summed up, in 1Ch_6:64. But, afterward, either he or a later writer thought it best to add to the list of the priestly cities the information contained in Judges as to those which were not priestly, but merely Levitical. The passage 1 Chr. 6:65-81 was then added.

The entire account has suffered much from corruption. In the first list two names, those of Juttah and Gideon, have dropped out. It is necessary to restore them in order to complete the number of thirteen cities 1Ch_6:60. In the second list 1Ch_6:67-70 there is likewise an omission of two cities, Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which are wanted to make up the number ten 1Ch_6:61. The third list is complete, though some of the names are very different from these of Joshua. In the fourth, two names are again wanting, those of Jokneam and Kartah.

57 So the descendants of Aaron were given Hebron (a city of refuge), and Libnah,[h] Jattir, Eshtemoa,

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:57. The cities of Judah— The author of this book, as well as the author of the book of Joshua, (chap. 1 Chronicles 21:19.) expressly asserts, that the cities given to the Levites were thirteen. In the catalogue before us, two of the

70

names are omitted, and only five of them written as they are in Joshua. The differences in the 4th, 5th, and 6th names are very immaterial. The transposition of the two last names shews no want of correctness in either catalogue. See Pilkington, p. 30. Houbigant translates the beginning of this verse, moreover to the sons of Aaron they gave for a city of refuge, Hebron with her suburbs, and Libna, &c.ELLICOTT, " (57) They gave the cities of Judah.—Heb. text, the cities of refuge, Hebron and Libnah, and her pastures. Of the cities mentioned only Hebron was an asylum for the manslayer. The other cities of refuge were Kedesh-Naphtali, Shechem, Bezer, Ramoth-Gilead, and Golan. (See Joshua 20:7-8.). Here our translators have adopted the Hebrew marginal correction of the text. (Comp. Joshua 21:13, which reads. “The manslayer’s city of refuge, Hebron.”) The same inaccuracy recurs in 1 Chronicles 6:67, below.

With her suburbs.—With her pastures. The phrase has been omitted after Jattir (Joshua 21:13).

58 Hilen, Debir,

ELLICOTT, " (58) Hilen.—Holon, which twice occurs in Joshua 15:51; Joshua 21:15, is a more natural form.

Debir.—Oracle, the inmost sanctuary; anciently, Kirjath-sepher (Book Town).

59 Ashan, Juttah[i] and Beth Shemesh, together with their pasturelands.

ELLICOTT, "(59) Ashan (smoke); in Joshua, Ain (fountain). The place may have 71

had both names, from a fountain rising like a column of smoke. “Juttah and her pastures” has fallen out here (Joshua 21:16). At the end of the verse Joshua adds, “Nine cities out of these two tribes,” viz., Judah and Simeon.

60 And from the tribe of Benjamin they were given Gibeon,[j] Geba, Alemeth and Anathoth, together with their pasturelands.The total number of towns distributed among the Kohathite clans came to thirteen.

clarke, "All their cities - were thirteen - But there are only eleven reckoned here, Gibeon and Juttah being omitted, and the names of some of the others changed. None of the versions give the full number of names, although they all give the whole sum thirteen.

JAMISON, "thirteen cities — No more than eleven are named here; but two additional ones are mentioned (Jos_21:16, Jos_21:17), which makes up the thirteen.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:60. All their cities were thirteen — Of which eleven are here numbered, and two more are mentioned Joshua 21:16-17, namely, Jattah and Gibeon; which, perhaps, were in ruins when this book was written.

ELLICOTT, " (60) “Gibeon and her pastures” is omitted; probably an oversight, due to the similarity of sound and form between Gibeon and Geba. Alemeth and Almôn are each valid formations, and perhaps represent an older and younger name of the place.Thirteen cities.—The list in its present shape contains eleven. This proves that

72

Juttah and Gibeon should be restored to the text.

61 The rest of Kohath’s descendants were allotted ten towns from the clans of half the tribe of Manasseh.

JAMISON, "unto the sons of Kohath, which were left — that is, in addition to the priests belonging to the same family and tribe of Levi.

by lot, ten cities — (Jos_21:26). The sacred historian gives an explanation (1Ch_6:66). Eight of these are mentioned, but only two of them are taken out of the half tribe of Manasseh (1Ch_6:70). The names of the other two are given (Jos_21:21), where full and detailed notices of these arrangements may be found.

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:61. And unto the sons of Kohath—were given, &c.— And to the rest of the sons of Kohath from the families of the tribe of Ephraim, and the tribe of Dan, and the half tribe of Manasseh, were given by lot ten cities.

ELLICOTT, " (61) And unto the sons of Kohath, which were left of the family of that tribe.—A comparison with Joshua 21:5 shows that the text is again mutilated. That passage reads (Heb.), “And unto the sons of Kohath which were left, out of the families [clans] of the tribe of Ephraim, and out of the tribe of Dan, and out of the half of the tribe of Manasseh, by the lot, ten cities.” The curious redundancy of the present text of 1 Chronicles 6:61, “Out of the half of the tribe of the half of Manasseh”—a phrase which occurs nowhere else—suggests bad emendation of a corrupt reading. The passage from Joshua undoubtedly gives the meaning here. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:66-67, below.)

Verses 61-63

73

(61-63) These verses correspond to Joshua 21:5-7. They supply short statements of the number of cities in the various tribes assigned to the non-Aaronic Kohathites, to the Gershonites, and the Merarites.

62 The descendants of Gershon, clan by clan, were allotted thirteen towns from the tribes of Issachar, Asher and Naphtali, and from the part of the tribe of Manasseh that is in Bashan.

ELLICOTT, " (62) Gershom (Josh., Gershon) throughout their families.—Heb., to [i.e., with regard to, after] their clans (so 1 Chronicles 6:63). In 1 Chronicles 6:60, “throughout their families” represents Heb. in their clans.Tribe of Manasseh in Bashan.—Joshua, “half- tribe.”

JAMISON, "to the sons of Gershom — Supply “the children of Israel gave.”

PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:62The twenty-three cities that belonged to the sons of Kohath are now followed by the thirteen due to the sons of Gershom, taken from the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and half Manasseh. The fact only is stated here, the details being supplied in verses 71-76. And it is easily to be seen that, as from the most important tribes were levied the cities for Levites first in precedence, so the same principle is observed to the end.

63 The descendants of Merari, clan by clan, were 74

allotted twelve towns from the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Zebulun.

ELLICOTT, "(63) This verse is word for word the same as Joshua 21:7, omitting the one term “by lot.”

PULPIT."The distribution of cities to the third branch of Levi's family, that of Merari, now follows. They are selected, four from each of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Zebulun (Joshua 21:7, Joshua 21:34-40).

64 So the Israelites gave the Levites these towns and their pasturelands.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 64-65(64, 65) “So the sons of Israel gave to the Levites the cities and their pastures. And they gave by the lot, out of the tribe of the sons of Judah, and out of the tribe of the sons of Simeon, and out of the tribe of the sons of Benjamin, those cities which are called by names;” named, that is, in the list of 1 Chronicles 6:55-60, above. This is clearly a summing up of the whole account so far. The eleven tribes have all been mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:61-65.

The “cities” of 1 Chronicles 6:64 are those included in 1 Chronicles 6:61-63. So the parallel verse (Joshua 21:8) refers back to Joshua 21:5-7, which is parallel to our 1 Chronicles 6:61-63. Joshua 21:9 (=our 1 Chronicles 6:65) introduces the names of the cities which fell to the Aaronites. But there is no real divergence between that account and this; because 1 Chronicles 6:65 also refers back to the list of the same

75

cities in 1 Chronicles 6:55-60. The chronicler adds Benjamin, with reference to 1 Chronicles 6:60, to make his tribal list complete.

(66–81) The names of the cities numbered in 1 Chronicles 6:61-64. (Comp. Joshua 21:20-26.)

65 From the tribes of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin they allotted the previously named towns.

CLARKE, "Which are called by their names - Probably each family gave its own name to the city that fell to its lot.

66 Some of the Kohathite clans were given as their territory towns from the tribe of Ephraim.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:66. Had cities of their coasts — Or, of their borders, that is, of their country contained within its borders: these cities were assigned the families of the sons of Kohath, though they were not priests, for their support in a lower ministry.ELLICOTT, "(66) And the residue of the families.—The Hebrew text can hardly mean this; and Joshua 21:20 shows that it is incorrect. The original text must have been, “And to the families of the sons of Kohath:—and the cities of their border were of the tribe of Ephraim.” The construction breaks off, and a new start is made

76

by the words “and the cities,” &c. The verse is abridged as compared with Joshua, 50100

67 In the hill country of Ephraim they were given Shechem (a city of refuge), and Gezer,[k]

JAMISON 67-81, "they gave unto them of the cities of refuge — The names of the cities given here are considerably different from those applied to them (Jos_21:13-19). In the lapse of centuries, and from the revolutions of society, changes might have been expected to take place in the form or dialectic pronunciation of the names of those cities; and this will sufficiently account for the variations that are found in the lists as enumerated here and in an earlier book. As to these cities themselves that were assigned to the Levites, they were widely remote and separated - partly in fulfillment of Jacob’s prophecy (Gen_49:7), and partly that the various districts of the country might obtain a competent supply of teachers who might instruct the people in the knowledge, and animate them to the observance, of a law which had so important a bearing on the promotion both of their private happiness and their national prosperity.

BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:67. They gave unto them of the cities of refuge — That is, the children of Israel, as it is expressed 1 Chronicles 6:64, gave to the residue of the Kohathites the following cities, part out of Ephraim, and part out of the half-tribe of Manasseh. As to the names of these cities, divers of them differ from those mentioned as given to them Joshua 21:15. Nor is it strange that the names of places should be changed in so many hundreds of years as had intervened between Joshua and this time. And as to the cities themselves, it is further to be observed, that they were dispersed among all the tribes, partly that Jacob’s prophecy might be fulfilled concerning the scattering of the tribe of Levi, Genesis 49:7; and partly that every tribe might have teachers among them by whom they might be directed in, and quickened to, the observation of God’s laws, upon which their safety and happiness wholly depended.

ELLICOTT, " (67) And they gave unto them, of the cities of refuge . . .—The correct version of the Hebrew text is, “And they gave unto them the cities of refuge, Shechem and her pastures, in the hill-country of Ephraim; and Gezer and her pastures.” Perhaps both here and in 1 Chronicles 6:57 above “city” (‘iyr), and not “cities” (‘arey), is the original reading. We have already noticed many

77

indications of textual corruption in this and the former section. Gezer was not a city of refuge. (See Note on 1 Chronicles 6:57.) Joshua 21:21 has the singular.

68 Jokmeam, Beth Horon,

ELLICOTT, "(68) Jokmeam.—Joshua has Kibzaim, a name omitted by the LXX. Vatic. Jokmeam is probably right. The other might easily be a misreading of it, owing to confusion of similar letters. The site is unknown. The four cities of 1 Chronicles 6:67-68 lay in Ephraim. Beth-horon, Gibeon, and Aijalon, the scenes of the great and providentially determined overthrow of the five kings of the Amorites, were appropriately assigned to the sacred tribe of Levi.

69 Aijalon and Gath Rimmon, together with their pasturelands.

CLARKE, "Aijalon with her suburbs - There are the two cities wanting here, Eltekeh and Gibethon. See Jos_21:23.

ELLICOTT, "(69) Aijalon with her suburbs . . .—Joshua 21:23-24, “And out of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh and her pastures, Gibbethon and her pastures, Aijalon and her pastures, Gath-rimmon and her pastures; four cities.” Clearly there is a lacuna in our text between 1 Chronicles 6:68-69. It has been supposed that the chronicler omits mention of the tribe of Dan, here and elsewhere, owing to a religious prejudice, because of the illicit form of worship of which the city Dan was the centre. It is more likely that such omissions are not chargeable to the chronicler, but

78

either to the imperfection of his sources, or to the carelessness, and perhaps malpractice, of his copyists and editors. (See further Note on 1 Chronicles 7:12.)

70 And from half the tribe of Manasseh the Israelites gave Aner and Bileam, together with their pasturelands, to the rest of the Kohathite clans.

ELLICOTT, " (70) Aner . . . Bileam.—Joshua 21:25 reads, “Taa-nach [see Joshua 17:11] and Gath-rimmon.” The latter is a mere repetition from the preceding verse. Bileam is a man’s name, being the Hebrew spelling of Balaam. It should be Ibleam (Joshua 17:11). So the LXX. Aner (Genesis 14:13) is also a man, one of Abraham’s allies. Taanach is probably right, the last three letters of the Hebrew word closely resembling those of Aner.

For the family.—Better, unto the family of the sons of Kohath who were left. This depends on the idea of giving (1 Chronicles 6:67). The phrase is a sort of subscription to the whole list of 1 Chronicles 6:67-70. For “family” the plural should be read, as in Joshua 21:26.

71 The Gershonites received the following:From the clan of the half-tribe of Manassehthey received Golan in Bashan and also Ashtaroth, together with their pasturelands;

79

CLARKE 71-77, "We shall see from Jos_21:28, etc., that several of these cities have different names.

How barren to us is this register, both of incident and interest! and yet, as barren rocks and sandy deserts make integral and necessary parts of the globe; so do these genealogical tables make necessary parts of the history of providence and grace in the maintenance of truth, and the establishment of the Church of Christ. Therefore no one that fears God will either despise or lightly esteem them.

PULPIT, "Golan was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan (Joshua 20:8), the other two being Bezer, of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead, of the tribe of Gad. Ashtaroth, in its previous history, had been closely connected with Og King of Bashan (Deuteronomy 1:4; Joshua 9:9, Joshua 9:10; Joshua 12:4, Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:12). It is called Beeshterah in Joshua 21:27.

72 from the tribe of Issacharthey received Kedesh, Daberath,

PULPIT, "Kedesh. There were three places of this name.

1. Kedesh, at the extreme south of Judah (Joshua 15:23; Joshua 19:20, Joshua 19:21), perhaps the same with Kadesh-barnea (Joshua 15:3).

2. The Kedesh of this verse, perhaps the same with the Kedesh of Joshua 13:22; it is called Kishon in Joshua 21:28.

3. The Kedesh of verse 76, i.e. Kedesh in Galilee, one of the cities of refuge in the 80

tribe of Naphtali (Joshua 19:37; Joshua 20:7; Joshua 21:32; 4:6-10). Daberath (Authorized Version, Dabaroh, Joshua 21:28); mentioned as on the boundary of Zebulun in Joshua 19:12.

73 Ramoth and Anem, together with their pasturelands;

PULPIT, "Ramoth; called in Joshua 21:28, Joshua 21:29, Jarmuth; a place of which nothing else is known, but possibly one with Remeth (Joshua 19:21). Ahem; probably the En-gannim of Joshua 19:21 and Joshua 21:29, and perhaps a contraction of the name.

74 from the tribe of Asherthey received Mashal, Abdon,

PULPIT 74-76, "Mashal, Hukok, Hammon, Kirjathaim, are found as Mishal, Helkath, Hammoth-dor, Kartan, in Joshua 21:30, Joshua 21:31, Joshua 21:32; Joshua 19:35.

75 Hukok and Rehob, together with their pasturelands;76 and from the tribe of Naphtalithey received Kedesh in Galilee, Hammon and

81

Kiriathaim, together with their pasturelands.77 The Merarites (the rest of the Levites) received the following:From the tribe of Zebulunthey received Jokneam, Kartah,[l] Rimmono and Tabor, together with their pasturelands;

COFFMAN, "By far the greater space was devoted to the genealogies of the Levites. "The reason for this, of course, was the importance of the priestly tribe in the religious life of Israel."[1]

An amazing feature of these is the use of the same names over and over from generation to generation. The time covered by these genealogies reaches all the way back to Israel (Jacob); and many of the names encountered here remind us of historical events centered around those names throughout the Old Testament. My comments on some of those occurrences are in Exodus 6; 1Sam. 1,1 Samuel 8, and in Joshua 21.

"Nadab and Abihu" (1 Chronicles 6:3). Their offering strange fire before Jehovah and their untimely death are recorded in Leviticus 20:1-2, and in Numbers 3:4. They left no children.

A most significant fact that appears in this chapter is that all of the services of the tabernacle are presented as reaching all the way back to the Exodus; and the Chronicler tells us that their ceremonies were observed, "According to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded." (1 Chronicles 6:49). Elmslie, speaking of this verse, declared it to be "emphatically stated."[2] The sacred author of Chronicles had evidently never heard of that fairy tale regarding that "D"

82

Document allegedly discovered by Hilkiah in the days of Josiah. What is stated here could never have been written if that `discovery' had been anything other than the Pentateuch (every single word of it)."All their cities were thirteen" (1 Chronicles 6:60). "Eleven of these are given here, and the other two are supplied in Joshua 21."[3]The importance of these genealogies for the returning Israelites from their captivity in Babylon was stressed by Simmons: "It was important for them to realize that their captivity had been only an interruption of their religious and national life. These genealogies gave them a most significant link with their past. They created a continuity between the pre-exilic and post-exilic Israel."[4]

COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:77. Out of the tribe of Zebulun— Here are some names changed, and some omitted; for in Joshua 21:34-35 four cities are assigned to the Merarites out of the tribe of Zebulun; whereas two only are mentioned here, the names of which are not the same. See and compare the places.

REFLECTIONS.—The Levites were distributed throughout the tribes, that the people might be better taught; taken off all worldly employments, that they might give themselves up to the work of the ministry; and liberally provided with cities to dwell in, and the tithes for their maintenance. The names of the cities are much the same as Joshua 21 except some trivial differences, which time may be supposed to have made. Note; (1.) They deserve a liberal provision, who labour in the word and doctrine. (2.) They who neglect the Levite's work, to eat the bread of the church in idleness, not only rob their brethren, but rob God also.

PULPIT, "Unto the rest of the children of Merari. Since none have yet been spoken of as having received their cities, we find the explanation of these words in their order in Joshua 21:34, "Unto the families of the children of Merari, the rest of the Levites." To our list here, Jokneam and Kartah (Joshua 21:34) need to be supplied, and Rimmon and Tabor here appear (Joshua 21:35), there as Dimnah and Nahalai.

83

78 from the tribe of Reuben across the Jordan east of Jerichothey received Bezer in the wilderness, Jahzah,

PULPIT, "Bezer. The full description of the place is "Bezer in the wilderness, in the land of the Mishor" (Deuteronomy 4:43), and "Bezer in the wilderness, in the Mishor," i.e. "the plain," or as some, "the downs" (Joshua 20:8). This, as mentioned above, was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan. Jahzah (Authorized Version, Joshua 21:36, Jahazah).

79 Kedemoth and Mephaath, together with their pasturelands;

PULPIT, "The two names of this verse, with the two of the preceding, i.e. all the four names of the cities of Reuben, are absent from their proper place in the list in Joshua 21:1-45. in the Hebrew Textus Receptus and the Vulgate, though found in Joshua 13:18.

80 and from the tribe of Gadthey received Ramoth in Gilead, Mahanaim,

81 Heshbon and 84

Jazer, together with their pasturelands.

Footnotes:

1 Chronicles 6:1 In Hebrew texts 6:1-15 is numbered 5:27-41, and 6:16-81 is numbered 6:1-66. 1 Chronicles 6:14 Hebrew Jehozadak, a variant of Jozadak; also in verse 15 1 Chronicles 6:16 Hebrew Gershom, a variant of Gershon; also in verses 17, 20, 43, 62 and 71 1 Chronicles 6:26 Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts Ahimoth 26 and Elkanah. The sons of Elkanah: 1 Chronicles 6:27 Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 1 Samuel 1:19,20 and 1 Chron. 6:33,34); Hebrew does not have and Samuel his son. 1 Chronicles 6:28 Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 8:2 and 1 Chron.

85

6:33); Hebrew does not have Joel. 1 Chronicles 6:40 Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts, one Septuagint manuscript and Syriac Maaseiah 1 Chronicles 6:57 See Joshua 21:13; Hebrew given the cities of refuge: Hebron, Libnah. 1 Chronicles 6:59 Syriac (see also Septuagint and Joshua 21:16); Hebrew does not have Juttah. 1 Chronicles 6:60 See Joshua 21:17; Hebrew does not have Gibeon. 1 Chronicles 6:67 See Joshua 21:21; Hebrew given the cities of refuge: Shechem, Gezer. 1 Chronicles 6:77 See Septuagint and Joshua 21:34; Hebrew does not have Jokneam, Kartah.

86