Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 24:1
Now [these are] the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
Ch. 1Ch 24:1-19. David’s Organization of the Priests by courses
1. Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron ] R.V. And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these.
the sons of Aaron ] Son 6:3; Exo 6:23.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CHAPTER XXIV
David divides the families of Eleazar and Ithamar, by lot,
into twenty-four courses, 1-19.
How the rest of the sons of Levi were disposed of, 20-31.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIV
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The divisions, i.e. the several branches into which that family was divided or distributed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Now these are the divisions ofthe sons of Aaron(See on 1Ch23:6).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron,…. Into the classes or courses following:
the sons of Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar; 1Ch 6:3, these were the immediate sons of Aaron; but the division or distribution of them into classes are of their posterity in the times of David, who descended from the two latter.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The division of the priests and Levites into classes. – Vv. 1-19. The twenty-four classes of priests. After the statement as to the fathers’-houses of the Levites (1 Chron 23), we have next the arrangements of the priests for the performance of the service in the sanctuary; the priestly families descended from Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar being divided into twenty-four classes, the order of whose service was settled by lot.
1Ch 24:1 contains the superscription, “As for the sons of Aaron, their divisions (were these).” To make the division clear, we have an introductory notice of Aaron’s descendants, to the effect that of his four sons, the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, died before their father, leaving no sons, so that only Eleazar and Ithamar became priests ( ), i.e., entered upon the priesthood. The four sons of Aaron, 1Ch 24:1, as in 1Ch 6:3, Exo 6:23.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Courses of the Priests. | B. C. 1015. |
1 Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office. 3 And David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices in their service. 4 And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided. Among the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen chief men of the house of their fathers, and eight among the sons of Ithamar according to the house of their fathers. 5 Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the governors of the sanctuary, and governors of the house of God, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar. 6 And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the fathers of the priests and Levites: one principal household being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar. 7 Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah, 8 The third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim, 9 The fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin, 10 The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah, 11 The ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah, 12 The eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim, 13 The thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab, 14 The fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer, 15 The seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Aphses, 16 The nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezekel, 17 The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, 18 The three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah. 19 These were the orderings of them in their service to come into the house of the LORD, according to their manner, under Aaron their father, as the LORD God of Israel had commanded him.
The particular account of these establishments is of little use to us now; but, when Ezra published it, it was of great use to direct their church affairs after their return from captivity into the old channel again. The title of this record we have v. 1— These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron, not by which they divided one from another, or were at variance one with another (it is a pity there should ever be any such divisions among the sons of Israel, but especially among the sons of Aaron), but the distribution of them in order to the dividing of their work among themselves; it was a division which God made, and was made for him. 1. This distribution was made for the more regular discharge of the duties of their office. God was, and still is, the God of order, and not of confusion, particularly in the things of his worship. Number without order is but a clog and an occasion of tumult; but when every one has, and knows, and keeps, his place and work, the more the better. In the mystical body, every member has its use, for the good of the whole, Rom 12:4; Rom 12:5; 1Co 12:12. 2. It was made by lot, that the disposal thereof might be of the Lord, and so all quarrels and contentions might be prevented, and no man could be charged with partiality, nor could any say that they had wrong done them. As God is the God or order, so he is the God of peace. Solomon says of the lot that it causeth contention to cease. 3. The lot was cast publicly, and with great solemnity, in the presence of the king, princes, and priests, that there might be no room for any fraudulent practices or the suspicion of them. The lot is an appeal to God, and ought to be managed with corresponding reverence and sincerity. Matthias was chosen to the apostleship by lot, with prayer (Act 1:24; Act 1:26), and I know not but it might be still used in faith in parallel cases, as an instituted ordinance. We have here the name of the public notary that was employed in writing the names, and drawing the lots, (v. 6): Shemaiah, one of the Levites. 4. What those priests were chosen to was to preside in the affairs of the sanctuary (v. 5), in their several courses and turns. That which was to be determined by the lot was only the precedency, not who should serve (for they chose all the chief men), but who should serve first, and who next, that every one might know his course, and attend in it. Of the twenty-four chief men of the priests sixteen were of the house of Eleazar and eight of Ithamar; for the house of Ithamar may well be supposed to have dwindled since the sentence passed on the family of Eli, who was of that house. The method of drawing the lots is intimated (v. 6), one chief household being taken for Eleazar, and one for Ithamar. The sixteen chief names of Eleazar were put in one urn, the eight for Ithamar in another, and they drew out of them alternately, as long as those for Ithamar lasted, and then out of those only for Eleazar, or two for Eleazar, and then one for Ithamar, throughout. 5. Among these twenty-four courses the eighth is that of Abijah or Abia (v. 10), which is mentioned (Luke i. 5) as the course which Zechariah was of, the father of John the Baptist, by which it appears that these courses which David now settled, though interrupted perhaps in the bad reigns and long broken off by the captivity, yet continued in succession till the destruction of the second temple by the Romans. And each course was called by the name of him in whom it was first founded, as the high priest is here called Aaron (v. 19), because succeeding in his dignity and power, though we read not of any of them that bore that name. Whoever was high priest must be reverenced and observed by the inferior priests as their father, as Aaron their father. Christ is high priest over the house of God, to whom all believers, being made priests, are to be in subjection.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Priests’ Courses, 1Ch 24:1-19
In his preparation for the temple and its worship David had also reorganized the families of the priests. The chief families of Aaron’s descendants were mentioned first. Aaron had had four sons, but the two older, Nadab and Abihu, had been slain. by the Lord because they offered strange fire at the dedication of the tabernacle (Lev 10:1-5). their infraction against the Lord’s holiness, in seeking to fire His altar by their own fire, was never forgotten in Israel. It had already remained as a negative lesson for many generations, and it stands as a warning today to those who would prefer their own methods over those of the Lord.
Nadab and Abihu died childless, so the lineage of the priests came through Aaron’s younger sons, Eleazar and Ithamar Eleazar had succeeded to the high priesthood following the death of Aaron, and Eleazar’s son, Phinehas, had followed him (Num 25:10-13). Some think the Lord’s words to Phinehas on that occasion meant that the high priesthood should continue in the descent of Phinehas perpetually. This did not occur, however, for Eli was of the family of Ithamar This is apparent from verse 3, where it is said that Ahimelech was of the family of Ithamar Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar, the priest who had escaped Saul’s slaughter (1Sa 22:20-23) and become a fugitive from Saul with David. Abiathar was the son of an older Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli.
David had appointed a chief priest from each of the two Aaronic families, Zadok for Eleazar and Ahimelech for Ithamar There were twenty-four other chief priests, though inferior in office to Zadok and Ahimelech. Each of these headed a course of priests, but there were sixteen from the family of Eleazar, which was the more numerous, to eight from the family of Ithamar Their order of service was determined by lot. They were called governors (or princes) of the sanctuary and governors (or princes) of the house of God. It is uncertain whether these designations are synonymous or were separate appointments. It has been suggested that the princes of the sanctuary served in the most sacred precincts, whereas the princes of the house of God served in the outer precincts of the temple.
The scribe, Shemaiah, who was a Levite, recorded the twenty-four orders and the name of the chief priest of each, whose name continued to be called on that particular order throughout Israel’s history. It was witnessed by the high priests Zadok and Ahimelech. The orders are enumerated and named in verses 7 through 18. None of these men are otherwise notable in the Scriptures. It is interesting, however, to note that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was of the order of Abijah (Lu 1:5), the eighth course of the priests.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.] In this chapter we have divisions of the 24 orders of priests (1Ch. 24:1-19), and the classes of Levites who attended them in discharge of their sacred functions.
1Ch. 24:1-6.The sons of Aaron. The divisions supply from 1Ch. 24:6 of chap. 23. The author had there stated that to the sons of Levi David assigned their courses. He now adds, To the sons of A. also (David assigned) their courses. The sons of A. (were) Nadab, &c. [Speak. Com.]. Both, i.e., Zad. and Ahim., assisted David. 1Ch. 24:4. Chief, more heads of houses. 1Ch. 24:5. Lot, that is, the assignment of their order in the courses made by lot to the families belonging to both E. and Ith. Governors or princes of the sanctuary. 1Ch. 24:6. Wrote, as lots were drawn forth. Taken alternately.
1Ch. 24:7-19.The allotted order. Some names in this list found elsewhere and others not. 1Ch. 24:10. Abijah, Abia (Luk. 1:5; Neh. 10:7). 1Ch. 24:11. Jeshuah, whose descendants returned from captivity (Eze. 2:6; Neh. 7:39). 1Ch. 24:12. Eliashib, not progenitor of the one in Neh. 3:1; Neh. 3:20-21. 1Ch. 24:15. Hezir, as a layman (cf. Neh. 10:20). 1Ch. 24:16. Peth., one of those who separated themselves from alliances contracted in captivity (Ez. 10:23; Neh. 9:5). 1Ch. 24:17. Jachin (cf. chap. 1Ch. 9:10; Neh. 11:10), probably the Achim of Mat. 1:14. 1Ch. 24:19. Orderings, the charge as 1Ch. 24:3. Under, by the hand of Aaron. Commanded, a constant expression in the law of Moses (Exo. 39:42; Lev. 27:34; Num. 36:13; Deu. 34:9).
1Ch. 24:20-31.Distribution of other Levites. The rest. Object of this second enumeration of the Levitical families (cf. 1Ch. 23:7-23) seems to be the designation of the heads of the families in Davids time. The omission of the Gershonites is curious, and can only be accounted for by supposing that the author did not find any account of their heads in his authorities. The addition to the Merarites (1Ch. 24:26-27) is also curious. It brings the number of families up to 25, which is one more than we should have expected [Speak. Com.]. 1Ch. 24:21. Rehabi. (cf. chap. 1Ch. 23:17). 1Ch. 24:22. Shel., Shelomith in chap. 1Ch. 23:18, a different person from Amramite Shel. (cf. chap. 1Ch. 26:25-26). He was probably not a contemporary of David, as the head of the family in Davids time was Jahath [Speak. Com.]. 1Ch. 24:26. Beno, not really a name; Heb. for his son, and to be attached to Jaaziah. The meaning of the whole passage (1Ch. 24:26-30) seems to be that there were three branches of the Meraritesthe Beni-Mahli, the Beni-Mushi, and the Beni-Jaaziahof whom the first formed a mighty house in Davids time, viz., the Beni-Kish, their head being Jerahmeel, while each of the other branches comprised three families, the heads of which were respectively in Davids time Shoham, Zaccur, Ibri, and Mahli, Eder, Jerimoth [Speak. Com.]. 1Ch. 24:31. Principal, all the Levitical houses enumerated drew lots in their courses on equal terms, the elder families having no advantage over the younger ones, as there were 24 courses of the priests, so we must suppose that there were 24 of the Levites, though the number of the families as given in the text (chap. 1Ch. 23:7-23; 1Ch. 24:20-30) is 25 [Speak. Com.].
HOMILETICS
THE DIVISIONS OF PRIESTS (SONS OF AARON).1Ch. 24:1-19
The word divisions means courses, as 1Ch. 24:6 in chap. 23; and evidently continues the subject and construction of that verse. Two sons of A. died, and the other two supply the chief men of the house, viz., 16 from Eleazar and 8 from Ithamar, 24 in all.
I. Divisions to facilitate work. Divided more easily performed. Many hands make light work. Burdens equalised carried better. Jealousies are prevented and a true spirit created. Be not solitary, be not idle, a saying of Burton.
II. Divisions by lot (1Ch. 24:5). No ground of choice between the two families, who differed only in number, and as the highest places had already been filled by both of them, the impartiality of lot to settle the order of service.
1. Lot appointing to dignified work. For the governors (or princes) of the sanctuary (1Ch. 24:5). High priests who exclusively could enter into the most holy place before God [Keil].
2. Lot publicly taken. Shem., the scribe, wrote them before the king (1Ch. 24:6). Openly before witnesses and a clerk acting as secretary to scrutinise. Before king, princes, and priests the act most solemn. Fraud and suspicion impossible. The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.
III. Divisions in specific order (1Ch. 24:7-19). Order essential to existence and efficiency. Men who seek pre-eminence and power create disorder, anarchy, and ruin. Well-ordered words make good logic; well-ordered regulations preserve the social constitution; and well-set stones make architecture. Order in Gods house and service secures regularity, beauty, and efficiency; excludes what is called good fortune, happy hits, and points to the divine side of life on its appointment. No chance work; all appears to be settled by law. The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.
THE DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHU.1Ch. 24:2
The story strange, and understood only by intimate acquaintance with the Jewish system and the prevailing sentiments of the time. Nadab and Abihu had been honoured with special privileges, but unduly exalted themselves, became proud, negligent, and presumptuous. Learn from their death
I. That sin inverts the natural order of things. They died before their father. Sin, as transgression of law, creates confusion and disorder. It overturns and inverts. What more natural than a son to outlive his father; but wickedness shortens life, and brings untimely death.
II. That sin deprives of blessings which God can bestow. They had no children. Children great blessings, a heritage from the Lord. To be childless, under Jewish dispensation, considered calamity. Profane the name of God, and you may be cut off from high honour, just lineage, and blessed memory. The righteous alone can secure posthumous fame. The memory of the just is blessed.
III. That sin often overwhelms with fearful ruin. They died not a natural death. There went out fire from the Lord and devoured them. A punishment sudden and severe, awful and retributive (Lev. 10:1-4). Indicative of their heinous guilt, and Gods jealousy in punishing it.
IV. That sin is often mentioned in history to warn of its consequences. This special sin frequently mentioned in Scripture. By this awful judgment the wisdom of God observed the same course, in repressing the first instance of contempt for sacred things, as he did at the commencement of the Christian dispensation (Act. 5:1-11). The temple mouse fears not the temple idol, is a proverb. Those who minister in holy things need be careful not to arrogate to themselves the glory which belongs to God, but ever keep before them the solemnity and responsibility of that service in which they are engaged.
THE DIVISIONS OF THE LEVITES.1Ch. 24:20-31
The rest refers to those not of the sons of Aaron, and does not exhaust nonpriestly class, for we find in following two chapters others who were singers, doorkeepers, and treasurers. Two families given chiefly. Gershonites found among officers and Judges 1. The family of Kohath (1Ch. 24:20-25).
2. The family of Merari (1Ch. 24:26-29).
3. The three sons of Mushi (1Ch. 24:30-31). These all content with an inferior lot, anxious to do their best, and joyfully contributing to the whole. They were arranged by lot to match the courses of their brethren, the sons of Aaron, in the presence of the same superiors. The principal fathers, or the chief over against his lesser brother. Each, great and small, his place and his work, and acting under the great Taskmasters eye. Let every man be occupied, and occupied in the highest employment of which he is capable, and die with the consciousness that he has done his best [Sidney].
A wise man scorneth nothing, be it never so small or homely,
For he knoweth not the secret laws that may bind it to great effects
[Martin Tupper].
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 24:2. Sad deaths. I. The sins which caused them.
1. Disobedience to divine injunction. They offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.
2. Gross inconsistency. Perhaps they were drunk, hence the law (Lev. 10:8). They drink and forget the law (Pro. 31:5).
3. Rashness in approaching God. They took, snatched (some read 1Ch. 24:1), their censers without reverence and consideration; rushed into Gods presence in haste.
4. Presumptuous in act. Not only did they take strange incense, but went both together when one only should have officiated; intruded into the holy of holies, to which access denied to all but high priest, and thus set a precedent most dangerous, and which called for divine displeasure. II. The punishment which followed the sins. They died.
1. A dishonourable death. Without children.
2. A sudden death. Fire came out suddenly.
3. An overwhelming death. Instantly died as if struck by a lightning-flash.
4. A retributive death. Before the Lord. Before the veil that covered the mercy-seat. Without mercy, and without divine interference. A foretaste of torment in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:10). God will be sanctified either actively or passively, either in us or upon us; sure it is that he will be no loser by us. Sanctified he will be, either in the sincerity of mens conversation or else in the severity of their condemnation. Singular things are expected of all that draw nigh to God in any duty, but especially in the office of the ministry. Those that stand in the presence of princes must be exact in their carriages. God appointed both the weights and measures of the sanctuary to be twice as large as those of the commonwealth, to show that he expects much more of those that serve him there than he doth of others. The souls of priests must be purer than sunbeams, saith Chrysostom [Trapp].
1Ch. 24:5-30. Remarkable persons. 1Ch. 24:5. Governors (Heb.), Princes of the house of God. Chief priests rulers over others of their own order, and subject to the high priest. Submission and diligence give distinction in calling. Cest par le travail quon regne [Louis XIV.]. If translation be Princes of Holiness, then holiness gives influence and power; distinction of character and approbation of God. Good men are kings of society. 1Ch. 24:7. Jehoiarib, the father of the Maccabees (1Ma. 2:1). 1Ch. 24:10. From Abijah came Zacharias, father of John the Baptist (Luk. 1:5). Old he was, yet not free from taking his turn. Dumb also for a time; yet he went on to do his office in the ministration. The evangelists word of the course (Grk. epi and merias, a daily service) importeth a daily attendance upon the work while the course continueth [Trapp].
1Ch. 24:23. Sons of Hebron. The four persons named appear to have been contemporaries of David, the heads of the Hebronite houses in his time (cf. ch. 1Ch. 26:31) [Speak. Com.]. What shall I do to be for ever known? asked Schiller. Scripture will give the answer.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 24
1Ch. 24:2. Died. It is a dangerous thing in the service of God to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe his own worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed [Bp. Hall].
1Ch. 24:5; 1Ch. 24:31. Lot. Methods are the masters of masters [Tallerand]. Method is essential, and enables a larger amount of work to be got through with satisfaction. Method, said the Rev. R. Cecil, is like packing things in a box: a good packer will get in half as much again as a bad one. Cecils despatch of business was extraordinary, his motto being, The shortest way to do many things is to do one thing at once [Smiles].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
16. THE CLASSES OF PRIESTS AND LEVITES
(Chapter 24)
TEXT
1Ch. 24:1. And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2. But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priests office. 3. And David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service. 4. And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar then of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers houses, eight. 5. Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for there were princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God, both of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar. 6. And Shemaiah the son of Nethanel the scribe, who was of the Levites, wrote them in the presence of the king, and the princes and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers houses of the priests and of the Levites; one fathers house being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar.
7. Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah, 8. the third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim, 9. the fifth to Malchijah the sixth to Mijamin, 10. the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah, 11. the ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah, 12. the eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim, 13. the thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab, 14. the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer, 15. the seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Happizzez, 16. the nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezkel, 17. the one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, 18. the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah. 19. This was the ordering of them in their service, to come into the house of Jehovah according to the ordinance given unto them by Aaron their father, as Jehovah, the God of Israel, had commanded him.
20. And of the rest of the sons of Levi: of the sons of Amram, Shubael; of the sons of Shubael, Jehdeiah. 21. Of Rehabiah: of the sons of Rehabiah, Isshiah the chief. 22. of the Izharites, Shelomoth; of the sons of Shelomoth, Jahath. 23. And the sons of Hebron: Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, Jekameam the fourth. 24. The sons of Uzziel, Micah; of the sons of Micah, Shamir. 25. The brother of Micah, Isshiah; of the sons of Isshiah, Zechariah. 26. The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi; the sons of Jaaziah: Beno. 27. The sons of Merari: of Jaaziah, Beno, and Shoham, and Zaccur, and Ibri. 28. Of Mahli: Eleazar, who had no sons. 29. Of Kish; the sons of Kish: Jerahmeel. 30. And the sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jerimoth. These were the sons of the Levites after their fathers houses. 31. These likewise cast lots even as their brethren the sons of Aaron in the presence of David the king, and Zadok, and Ahimelech, and the heads of the fathers houses of the priests and of the Levites; the fathers house of the chief even as those of his younger brother.
PARAPHRASE
1Ch. 24:1. The priests (the descendants of Aaron) were placed into two divisions named after Aarons sons, Eleazar and Ithamar. Nadab and Abihu were also the sons of Aaron, but they died before their father did and had not children; so only Eleazar and Ithamar were left to carry on. 3. David consulted with Zadok, who represented the Eleazar clan, and with Ahimelech, who represented the Ithamar clan; then he divided Aarons descendants into many groups to serve at various times. 4. Eleazars descendants were divided into sixteen groups and Ithamars into eight (for there was more leadership ability among the descendants of Eleazar). 5. All tasks were assigned to the various groups by coin-toss so that there would be no preference, for there were many famous men and high officials of the Temple in each division. 6. Shemaiah, a Levite and the son of Nethanel, acted as recording secretary and wrote down the names and assignments in the presence of the king and of these leaders; Zadok the priest, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the priests and Levites. Two groups from the division of Eleazar and one from the division of Ithamar were assigned to each task.
718. The work was assigned (by coin-toss) in this order: First, the group led by Jehoiarib; Second, the group led by Jedaiah; Third, the group led by Harim; Fourth, the group led by Se-orim; Fifth, the group led by Malchijah; Sixth, the group led by Mijamin; Seventh, the group led by Hakkoz; Eighth, the group led by Ahijah; Ninth, the group led by Jeshua; Tenth, the group led by Shecaniah; Eleventh, the group led by Eliashib; Twelfth, the group led by Jakim; Thirteenth, the group led by Huppah; Fourteenth, the group led by Jeshebe-ab; Fifteenth, the group led by Bilgah; Sixteenth, the group led by Immer; Seventeenth, the group led by Hezir; Eighteenth, the group led by Happizzez; Nineteenth, the group led by Pethahiah; Twentieth, the group led by Jehezkel; Twenty-first, the group led by Jachin; Twenty-second, the group led by Gamul; Twenty-third, the group led by Delaiah; Twenty-fourth, the group led by Maaziah. 19. Each group carried out the Temple duties as originally assigned by God through their ancestor Aaron. 20. These were the other descendants of Levi: Amram; his descendant Shuba-el; and Shubaels descendant Jehdeiah; 21. the Rehabiah group, led by his oldest son Isshiah; 22. the Izhar group consisting of Shelamoth and his descendant Jahath. 23. The Hebron group: Jeriah, Hebrons oldest son; Amariah, his second son; Jahaziel, his third son; Jekameam, his fourth son. 24, 25. The Uzziel group was led by his son Micah and his grandsons Shamir and Isshiah, and by Isshiahs son Zechariah. 26, 27. The Merari group was led by his sons: Mahli and Mushi. (Ja-aziahs group, led by his son Beno, included his brothers Shoham, Zaccur, and Ibri.) 28. Mahlis descendants were Eleazar, who had no sons, 29. and Kish, among whose sons was Jerahmeel. 30. The sons of Mushi were Mahli, Eder, and Jerimoth. These were the descendants of Levi in their various clans. 31. Like the descendants of Aaron, they were assigned to their duties by coin-toss without distinction as to age or rank. It was done in the presence of King David, Zadok, Ahimelech, and the leaders of the priests and the Levites.
COMMENTARY
David requested the advice and assistance of Zadok and Ahimelech in setting up the courses of the Levites for Temple service. Four sons were born to Aaron. Nadab and Abihu had been stricken down by Jehovah and they had left no sons. Eleazar and Ithamar remained and Jehovah gave them sons. In Davids day Zadok represented the line of Eleazar and Abiathar (Ahimelechs son) represented Ithamars descendants. In organizing the courses of priests in the high priestly line sixteen courses were from the line of Eleazar and eight courses were lineal descendants from Ithamar. The distinction between princes of the sanctuary and princes of God is difficult. The suggestion has been made that the princes of God refer only to the regular high priests. Sacred lots were cast in determining the divisions and Shemaiah served by keeping the written record listing the personnel of each course.
The names of the persons who were the chief leaders of the twenty four courses are listed in 1Ch. 24:7-19. Some of the descendants of Jehoiarib (Joiarib) were among those returning from the Babylonian exile about 536 B.C. (Neh. 11:10). Jedaiah is also mentioned later in the same connection (Ezr. 2:36). Sons of Harim in Ezr. 2:39 and Neh. 7:35 would relate to this present reference. Malchijah is named in Neh. 11:12 and Jer. 21:1. Abijah, who headed the eighth course is named in Neh. 10:7 and Luk. 1:5. The father of John the Baptist served in this course. References in the lists of those who returned from Babylonian captivity include the people of Jeshua. Descendants of some of the other heads of these Levitical courses are named in the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah. The sacred lot by which these divisions were determined may have involved the Urim and the Thummim or a similar instrument. In the using of the lot, the leaders did not simply trust mere chance. This was Davids way of emphasizing the fact that Jehovah made the decision as to which persons should be in each course of priests.
Assignments for the rest of the sons of Levi are detailed in 1Ch. 24:20-31. These are the Levites who were not of the high priestly order. They could not officiate at the altar and do that kind of priestly work. These Levites had obligations as musicians, doorkeepers, and Temple guards. Jehdeiah and Isshiah were the chieftains over the rest of the sons of Levi. These leaders were descended from Amram. David, along with Zadok and Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, cast lots to determine how and when these men should serve.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) Now these are the divisions.Literally, And for the sons of Aaron, their divisions (were as follows). The sentence forms a superscription to the section (1Ch. 24:1-19).
The sons of Aaron are named above (1Ch. 6:3). (Comp. Exo. 6:23.) As usual, the writer starts ab ovo.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Preparations for the Building of the Temple – Comments – In 1 Chronicles 22-29, we see King David making preparations to build the Temple. He spent a great amount of effort in gathering materials and organizing the people to serve in the Temple service. He gathered the materials and workmen (chapter 22). He divided the Levites for temple service (chapter 23). He divided the priests (chapter 24). He organized musicians (chapter 25), gatekeepers and treasurers (chapter 26). He organized the military and tribal leaders (chapter 27). He then gave Solomon instructions on building the Temple (chapter 28). Finally, he takes an offering from the people, prays and blesses God, and anoints Solomon as king (chapter 29).
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Divisions of the Priests
v. 1. Now, these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, v. 2. But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, v. 3. And David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons, v. 4. And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar, v. 5. Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another, v. 6. And Shemaiah, the son of Nethaneel, the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king, and the princes, and Zadok, the priest, and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the fathers of the priests and Levites, one principal household, v. 7. Now, the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah,
v. 8. the third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim,
v. 9. the fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin,
v. 10. the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah,
v. 11. the ninth to Jeshuah, the tenth to Shecaniah,
v. 12. the eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim.
v. 13. the thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab,
v. 14. the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer,
v. 15. the seventeenth to Hezer, the eighteenth to Aphses,
v. 16. the nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezekel,
v. 17. the one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul,
v. 18. the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah.
v. 19. These were the orderings of them in their service to come into the house of the Lord, according to their manner, under Aaron, their father, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded him,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
1Ch 24:1-19
The twenty-four classes of priests.
1Ch 24:1
The Hebrew of this verse reads, And to the sons of Aaron, their divisions ); the sons of Aaron: Nadeb and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. The word “divisions” is the same word that is translated “courses” in 1Ch 24:6, and which verse also would read literally, “And David divided them divisions to the sons of Levi, to Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.” Our present verse evidently continues both the subject and construction of that verse. Of the four sons (Exo 6:23), two died without issue, viz. Nadab and Abihu (1Ch 24:2); and the other two have to supply the “chief men of the house,” viz. Eleazar sixteen, and Ithamar eight (1Ch 24:4).
1Ch 24:2
(Comp. Leveticus 1Ch 10:1, 1Ch 10:2, for the death of these; and for their being childless, Num 3:2-4; Num 26:60, Num 26:61.)
1Ch 24:3
The Hebrew of this verse reads, And David divided them, and Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimalech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices (), in their service (). And the evident purport of it is that the three, David, Zadok, and Ahimelech, conjointly made the arrangements. This is virtually repeated in 1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:31 (see also 1Ch 25:1 for an analogous case). For the “Ahimelech” of this verse and 1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:31, should be read “Abiathar,” as shown in 1Ch 18:16, by comparison of 1Sa 22:20; 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 1:7, 1Ki 1:8; Mar 2:26.
1Ch 24:4
The simpler translation of this verse might run thus: And there were found (of) sons of Eleazar, more for chief men, than (of) sons of Ithamar, and they divided themto sons of Eleazar, sixteen chiefs of fathers’ houses; and to sons of Ithamar, eight.
1Ch 24:5
Translate, And they divided them by lots, these with those; i.e. as there was no ground of choice between the two families, which differed only in number, and as the highest ecclesiastical places had been filled already by both of them, the impartiality of the “lot” was resorted to, for the settling of the order in which they would take the services now in question (1Ch 25:8). The governors; read rather, the princes. The distinction intended between “the holy princes,” or “princes of the sanctuary,” on the one hand, and “the princes of God” on the other, is not very clear. One instance of the former expression is found in Isa 43:28. Keil supposes there may be no distinction between them, but adds that if there is, he would take the “princes of God” to stand for the regular high priests exclusively, viz. those who could enter into the most holy place before God. The “princes of God” is a title evidently illustrated by the word “Israel” (Gen 32:28).
1Ch 24:6
The person who acted as clerk or secretary on the occasion, and the whole number of the witnesses, and the lot-taking itself, are here given. The present Hebrew text repeats the word (taken) twice, before the name of Ithamar, at the end of the sentence. The evident and easy correction of the first occurrence of which into (one) will make the clause and sense correspond with what goes before. Bertheau, however, and Keil, and some others do not accept this correction, and would keep the present Hebrew text, the first-named, moreover, contending that the repetition of the word for “taking” points to two lots being represented by each house of Ithamar, whose total number was only eight, for one of Eleazar, whose total was sixteen. Not only does the repetition of the present Hebrew text not avail to authorize such a supposition, but the supposition itself would be unsupported and gratuitous. What is really told us amounts to this only, that the drawing was first from the collection of families under the name of Eleazar, and then from that descended from Ithamar. For anything we are here told, the urn of Ithamar can have held out only half as long as that of Eleazar, and it can be only conjecture to suppose that two lots were drawn from the urn of Eleazar for every one from that of Ithamar, so as to make them run out together at the end. Could any one of the names from sixteen to twenty-four that are recorded in this chapter as “coming forth” in the shape of a “lot,” be identified as belonging to families descended from Ithamar, the question might be solved. Ahimelech the son of Abiathar; read, as above, 1Ch 24:3, 1Ch 18:16, etc; Abiathar the son of Abimelech.
1Ch 24:7
Jehoiarib. Written thus only here and in 1Ch 9:10; elsewhere always Joiarib. He then is the head of the first of the twenty-four courses of priests in David’s time, and according to his plan. (For the evidence of the return of some of this family from the Exile, see Neh 11:10, though the text of this clause is very suspicious; Neh 12:6, Neh 12:19; see also interesting article under this name, with tables, Smith, ‘Bible Dictionary,’ 1:946.) Jedaiah. (For the return of some of the descendants of this family, see Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39; comp. also Neh 12:6, Neh 12:7, Neh 12:19, Neh 12:21.)
1Ch 24:8
Harim, 15). The sons of Harim mentioned in Ezr 2:32; Ezr 10:31; Neh 7:35; Neh 10:27, were not a priest-family. Seorim. This name does not occur again.
1Ch 24:9
Malehijah. An earlier priest of this same name is mentioned in 1Ch 9:12, who is again mentioned in Neh 11:12; Jer 21:1; Jer 38:1. The name in our present verse is probably the same as that found in Neh 10:3 (see also Neh 12:42). The Malchijah of Neh 3:11 and Ezr 10:25 is the name of an Israelitish layman. Mijamin. In like manner, this as a family name reappears in Neh 10:7; Neh 12:5 (in the form Miamin), 17, 41 (in the form Miniamin); see also 2Ch 31:15, where the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Peshito Syriac read Benjamin. The name as of a layman also appears in Ezr 10:25.
1Ch 24:10
Hakkoa The first half of this word is the definite article, as may be seen in Neh 3:4, Neh 3:21 and Ezr 2:61, where the name is found, as in the cases above, for the priest-family. Abijah (see again Neh 10:7; Luk 1:5). To this course, therefore, Zaharias, father of John the Baptist, belonged.
1Ch 24:11
Jeshuah. In Ezr 2:36 and Neh 7:39 certain “children of Jedaiah,” who returned from Babylon, are mentioned as belonging to the “house of Jeshua,” and distinguished presumably thereby from children of another Jedaiah. This accords with the fact that in Neh 12:6, Neh 12:7, and again in 19, 21, two families of the name Jedaiah are given in the priest-lists. We may, therefore, conclude that families descended from the Jeshuah of our present verse were among those who returned from captivity (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). Shecaniah (see Neh 12:3, where spelt Shechaniah). Of those similarly named in Ezr 8:3, Ezr 8:5, the former may possibly have been descendants of this Shecaniah, the latter not so.
1Ch 24:12
Eliashib. Not the progenitor of the Eliashib of Neh 3:1, Neh 3:20, Neh 3:21; for see 1Ch 12:10, 1Ch 12:22, 1Ch 12:23, for the pedigree of the latter. Jakim, This name does not reappear.
1Ch 24:13
Huppah Jeshebeab. The former of these names is not found again among priest-names, and the latter not at all.
1Ch 24:14
Bilgah Immer. The former name reappears, not for the same per-sen, in Neh 12:5, Neh 12:18; and, under a slightly altered form, Bilgai, in Neh 10:8. The latter is the name of a family known already (1Ch 9:12), and which became much better known (Ezr 2:37; Ezr 10:20; Neh 3:29; Neh 7:40; Neh 11:13; Jer 20:1). The notices parallel to one another (Ezr 2:59; Neh 7:61) are interesting, but obscure. They probably speak of a place called Immer, but even this is not quite clear.
1Ch 24:15
Hezir Aphses. The former name, as that of a layman, is found again in Neh 10:20. Of the latter, spelt in the Hebrew Hapizez, nothing more is known.
1Ch 24:16
Pethahiah Jehezekel. The former name reappears as one of those who separated themselves from the alliances they had contracted in the land of their captivity (Ezr 10:23; Neh 9:5). The latter is in its characters () the same with those of Ezekiel, though here Englished Jehezekel!
1Ch 24:17
Jachin Gamul. The latter of these names is not found again in any connection with a priest-family. Of the former we read as well in 1Ch 9:10 as in Neh 11:10, and probably he is the Achim of Mat 1:14.
1Ch 24:18
Delaiah Maaziah. The spelling of the former of these names, as it appears here and in Jer 36:12, Jer 36:25, differs by the addition of a shurek () from the name, spelt the same in the English Version, found in 1Ch 3:24; Neh 6:10; Neh 7:62; Ezr 2:60. The latter name recurs in Neh 10:8, etc; though without a final shurek.
1Ch 24:19
The order has been thus given of the twenty-four classes or courses of the priests. Each course served a week from the seventh day to the seventh (2Ki 11:9; 2Ch 23:8). An interesting allusion to this order of courses is tacitly made in Eze 8:16-18, where the twenty-fifth idolater may be supposed to be the high priest. Some have, on very insufficient grounds, supposed that this “ordering” of courses was not really the institution of David, but attributed to him after the Exile for the sake of the authority of his name. In Neh 12:1-7, moreover, the names do not appear as even twenty-four, but twenty-twodeficient by two!a thing most easily to be accounted for. In addition to the direct scriptural witness on this subject, Josephus’s (‘Ant.,’ Neh 7:14) testimony confirms the account of our present chapter, while Movers and Dehler (in Herzog’s ‘R.E.,’ 12:185) effectively combat the positions of De Wette and Gramberg, and of Herzberg, in his ‘History of the People of Israel.’
1Ch 24:20-31
The distribution of the other Levites.
1Ch 24:20
The rest of the sons of Levi designated here are explained sufficiently clearly by 1Ch 24:30. They were those who were not of the sons of Aaron, not priests, but whose “office was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord” (1Ch 23:28), for certain specified work, some of which was of the more menial character. These, of course, do not exhaust the whole of the non-priestly Levites; for we read distinctly in the following two chapters of other detachments of the non-priestly Levites, whose office was as singers, doorkeepers, and treasure-keepers. And this consideration may of itself possibly be a sufficient account of the absence of any of the family of Gershonites in the list of the present chapter, though they do appear to view for other work in 1Ch 26:21, etc. Amram Shubael. The latter of these two names marks the line of Moses, in his eider son, Gershon, whose son was Shebuel (1Ch 23:15, 1Ch 23:16), as the former is the name of the father of Moses, and eldest son of Kohath.
1Ch 24:21
Rehabiah. This name marks the line of Moses, in the person of his younger son, Eliezer, father of Rehabiah. And the practical result of these two verses is to give us the two “chiefs,” or heads, or representatives, Jehdeiah and Isshiah, both Amramites.
1Ch 24:22
Jahath. Here follows in order after the Amramites, Jahath, a descendant from Izhar, Kohath’s second son (1Ch 23:12, 1Ch 23:18), through Shelomoth (otherwise Shelemith). This Jahath furnishes for us the third name of this series of “other sons of Levi.” And Keil plausibly argues, from the absence of these three names from the list of 1Ch 23:6,1Ch 23:23, that, while that list is occupied with fathers’ houses, this list is occupied with the official classes of the Levites who were to be engaged in the way already stated.
1Ch 24:23
This verse is manifestly imperfect. What is necessary to fill up the evident gaps is to be found, however, in 1Ch 23:19; also the pointed allusion to the time of David, in 1Ch 26:31, is deserving of especial notice. The four names of this verse, then, are descendants of Kohath’s third son, Hebron (1Ch 23:12).
1Ch 24:24, 1Ch 24:25
These verses give us Shamir and Zechariah, descendants of Uzziel, Kohath’s fourth son (1Ch 23:12), the former through Michah (1Ch 23:20), and the latter through Michah’s brother, Isshiah (1Ch 23:20), called here “sons of Uzziel,” but presumably not intended for immediate sons (Exo 6:22). In all these fourteen heads were drawn from the four sons of Kohath.
1Ch 24:26-29
We now pass from the Kohath family to that of Merari. For the oft-repeated Mahli and Mushi, they belonged to the time of Moses (Exo 6:19; Num 3:33). The elder of these, Mahli, as already seen in 1Ch 23:21, 1Ch 23:22, had two sons, Eleazar and Kish, the sons of the latter of whom took the daughters of Eleazar, who had no sons, and thus kept only one house surviving, the head of which was (1Ch 23:29) Jerahmeel. This would seem to complete all that needs to be said of the Mahli line. Meantime, however, we are confronted by the contents of the latter half of our 1Ch 23:26 and 1Ch 23:27. These purport to give, amid some confusion of expression, sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son (Beno). No anterior authority, however, can be found for this Jaaziah. Neither of him nor of any of the three names (omitting Beno, which is evidently to be translated “his son”) here linked on to his, is anything known. While we accept the text as it at present is, we have an additional branch with three families to add to the account of Merarithe branch of Jaaziah, the three families of Shoham, Zaeeur, Ibri. Even so we have in 1Ch 23:27 to obliterate arbitrarily the conjunction van, prefixed to the name Shoham. Under these circumstances, Keil impatiently rejects these clauses altogether, as an interpolation, though one of which he can give no account, and adds up, in consequence, the families of Levi (exclusive of the priests) to twenty-two instead of the unexplained twenty-five of the present text. On the other hand, Bertheau retains the present reading, and accepts Jaaziah as a third branch of the family of Merari. If this were so, it is surprising that nowhere else is room found for the slightest mention of Jaaziah, nor any other mention of these supposed descendants.
1Ch 24:30
The three sons of Mushi here given agree with 1Ch 23:23. It is to be observed that, in the foregoing verses, we have no expressed sum of the families or heads to which they add up. Hence Bertheau finds twenty-five in all, which he would reduce to the twenty-four he wants by omitting, without any adequate justificacation, the Mahli of 1Ch 23:30. Others, omitting the three names of Shoham, Zaccur, Ibri, bring the twenty-five to twenty-two. Keil finds only fifteen “heads” or “classes,” but surmises that the Hebronite and Mushite “fathers’ houses” may have been numerous enough to find more than one “class;” and thereby to make up the twenty-four classes which he desires as well for symmetry’s sake as for the patent suggestions of 1Ch 23:31.
1Ch 24:31
Over against over against. This translation of the Hebrew () is obscure and awkward. The meaning is “equally with,” or “correspondingly with” (1Ch 26:12, 1Ch 26:16, etc.). The root means “communion,” and the word is found only in the constructive state. The Vulgate shows the translation, Omnes sors aequaliter dividebat; tam majores quam minores.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
1Ch 24:2.–Principles in a parenthesis.
This verse is parenthetical; we may let it suggest to us some valuable principles.
I. THAT SIN REAPPEARS IN ITS EFFECTS, BOTH IN LIFE AND IN HISTORY. After the full statement of the sin committed by these young men (Lev 10:1-20.), and the allusion made to it in the Book of Numbers (Num 3:4), we might have supposed that we had heard the last of it in the sacred narrative. But here it comes up again; once more we are reminded how Aaron’s sons provoked the Lord, and brought down his displeasure. So now are there sins against God and crimes against men which history will not let alone; it records them on its page, and, further on, it writes them down again, that the attention of another generation may be called thereto. Some iniquities there are which are of such significance that no writer of his country’s story will leave them out of his record. But this is as pathetically true of individual life. Too often it happens that men cannot shake themselves free from the sins of earlier days. They think they have done with them, but some way further on they present themselves again, and look them in the face. How many a man is called upon to say, again and again, as the miserable effects of past sin come up to reproach, or to enfeeble, or to baulk him, “Ah! that that word had been left unspoken, that deed undone, that habit unformed, that course unchosen!” If such is sin in its resurgent powers,
(1) what a compensatory fact we have in the truth that it may be wholly forgiven by the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, so that it does not continue to interpose between our souls and his Divine favour! and
(2) how wise to bring our life at its very commencement under the law of holiness, so that those sins may be avoided which would, if incurred, dog our steps and haunt our spirits!
II. THAT SIN INVERTS THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS IN THE LIFE OF MAN. So far as the word can be used appropriately in such a case, we may say that it is the natural thing for the sons to close the eyes of their father (see Gen 46:4), to carry him to the grave, to cherish his memory, to follow his last directions. There is something strikingly unnatural when it has to be written that “they died before their father.” But it is the constant consequence of sin. Sin is the great overturning, confusing, inverting power in the world; putting that before which should be behind, and that below which should be above, disordering and disarranging everything in the world which God made beautiful and blessed. Illustrations abound in every sphere of human activity.
III. THAT SIN CUTS OFF THE GOOD WHICH IT IS IN GOD‘S THOUGHT TO GIVE US. These young men died, and “had no children.” In the common course of providence they would have had the deep, full joy of parents, and their children and descendants would have carried down their lineage to the distant future. But that one “presumptuous sin” cut all this off. In how many ways does human guilt shut the hand of beneficence, impoverishing itself and all whom it can affect!
IV. THAT IT IS WISE TO BE PREPARED FOR EARLY DEATH OR FOR LONELY AGE. These words may be written of those who are not sinful but unfortunate. In the families of the holy and the faithful it is often the painful recordthe young men, the young women, “die before their parents.” No one who is wise will risk anything on the assurance of continued life. Youth in all its vigour may be but a step or two distant from the grave. Strong manhood, rejoicing motherhood, may be about to enter on a life of clouded loneliness. Be ready for early death, and for the long dark shadow of bereavement.C.
1Ch 24:19.-The will of the Lord.
“As the Lord God of Israel had commanded him.” These words may be said to constitute the key-note of the whole Law (Exo 39:42; Le 27:34; Num 36:13; Deu 34:9). Just as Israel should pay heed to this commandment of Jehovah, so it would flourish and rejoice; in proportion as it should depart from these commandments, so it would fail and be distressed. Everything hung on a loyal obedience to the Divine will. There were three forms of obedience then, and there is the same number now. We look at both.
I. THE THREE FORMS OF OBEDIENCE WHICH ISRAEL WAS TO RENDER.
1. Minute conformity to positive precept. Everything, to the smallest particular, was to be “after the pattern” (Exo 25:9, Exo 25:40; Num 8:4). In the celebration of the sacrifices, the priests were to be studious to follow the exact directions given in the “command-merit of the Lord,” and any deviation, though but slight and apparently immaterial in itself, would vitiate everything that was done.
2. Application of broad principles. It was hopeless to anticipate every possible breach of such laws as, “Thou shall not defraud thy neighbour;” “Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself.” An interpretation and application of such commandments as these must have been left largely to the individual conscience.
3. Inquiry of the Lord to know his will, and so to do it. This was the case, like that recorded in this chapter, whenever the mind of God was taken by means of the lot (1Ch 24:5, 1Ch 24:6). A direct appeal was then made to him for his direction, and, thus gained, it was followed.
II. THE FORMS OF OBEDIENCE TO WHICH OUR LORD IS SUMMONING US. They correspond to the preceding, yet differ ha some respects from them.
1. Christ has left us but few positive enactments. We seldom meet with any minute prescriptions regulating behaviour in our New Testament. Days, forms, and methods of devotion and service are left to our conscience and judgment. But there are some interdictions and requirements which still exist, and which bind us to the obedience of conformity to statute.
2. Christ requires of us that we make constant application of the broad principles he has taught us. He has said to us, “Love me: Follow me: Care for my friends and little ones: Walk in love, in humility, in purity: Do good and communicate,” etc.; and he leaves it to those who bear his Name to apply and illustrate these his general commandments, in all the details of their individual, family, Church, national life. The man or the Church that does not try to find out the will of Christ from his life and his words, and to do that will when thus discovered, is “not worthy of him,” is no true friend of his (Joh 15:14).
3. Christ desires us to be continually seeking his will from his own Divine Spirit. He has promised to come to us, to dwell with us and within us, to instruct and inspire us by the communications of the Spirit of God. We are thus to learn his will, and, when thus directed, are to do what is right and pleasing in his sight. So far is the life of Christian obedience from being one that is merely formal and mechanical. In Christ Jesus the statutes are few; the application of heavenly principles is our daily duty; the inquiry of the Lord to know what he would have us do is our high privilege and our abiding obligation.C.
HOMILIES BY F. WHITFIELD
1Ch 24:1-31; 1Ch 25:1-31.The Aaronites and other descendants of Levi: orders of the musicians.
In these chapters we have brought before us a catalogue of the Aaronites, or priests, who were divided into twenty-four classes, corresponding to the sons of Eleazar and Ithamar, and appointed to perform the service in succession as determined by lot, prominent notice being given to the heads of these twenty-four classes; and a list of the fathers’ houses of the other descendants of Levi, in the order of succession, also settled by lot. In 1Ch 25:1-31. we see the list of twenty-four orders of musicians in the order determined by lot. The lot was a direct appeal to God, and by it all cases were decided. It is for this reason that all chance games are wrong, and should never be encouraged by the Christian. It is brining down a holy ordinance to a profane level, and is, without doubt, a breach of the third commandment. The expression “prophesied,” which occurs in 1Ch 25:2, 1Ch 25:3, is used in its deeper signification of singing and playing to the praise of God, in the power of the Spirit of God. In 1Ch 25:5 Heman is called “the seer of the king in the words of God,” because along with his gift of song he was endowed with the prophetic gift, and thus made known to the king revelations of God. The expression “to lift up the horn” in this verse also needs explanation. The Levites did not blow horns. It was not one of the instruments of worship. The hiring up of the horn signifies invariably to heighten or show forth the power of any one. This is the meaning of the word in this passage. And the words “to lift up the horn” must be connected with the words that follow, thus: “To give Heman’s race power for the praise of God God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. We also learn, in 1Ch 25:7, that there were those who were “instructed,” and were “cunning” or skilful in the songs of the Lord. From these passages we may learn that families, and especially large families like Heman’s, are God’s gifts for the purpose of being used in his service. And secondly, that in all praise and singing, whilst we are never to forget the apostolic injunction, “Singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord,” we are to “sing with the understanding also,” and that it is to be of the very best kind; and that with it all there must be that without which it will be empty soundsinging in the Holy Ghost, as they did who are named in the second and third verses of 1Ch 25:1-31. Thus “teachers” and “scholars” (1Ch 25:8) will fill their divinely appointed places to the glory of God.W.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
1Ch 24:2.-The abiding warning of the wilful.
The narrative of Nadab and Abihu which is here recalled is given in Le 1Ch 10:1-5. The wording of the verse is taken from Num 3:4. It is a story which we find it difficult to understand. Probably its explanation depends on an intimate acquaintance with the Jewish system, and the sentiments prevailing in those earlier times. Nadab and Abihu had been honoured with special privileges (see Exo 24:1, Exo 24:9, Exo 24:10); by reason of this they may have become unduly exalted, and have been tempted by spiritual pride to imagine that they were not bound by ordinary rules in the discharge of the duties of the priest’s office. Kitto gives a brief but sufficient sketch of the incident. “Among the priestly services was that of offering the precious incense upon the golden altar within the tabernacle, at the very time that the daily sacrifice was being consumed upon the brazen altar in the court without. At the time the ritual service had been inaugurated, the fire of the great altar was kindled from heaven; and it was made an ordinance that this holy fire should always be kept up and preserved, and that this, and this alone, was to be used in all the sacred services. The priests who offered incense had, therefore, to fill their censers with fire from the great altar when they went into the tabernacle to burn incense. It was in this matter that Nadab and Abihu sinned. Treating this ordinance as of no importance, thinking to themselves that common fire would burn their incense quite as well as the other; or, perhaps, as there is reason to fear, having been led into a mistake, or neglect, by inebriety, they filled their censers with ‘strange fire,’ unhallowed fire, not from the altar, and ventured to bring it into the tabernacle? Permanent instruction may be drawn from this incident by regarding wilfulness as the very essence of these men’s sin. When there was a distinct, definite, and well-known Divine command, it pleased them to act on the dictate of their own feeling. In view of that full loyalty to Christ, and daily waiting upon him for guidance and direction, which are necessary features of the Christian life, wilfulness is as perilous and as wicked in the modern dispensation as in the older. In setting forth this evil and its fatal influence, consider
I. WILFULNESS AS A DISPOSITION OF CHARACTER. It is the bias left on humanity from our first father’s fall. We see the signs of human depravity mainly in thisthat men’s wills are set against God’s will, and have to be subdued to his obedience. This is true of man as an individual, and equally true of men when acting together in society or in the nation. But there are different degrees of wilfulness, and in some the self-will is a master-passion. Some measures of wilfulness in the common affairs of life ensure energy and mastery of circumstance; but it is wholly out of place in the religious spheres, where energy must depend on the spirit of service to Christ.
II. WILFULNESS FINDING EXPRESSION IN ACTS. Illustrate from King Saul in his later and worse moods, or from Judas Iscariot, who, with views of his own, came to betray his very Lord. The apostle warns us concerning those who “will be rich, and so fall into temptation and a snare.” Wilfulness expressed in acts brings us at once under Divine notice, because it then affects the comfort and well-being of others.
III. WILFULNESS CORRUPTING THE WHOLE RELIGIOUS LIFE. It puts a wrong tone upon all the relations, and spoils the whole life by possessing it with the spirit of self. God the Spirit cannot rule the life, and self rule at the same time; and if it be self that really rules, then we are “dead while we live.” Practically dead, because none of the “means of grace” can prove the soul’s nourishment when wilfulness rules.
IV. WILFULNESS BRINGING US UNDER DIVINE JUDGMENTS. Illustrated in the case of Nadab and Abihu. Where wilfulness is but growing, Divine chastisements come for correction. Where wilfulness has gained full mastery, there must be Divine judgments, such as utterly crush down the pride.
Exactly what Christianity proposes is the “conversion of self-will,” and the bestowment of the spirit that worships, and follows wholly, the “sweet will” of God.R.T.
1Ch 24:19.–Ancient Divine rules preserved in modern adjustments.
David found it necessary to make alterations and adaptations when he reconstituted the worship for the new tabernacle and the anticipated temple, but in all his adaptations he anxiously preserved the Mosaic principles and the Mosaic order; thereby giving an important example of the spirit and the manner in which modern adjustments of permanent principles should be made. We must accept the fact of the changeableness of human life, thought, and forms of relationship and society. Age differs from age. A succeeding age will often strive to realize a contrast with the age preceding; it will prefer what it disliked, and put in the front what it had set in the background. We must take care that the changes are set under wise limitations, and the first of these is the fair and adequate representation, in the new scenes, of the old and permanent social, or moral, or religious principles. Some persons love change for change’s sake; and such persons often put the best things in peril, and prevent the noblest schemes for human well-being from gaining an adequate trial. Others resist change as if it were wholly wrong and injurious; and such persons help to keep the yokes pressing on men’s necks long after it is manifest how the neck has become galled and painful. And many persons fail to take “change” at the hopeful time, and so they lose all the finest opportunities that life brings. These diversities of relation to necessary change may be illustrated in relation to human customs, to political history, to ecclesiastical order, and to Church doctrine. We are instructed not to “meddle with those who are given to change;” but we have a very proper admiration for such a man as the Apostle St. Paul, who, with far-seeing wisdom, discerned how Judaism was passing into the broader spiritual Christianity, and put himself forward as a leader in the change. Another fact requires attention. All forms for the expression of principles tend to exhaust their capacity for expressing truth. Like vessels, or pipes, that get encrusted with use, they have to be taken away, and replaced by other and larger forms. All we have to care for, from the most conservative standpoint, is that the old life shall flow into and through the new forms, and that the new form shall be fully adequate to convey the great flow of the old life. We may even plead that, in view of the ever-varying wants of men, we should be ready to adopt new forms and modes in the religious life and service. Illustration may be taken from the attitude advisable towards such schemes as that of the Salvation Army, or modern mission halls and revivals. David lived in one of the so-called “periods of transition,” and it is very interesting to mark how he led the change that was demanded, but carefully toned it with due reference to the rules and order which had been divinely given. We may more fully illustrate from practices and order of worship, customs of religious life, and Church doctrine, one necessary condition of change that may be regarded as wise and healthythe old rule, or principle, must find adequate expression in the new form. The form is bad if it dwarfs, or hides, or misrepresents, or attenuates the principle. The body must worthily and sufficiently express the man. If it be so that men ever gain a larger and fuller grasp of any principle or truth, they are following a genuine inspiration when they seek a larger form in which to give it expression. And this condition, duly observed, guarantees the safety of what is called “modern religious thought.” This subject may be used to quiet the minds of those who fear the many and apparently extensive changes in the expression of religious truth in our times. We may be sure that God will watch jealously over his truth; and will have, in every age, godly men who will “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.”R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
For the Chapter 24 passage and footnotes, see 1Ch 23:1 ff.
4. The Twenty-four Classes of Priests: 1Ch 24:1-19.The enumeration of these follows quite suitably after the foregoing passage, particularly after 1Ch 23:32; comp. the sons of Aaron with that in 1Ch 24:1 of our chapter.The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, etc. Comp. on this introduction to the Davidic regulations referring to the Mosaic time in 1Ch 24:1-2, 1 Chronicles 5:29, and Exo 6:23; Lev 10:1; Num 3:4.
1Ch 24:3. And David distributed them, so that Zadok of the sons of Eleazar. For , comp. on 1Ch 23:6; for Zadok and Abiathar, on 1Chr 5:30, 1Ch 16:39, 1Ch 18:16; for , official class, on 1Ch 23:11.
1Ch 24:4. And the sons of Eleazar were found more numerous in chief men. These men (), of whom Eleazar had twice as many in heads or chiefs () as Ithamar, are the chiefs, not of the great complex of families or houses (Berth.), but of the several families, the fathers, chiefs of the several priestly homes.
1Ch 24:5. And they divided them. The subject is David, Zadok, and Ahimelech, to whom naturally this matter belonged.One with the other, literally, these with those, those of Eleazar with those of Ithamar; comp. 1Ch 25:8.For the holy princes and the princes of God. On the former phrase, comp. Isa 43:28, and the parallel phrase: princes of the priests, , 2Ch 36:14; on the second (Sept. ) the equivalent: high priests, upper priests. For the princes of priests and high priests from Ithamar, who were far behind those of the line of Eleazar in number and importance, comp. on 2Chr 5:30.
1Ch 24:6. Wrote them, namely, the classes, as the lot determined.One father-house being taken for Eleazar and one for Ithamar, that is, alternately, from the urn containing the lots for Eleazar, and then from that containing the lots for Ithamar (so signifies; comp. Num 31:30; Num 31:47), that none might seem preferred before the other. And, indeed, this alternation in drawing the lots might have been so managed, that, on account of the double number of the families of Eleazar, two lots for Eleazar might be drawn for every one for Ithamar (comp. Berth.). Whether this mode of drawing lots be indicated by the doubling of the in the second place( ), as Berth, thinks, is more than doubtful. Notwithstanding the almost universal agreement of the mss. respecting this double , and the fact that the old translators and the Rabbis did not understand the passage, the alteration of the first into (see Crit. Note) appears to be the only means of obtaining a correct conception of these otherwise dark words.
1Ch 24:7 ff. The names of the twenty-four classes are now given in order, as they were settled by lot.And the first lot came out of the urn; comp. for in this sense, Jos 16:1; Jos 19:1. Jehoiarib and Jedaiah, the names of the first two classes, are so named together in 1Ch 9:10. For Jedaiah, comp., besides Ezr 2:36, Neh 7:39; for Jehoiarib, as the class from which Mattathias and the Maccabees sprang, 1Ma 2:1; for Abijah, as the class of Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, Luk 1:5; for the classes of Immer (1Ch 24:14) and Jachin (1Ch 24:17), 1Ch 9:10; 1Ch 9:12. Some of the twenty-four classes never occur again, namely, Seorim (1Ch 24:8), Jeshehah (1Ch 24:13), and Hapizez (1Ch 24:15), some at least not among the priests, as Mijamin (1Ch 24:9), Huppah (1Ch 24:13), and Gamul (1Ch 24:17). With respect to the name Pethahiah (1Ch 24:16), Holzhausen (Die Weissagungen des Joel bers. und erklrt, Gtt. 1829) has propounded the quite arbitrary conjecture that it is identical with Pethuel ( = ) the father of the prophet Joel,a conjecture which is of almost as much value as that of Raschi, who would identify Pethuel the father of Joel with Samuel (comp. R. Wnsche, Die Weissagungen des Joel, 1872, p. 1).
1Ch 24:19. According to their order by Aaron their father, as the Lord had commanded him. Comp. the words occurring so often in the law: And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron (for example, Num 4:1; Num 4:17), and similar Pentateuchic testimonies for the regulation of the priestly service according to the divine command.The credibility of the present statements of the Chronist regarding the origin of the twenty-four classes of priests, and their order in the service by David, is attested by Eze 8:16-18 (see the exposition of the passage), Neh 12:1-7; Neh 12:12-21, and by Josephus, Antiq. vii. 14. 1 Chronicles 7 : , Against the assertion made by de Wette and Gramberg, and defended by Herzberg (Gesch. des v. Israel, i. 381 ff.), that the twenty-four classes originated after the exile, see Movers, Chronik, p. 279 ff., and Oehler in Herzogs Real Encycl. xii. 185 ff.
5. The Classes of the Levites: 1Ch 24:20-31.And for the remaining sons of Levi, after the enumeration of the priests. By this might be understood all the Levites except the family of Aaron or the priests; but as in the two following chapters the twenty-four orders of singers and the divisions of the porters and of those charged with external duties are enumerated apart, it seems necessary to suppose that the present section speaks only of the Levites employed in worship, and not of the whole body. They are the brethren of Aaron, the Levites specially assigned to the priests as assistants in divine service, whose division into classes is here described. Only on this assumption is explained the otherwise very surprising, indeed inconceivable, incompleteness of the present list of Levitical classes, compared with that of the Levitical houses named in 1Ch 23:6-23, which embraces all the three families, the Kohathites, the Merarites, and the Gershonites, whereas the Gershonites are wholly excluded from the present list. This exclusion seems to have its ground in this, that, 1Ch 26:20 ff., several Gershonite houses had the charge over the treasures of the sanctuary, and also the duties of officers and judges (although this is not expressly stated) were partly discharged by the Gershonites. So at least Keil, whereas others certainly, as Berth., regard our list as laid out for a full enumeration of all the Levitical classes or houses, but from some cause (perhaps because the author was not able to make out all the names of the classes) no longer fully preserved. The list, for the at least often defective character of which the elucidation of the details will afford more than one proof, begins after omitting the Gershonites, 1Ch 24:20, at once with the classes of the Kohathites.For the sons of Amram, Shubael was the chief or head of a class; obviously the son of Gershom son of Moses, therefore grandson of Amram, who is called Shebuel 1Ch 23:16. The same double spelling of this name is found also 1Ch 25:4; 1Ch 25:20, in a family of singers of the house of Heman. As chief of the class springing from Shubael was, in Davids time, Jehdeiah, a person otherwise unknown, whose name, 1Ch 27:30, is also borne by an officer of David.
1Ch 24:21 ff. Other chiefs of classes are now named1. For the Amramite class, Isshiah (different from the one named 1Ch 24:25). 2. For the Izharite class, Jahath (1Ch 24:22). 3. For the Uzzielite class of Micah, Shamir (1Ch 24:24). 4. For the Uzzielite class of Isshiah, Zechariah (1Ch 24:25). In this kind of enumeration, it is strange that in 1Ch 24:23, where we should expect to find the chiefs of some classes of the great Hebronite family (1Ch 23:19), only the names of the four chiefs or founders of the Hebronite houses, Jeriah, Amariah, Jahaziel, and Jekamam, are mentioned, quite as in 1Ch 23:19, and indeed introduced by a mere before the name of the first . There can be no doubt that the text is here defective. It is probable that not merely the name is to be inserted after (see Crit. Note), but that also the names of the four chiefs in Davids time have fallen out after those of the four classes.
1Ch 24:26-27 bear still clearer marks of the corruption of the present text, perhaps even of its complete spuriousness, than 1Ch 24:23 (comp. partly the Crit. Notes and partly the Exeg. Expl. of 1Ch 23:21-23). Especially strange is1. The in 1Ch 24:26 b, detached from that which goes before (instead of ). 2. The in the same place, that cannot possibly be taken for a proper name (with some older exegetes), but rather indicates that a proper name had fallen out before it. 3. The repetition of at the beginning of 1Ch 24:27, which appears to presume a wholly different mode of enumeration from that which is usual from 1Ch 24:20 on. 4. The copula before , as first of the sons of Jaaziah, in 1Ch 24:27 b. To all this are to be added the reasons which make improbable the existence of a Jaaziah as third son of Merari along with Mahli and Mushi; see on 1Ch 23:21 f. The spurious character of the two verses appears therefore almost certain, though they are attested by the Sept., Syr., and the Vulg.For 1Ch 24:28-29, comp. likewise the remark on 1Ch 23:21 ff.
1Ch 24:30. And the sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jerimoth. As in 1Ch 24:23, so here it is strange to name the houses without stating the chiefs of the classes taken from them. The text appears here also to be defective.
1Ch 24:31. And these also cast lots like their brethren the sons of Aaron. From this manifestation of the quite analogous character of the allotment of the Levites and the priests (1Ch 24:1-19), it is highly probable that the number of the Levitical classes (as also that of the singers in the following chapter) was likewise twenty-four, although in the present text, the partial defectiveness of which is obvious, and needs no further proof, only fifteen chiefs of classes are expressly named.The fathers, the chief like his younger brother; that is, the eldest brother representing the house, as well as his younger brother (for , in apposition with the father-house, comp. on 1Ch 23:17-18). Quite correct in sense the Vulg.: tam minores, quam majores; omnes sors qualiter dividebat. That nothing is communicated to us of the order of the several classes, as they were settled by lot, completes the impression of the great defectiveness which characterizes this section.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Here is a continuation of the same subject concerning the Levites as the former. The several divisions in the different branches of the Levites are here made by lot.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The division and arrangement begins very properly in the house of Aaron; for Aaron himself was called of God. Heb 5:4 . And it was worthy observation that the appointment of this man’s family to the offices assigned them, was done by lot. The apostles of Jesus did the same in filling up the vacancy of the traitor Judas. This was done by lot, accompanied with earnest prayer that the Lord’s choice, and not man’s, might be known and attended to. If this were made the plan now, instead of human caprice, fancy, interest, and humour, would it not be more scriptural, and more likely to produce blessings? Act 1:24 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gleanings
1 Chronicles 24-26
FROM the twenty-fourth chapter to the end of the book we find much that cannot be turned to spiritual profit, yet here and there we come upon single expressions which are very significant and beautiful. What we lose in continuity, therefore, we may gain in single values. Continuity is not the only excellence to be studied. The string is continuous, but the pearls which are hung upon it are single. Do not despise a single stone, a single flower, a single ear of wheat. Men do not despise pounds sterling on the ground that each sovereign is a separate coin: why then pass over single expressions that are rare or quaint or beautiful or tender? Let us go gleaning and see what we can bring home.
“Thus they were divided by lot [literally, “And they divided them by lot, these with those”], one sort with another” ( 1Ch 24:5 ).
“The principal fathers over against their younger brethren” [literally, “The elder house equally with his younger brother.” That is, “All the Levitical houses enumerated drew lots in their courses on equal terms, the elder families having no advantage over the younger ones”] ( 1Ch 24:31 ).
This is but an illustration of the previous expression, “One sort with another.” Here is a marvellous idea of democracy, “the principal fathers over against their younger brethren.” Then men are not all of one age; that ought to be a blessing: then all men are not old; that should be a comfort: then all men are not principal fathers; what a delightful reflection! There may be a vital mutually-helpful relation between the two. The senior ought to be the superior. Let us see how that stands to fact and reason. The proposition is not, A senior is a superior; for then a thousand facts would pour down upon our poor argument like a torrent, and wash it away; the proposition is, The senior ought to be the superior, for he has had more time, more experience, more opportunity; he has seen how things combine, disintegrate, and recombine, and shape themselves into new forms, and betake themselves to uncalculated issues. Yet his own son rebukes him over the table, and gives him to know by the most circumlocutory methods that he is not as wise as he is old; there is no bluntness in the speech, there is a filial euphemism which entirely denudes the senior speaker of his natural crown. A man is not necessarily wise because he is old. People have gone through the world, and have never seen it Many people are tourists who are not poets; many have looked upon the mountains, and have not seen one of them. Many men have allowed fifty summers to pass, in all their daintiness and loveliness and radiance and music, and have not made a single acquaintance among the fifty. Yet there is a democratic principle even in this text which seems to classify men so sharply; for it might be read literally thus, “the chief just like his younger brother.” Office did not make men vain; seniority did not inspire contempt towards junior life. Some men have been kings, and yet have been the simplest children in the world; they were above their thrones, verily they sat on their thrones, they were not crushed by them as by a splendid incubus. It is possible for an old man to be quite young in feeling, disposition, aspiration, sentiment, and to be the very centre of the gracious storm of child-laughter.
Still the distribution proceeds, and, taking one sort with another, we have this classification
“Moreover David and the captains of the host [rather, “the princes” the same persons who are mentioned in1Ch 23:21Ch 23:2 , and 1Ch 24:6 ] separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy [rather, “divided for the service the sons of Asaph, etc., who prophesied.” By prophesying is probably meant public recitation of the sacred services (see 1Ch 24:3 )] with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals” ( 1Ch 25:1 ).
Let us analyse these indications. We want warriors; there is not one in this list: we need builders; there is not a man in the catalogue that ever built anything that could be seen or valued arithmetically: we want legislators, men who can make duty mysterious, and dissolve responsibility in polysyllables; there is no such erratic genius in this guild. Whom have we? Prophets; for the word is “prophesy,” and to prophesy means in this connection to teach, to reveal doctrines, to indicate duty, to exhort to service, to reveal the will and purpose of heaven. With what apparatus are these men furnished? Harps, psalteries, cymbals. They were known amongst their fellows as a guild of sacred minstrels. When a man prophesies he utters under a spiritual influence. We do not know how much we are indebted to music. He would be the most combative man that ever lived who would fight with a tune; the tune will not fight. There are atheists who have shed tears under the influence of what is known as sacred music. Then they were not far from the kingdom of God: they were only atheists argumentatively. How many men have committed suicide by the razor of logic! They were never meant to be logicians. When you see a man take hold of a razor you do not exhort him to be careful, because you know that he can handle it wisely; but if you saw a little child open a case and take out a razor, how you would exclaim, how you would rush to the rescue; how you would deprecate the audacity of the thoughtless little creature! It is even so with the Church. There are some infants we cannot keep away from the razor-case: if they would only take their seat within one inch of the organ they might be saved. How are these musicians described in the verse? They are described by a word which some men would begrudge; they are described as “the workmen.” It should be put more vividly than this, namely, “the men working.” But is music work? Certainly. Is a song a sacrifice? Yes, if sung with the whole heart. He labours who toils with his hands. Probably, but not he only. He labours who gives his brain away, who imparts to others the fragrance of his love, who makes the world welcome to all the hospitality of his prayers. He is a labourer who puts things into sweet musical rhyme for us. Sometimes we get our children to persuade themselves that they are enjoying an amusement when they are learning, in fact, the multiplication table, through the medium of rhyme. Children who would abhor the multiplication table if it were set before them nakedly would come up to it quite loving and sympathetically if they might sing it all through. So there are men who help to sing us into our duties, and who help us to sing in the discharge of those duties, and who show us, by a mysterious power given to them of God, that all work should blossom into play, all service should find its fruition in song. There are those who have distinguished between sacred music and secular music. What a marvellous faculty of analysis such men must have! There are those who talk about sacred and profane history. By what right do they so talk? What history is profane? Is there anything profane that belongs to the development of humanity, the cultivation of the total nature of man? Are we to attach a stigma to the study of history, to the perusal of those documents and records which testify to the progress of all manner of human thought? There are persons who can sing bad common metre in the church, and think it pious; whereas they could not listen to a sweet domestically beautiful song in church without a shudder. The only thing to be done with such is to let them shudder. We must see to it that the religious spirit is maintained, and nothing can maintain it so healthily as music. To think that the enemy has all the brass bands but about a dozen! whereas the church ought to have every one, and he ought to be considered a thief who plays anything on an instrument that could not be played in the church. There was music in the Old Testament sanctuary; men praised the Lord loudly and sweetly in the ancient time.
“Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six” ( 1Ch 25:3 ).
There are not six, there are only five: where is the sixth? When an arithmetical number is put before us we are entitled to begin counting. “Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah,” five. But the Chronicler says there were six. Then why did he not write six names down? We are entitled to inquire always for the missing man. Woe unto that shepherd who allows one little lamb to go, and not trouble about him: woe to that friend who can allow one of his comrades to fall out of the ranks, and never ask a question about his doom. How was the sixth name omitted? By a clerical error? Then we should find it again. It is of small consequence to be omitted by the clerk; the clerk is not almighty. It is of small account that our name be not found on the record of the visible church because some careless writer has omitted to inscribe it there. Has he gone out of the list by proved incapacity? Could he not play the harp? Did he make a false noise with the cymbals? Let us ask the question. Has he gone out by moral lapse? Was the fool caught in some snare, the existence of which he did not suspect? Was he treading in dangerous paths, and seized by a ruffian hand, when he ought to have kept near the altar and found his security at home? We cannot tell. In this instance, the sixth man was found again. He is omitted from verse number three, but he is found in verse number seventeen. Do lists dwindle? Do friends grow fewer? They may grow fewer in one sense, and yet may be stronger in another, they may be but transplanted. The dead are not lost; they love the twilight, they can unfold themselves in shadows, they can speak through dreams; call not those dead who have gone up to be ennobled and crowned.
Regarding these six men we read of them still in verse three, as “under the hands of their father.” The picture is a lovely one. It is that of six sons being conducted in musical exercise by their father. Let the picture shape itself vividly to the mental eye: six sons, with harps, psalteries, and cymbals, and the father conducting, educating, keeping them together, making all the sounds one, reconciling all the exercise into one blessed harmony. What is a father for if he is not to be a conductor? Some fathers are too separate from their families. What is a pastor to be if not a conductor? and what are children for if they set up for themselves on a basis of absolutely foolish independence? The inquiry is a two-edged sword: take care how you lift it up, for it is a dangerous weapon.
“The sons of Asaph.” ( 1Ch 26:1 )
That name we know. We find it in chapter 26, 1Ch 26:1 . Asaph was a sweet singer, Asaph was a psalmist, Asaph occurs again and again in the Psalms; so that when we come upon his name in the Book of Chronicles we feel that we had anticipated the coming in of a friend. Is that not a pleasing reflection? But unfortunately this is not the same Asaph. Do not be led away by letters and syllables, for this man is quite another Asaph; not the chief musician Asaph who has done so much for the church. In this instance we had an abbreviation of the man’s real name, which was Ebiasaph. We ourselves sometimes cut names in two. We describe a man by a variation of the name his parents gave him. How we leaped when we saw “Asaph,” as if we had known him, whereas it was not the man at all. Some very curious instances of this kind occur in Scripture. The most noticeable probably is this, “Judas, not Iscariot.” Why that guarding word? We know why. Shall we take up some sweet human name and so use it that men who bear the same name will have to guard themselves against a ruinous identification with us? Have we spoiled a name? When our mother gave it to us it was pure as morning dew; now it is like a drop of black poison: men who carry that name say in the public journals, “We are not to be mistaken for the other man.” “Judas, not Iscariot,” not the bag-bearer, not the thief, not the traitor; “Judas,” but not the bad Judas. There is also another use for the term. Sometimes we have to say, “Asaph, not the chief musician.” The deprecation, then, is on the other side. Men have names that have been rendered illustrious, and because they have been burdened with them they have to apologise for their own littleness. This is cruel to children. A parent ought to think much before he calls his child “John Milton,” or “Martin Luther,” or “Oliver Cromwell,” or “John Wesley,” or “George Whitefield.” Another instance we have in the expression, “James the Less.” That would seem to be really an undeserved stigma upon an obscure person; he might have been let alone. But we must have such criticism if we are to be exact in our identifications. Then we read, “the other Mary.” There were many Marys, and there was “the other Mary”; each had her distinctions, peculiarities, or excellences. Let us see to it that our name has attached to it some token of which men are not ashamed. We may be spoken of as the suppliant mighty in prayer, the philanthropist generous with both hands, the father that can always find another seat at the table, the mother that will not put an Amen to her prayer until the prodigal is quite home.
“Zechariah… a wise counsellor” ( 1Ch 26:14 ).
Not a musician, but a wise counsellor; no use with firearms, if we must modernise the expression, but great in sagacity; nothing with his hands, but an army with his head. “Zechariah” is in the singular number, and also in the plural number. Let us take heed of our parsing. There are terms even in English which are both singular and plural, and there is no atom of distinction between the one number and the other, so far as the shape of the name in type is concerned. “Zechariah” was a man, and “Zechariah” was a tribe, a clan, or a guild. We think the word “Guild” a modern invention. Practically, it is in the Bible as everything else is in the Bible; seek, and ye shall find. Zechariah the man could give counsel; he knew what Israel ought to do, for he had understanding of the times; there was no problem too entangled for him to simplify, there was no case that he could not throw light upon; he had that peculiar insight which amounts to inspiration; he was never consulted in vain; when men thought they had a very great question, Zechariah, by one sentence, showed that after all it was a very small problem; and when men supposed themselves equal to the discussion of the problem, by one inquiry Zechariah widened the horizon, and showed them how gifted they were with simple incapability.
Thus in this field of names we have gleaned somewhat. The gleaner must not be mistaken for the reaper: but he would be a careless husbandman who did not glean his fields as well as reap them. So now and again in these biblical studies it is well to go back to do a day’s gleaning, and come home in evening twilight to thank God for handfuls that might have been lost. These chapters bristle with names; there are names we can hardly pronounce: the great lesson is that we may be somewhere in God’s list Let each say, Oh, thou who keepest life’s book, let me have a place on some page! If I cannot be with the warriors, may I not be with the musicians? If I cannot be with the musicians, may I not be with the porters, the door-openers, the lamplighters, of the sanctuary? If I may not be near the king, may I not be near the door? Of what avail is it to be on any list of man’s invention and creation if we are omitted from the record on high? There is a book in heaven a book called the Book of Life; if a man’s name be written there, fire cannot burn it. How are names to be written there? Through him who is the life, the blessed eternal Son of God. What are we doing? Great wonders, famous miracles? Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven. Crush the demon Envy that says, Try to rise from one list into another; do not be content with being a porter, a doorkeeper, when you might be a wise counsellor or a skilled musician. Rather say, The Lord gave me what I have in the way of faculty and talent; I see the number is only one, but a great deal can be done with one talent; as I have only one I cannot spend time in talking to you; I must leave you and get to work, so as to make as much as possible of the one talent. Or, I see the number is only two, but two is plural, and, once in the plural, who can tell where one may end? I will hasten, and double the dowry. In this spirit let us live, crushing envy, dismissing jealousy, contenting ourselves with God’s method of election and endowment, because it is to him, and not to man, we must render the last account.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXIV
THE ARMY; CIVIL ORGANIZATION; INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE; RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
1Ch 23:1-29:22
The scriptural materials for the life of David present him as a great poet, and we are accustomed to think of him in the light of his poetry, particularly of his elegies and psalms. We think of him as a great warrior from his youth up in the successful campaigns he waged in pushing out the boundaries of the kingdom until they fulfilled the promise to Abraham. Then we think of him as a legislator, as he devised many useful laws, but we seldom give him due credit for his organizing power. A great writer has said that what Alfred the Great did for England, and what Napoleon did for France, David did for his kingdom in the way of organization. I will take up the items of this organization and give you a clear conception of it.
I. The army.
His army roll showed 288,000 men. It would have been a great burden to a small kingdom like this to keep up a standing army of 288,000 men; so he divided his army into twelve great corps. Only one corps would serve a month; in the course of the entire year the 288,000 men would have served each one of them one month. In that way the spirit of military drill and organization was kept up. In case of war he could call out the whole 288,000 and have a vast army of drilled men. So his army organization, we will say, consisted of 288,000 men, twelve army corps of 24,000 each, each corps serving one month in the year, coming on in succession. Each corps was subdivided into, say, twenty-four regiments of 1,000 men each, and each regiment into ten companies of 100 men each, something like the “century” of the Roman Legion, a centurion commanding 100 men. These were the subdivisions of the main army. There was a bodyguard always kept near the king’s person. I do not recall that anywhere the number of this bodyguard is given. Sometimes they are called “Cherethites” and “Pelethites.” Whatever their name, it was a permanent bodyguard of which Benaiah was the commander.
Then there was an order of men sometimes compared to the knighthood, the 600; the original organization of this 600 was in the Cave of Adullam, when David was an outlaw, and it was perpetuated all through his life. This 600, every one a hero and champion, was divided into two bands of 300 each. These bands were divided into companies of 100 each, and the one hundreds were divided into twenties. The six captains over the hundreds and the chief captain over all make the famous seven. The captains over the twenties make the famous thirty. Every man of this band of 600 was an experienced warrior and had signalized himself on many eventful occasions, and every one of the thirty and every one of the seven, that is, the thirty-seven officers, were especially famous.
Let us see if we have this army organization clear: 288,000 divided into twelve corps of 24,000 each; each corps commanded by its own general, with Joab as general-in-chief; each 24,000 serving one month and no more unless there was a war. In addition to that, a bodyguard, the famous 600; the three captains of the first 300 were the most worthy; the three captains of the other 300 were somewhat less worthy. Each 100 was divided into twenties; the captains over the twenties make the thirty worthies; then the six captains over the one hundreds, and a chief captain of the 600 make the thirty-seven worthies. That is David’s military organization.
II. The civil organization.
The civil organization was based upon the law of Moses. Each tribe was governed by its prince, and by a graded system of subordinate judges, chiefs of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifties, and chiefs of tens, and the ordinary affairs pertaining only to the tribes were attended to by these men. That wag derived from the Mosaic administration, but in David’s time we come to quite a different need, the matters relating to God and his kingdom. For this work David appointed 6,000 Levites as judges and he distributed them over the whole territory. They represented the national affairs only.
These 6,000 Levites had the following functions:
1. They were what we would call “federal judges” judges over matters that pertained to the general government.
2. Sanitary officers.
3. They were charged with education. There never was such a spirit of general education as grew up in this organization of David. First of all, there were the schools of the prophets. They were kept up and had been ever since Samuel’s time. In these schools of the prophets they studied the whole law of God, and particularly music, vocal and instrumental. They also studied everything that related to the prophetic office. That was the curriculum of the schools of the prophets, and that was where David got his education. These 6,000 Levites, each one in his own section, had charge of the educational work, and the result was that when Solomon came to the throne you find him the most thoroughly educated man since the days of Moses. Dr. Taylor, in his King of Israel, well says:
The preeminence attained by Solomon in all the branches of education is, to my mind, an evidence of the advanced condition of the nation generally in this department; since, unless a good foundation of elementary knowledge had been imparted to the youth of the land as a whole, it is hardly possible to account for the appearance of such a man as Solomon in that age. No doubt he was endowed with preternatural wisdom; but this, as is usual in the economy of Providence, would be engrafted upon a high degree of ordinary culture; and the question forces itself upon the historical student, “Who were his tutors, and who taught them?” You do not find the loftiest mountains rising isolatedly from some great plain. The highest mountains are never solitary peaks. They belong usually to some great chain, and are merely the loftiest elevations in a country the general character of which is mountainous; and in the same way the greatest scholars appear, not among ignorant people, but among those who have a high average of education, and in countries where a good substratum of instruction is enjoyed by the common average of the community. The historian, Froude, has put this thought admirably when he says, “No great general ever arose out of a nation of cowards; no great statesman or philosopher out of a nation of fools; no great artist out of a nation of materialists; no great dramatists, except when the drama was the passion of the people. Greatness is never more than the highest degree of an excellence which prevails around it, and forms the environment in which it grows.” Now if these views be correct, the rise of Solomon, who was so conspicuous for his intellectual culture and scientific attainments, may be regarded as a proof that in the reign of David, and more particularly, perhaps, in the zenith of his administration, education was extensively diffused, and earnestly fostered by him among the tribes.
When we come to study Solomon, in his time, we will find a reference to the wise men of the day. These were the men who grew out of David’s educational system. Solomon is but the product of the educational department set us by David. Let us now see what we have learned about these Levites:
1. They were federal judges, passing sentence on all matters pertaining to the nation at large.
2. They were sanitary men, looking after all matters pertaining to the health of the people.
3. They were educational men.
4. They were the stewards of what is called the “royal property.” We would call it now, in our government, “revenue.” By a single paragraph we are told of David’s overseers of the treasure houses of the tribes, of the vineyards, of the orchards, pastures, etc., so that there must have been what in England would be called “crown-lands,” land that belonged to the general government. In every tribe and in every important place you would see a treasure house.
Let us see what that treasure house was for. The system of worship provided for a central place of worship, and for the support of those who conducted matters at the central place of worship there was a tithe in cattle, grain, vineyards, etc., so you see that it would be necessary to have storehouses all over the nation where these tithes could be gathered up. It took a very consummate organization to put all these matters in such working order that there could be no deficiency in the royal treasury from any part of the land, nothing deficient in sanitary conditions. Nothing anywhere escaped the Argus eyes of the judicial system of government. Moreover, David developed commerce.
III. An international commerce.
This was a tremendous item in the contribution to the wealth of the nation. The kingdom produced more than it could use in the way of clothes, and it was necessary to export surplus products and to bring in things that could not be produced at home. You can imagine the continuous stream of caravans from Damascus to Egypt and from Tyre to Arabia, across the country. It would be necessary to carry to foreign countries various kinds of produce in exchange for the things brought to David from them. In Solomon’s time you will see an enlargement of this commerce. He not only reached the Atlantic Ocean, as in David’s time, through the fleets of Tyre, but China and India by means of the fleet at Eziongeber on the Gulf of Akabah. David would want cedars from Lebanon, and would want to employ skilled artisans and architects. David was a great builder. He built a fine palace for himself, and he built many fine buildings in Jerusalem. In paying for these artisans, architects, and materials from foreign countries he would use the surplus products of his own kingdom, carrying from Judah to Tyre by caravan, to Damascus by caravan, to Egypt, to Arabia. This necessitated treasure-houses and storehouses, and David had them by his system of organization.
IV. The religious organization.
The religious organization surpassed anything that this world has ever known. At no time in the history of the world, in any nation, was there ever such a perfect organization of religious service. After David was made king of all Israel at Hebron, where he had been reigning over Judah seven years, he captured Jerusalem and made that the central place of worship, and there the great feasts were celebrated. He is going to have a system of worship that will not only impress the minds of his own people, but all people who come in touch with them, so that in the days of the captivity the Babylonians would say, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion,” and they would reply, “How can we sing the songs of Zion in a strange land?” and would hang their harps on the willow trees.
There were 38,000 Levites over thirty years of age in this religious organization, 6,000 of whom were set apart for judges, sanitary officers, and educators, leaving 32,000 for the Temple service. These 32,000 men were divided as follows: 24,000 into twenty-four courses of 1,000 each, set apart to minister at the sanctuary; in other words to be servants of the priests for anything the priests would want done; 4,000 set apart as porters; and 4,000 as singers. The priests, that is, the sons of Aaron, were classified into twenty-four courses. This classification continued until the New Testament time. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to the course of Abia, and when it came his turn to go and act as priest in the Temple, it was determined by lot, and the lot fell upon him to offer incense as priest. The priests were divided into twenty-four courses, and the singers divided. There were twenty-four bands of these singers, not all present at one time, but all could be grouped at national festivals, when the Passover came, or Feast of Tabernacles, or Pentecost, or the great day of Atonement; then the entire 4,000 singers would be there with their various instruments of music; the cymbal band, the psaltery band, the harp band, the trumpet band, Alamoth, or female choir, Sheminith, or male choir everybody in that 4,000 would understand just what services were requisite on his part, and just when. One twenty-fourth of the time he had to be there, and on all national occasions he had to be there. Offerings take into consideration the sabbatic cycle, which consisted of the weekly sabbath, every seventh day; the new-moon sabbath, every lunar month; the annual sabbaths, the Passover, Tabernacle, and Pentecost festivals; the land sabbath, all of every seventh year; the jubilee sabbath, every fiftieth year, each and all with its appropriate and imposing ritual, you get some idea of David’s religious system.
When we come to study the book of Psalms, one of the most attractive books in the whole Bible, we will there find that the service of the second temple was based upon David’s plan, and led to our present arrangement of the Psalms. No writer has yet, with sufficient vividness, described the worship at Jerusalem in the Old Testament times. Rev. J. H. Ingraham, the Episcopalian, who committed suicide, attempted to describe it in letters that a daughter of an Egyptian Jew wrote to her father about how the Temple service impressed her in the time of Christ. These letters are found in his Prince of the House of David.
That was the religious organization. One living in any part of the country, from Hamath on the northwest to the Euphrates on the northeast, to Edom on the southeast, to Philistia on the southwest, and a case coming up, there was an appropriate officer to whom his case would be referred; everything was arranged for judicial, executive, and legislative. Some things were attended to in the national convention. This occurred when the great festivals brought the people together in the grand convocation, or when something of special importance was to be done with reference to succession, as we saw when David called the whole nation to accept his son Solomon as king.
QUESTIONS
1. In what spheres was David great?
2. Describe his army organization: (1) How many enrolled? (2) How divided, and why? (3) What the subdivisions?
3. Describe David’s body-guard. Who the commander?
4. Describe the organization of his famous 600; (1) Its divisions; (9) Its subdivisions; (3) Who the famous thirty-seven?
5. Describe the civil organization: (1) What part derived from the Mosaic administration? (2) What additions in David’s time? (3) What the functions of the 6,000 Levites? (4) What proof of the diffusion of education by David? (5) What was the treasure-house?
6. Describe his system of international commerce: (1) Its necessity; (2) How carried on? .
7. Describe his religious organization: (1) How does it compare with the other religious organizations of the world? (2) How many and who constituted it? (3) Its divisions and subdivisions? (4) Its relation to the book of the Psalms?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Ch 24:1 Now [these are] the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
Ver. 1. Now these are the divisions, ] i.e., The distinct orders and courses.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 Chronicles Chapter 24
In 1Ch 24 we have the divisions of the sons of Aaron, and they are now divided into twenty-four courses. Zadok takes his place as the high priest, and this we know will be the line when the Lord Jesus comes to reign by-and-by. It is not only that the house of David will enjoy its right and glory according to the word of Jehovah, but the family of Zadok will be actually in the administration of the priesthood in that future day of blessedness on the earth. This we know from the book of Ezekiel, who expressly lets us see that so it will be (Eze 44:15 ). “But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me, and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah.” We can see the reason of this. They were faithful. But there is another reason, too, that does not appear in the prophecy. They were the proper descendants. They were the lineal descendants of Phinehas; and God had sworn in the wilderness (so far did it go back beyond David) that there should be an everlasting covenant with the priesthood and the family of Phinehas. If God remembers His promises, so does He not forget His covenant with man. It is not, therefore, the promise to the fathers only; but even what may come in because of the fidelity of His people in any great time of trouble is never forgotten of the Lord.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
divisions . . . Aaron. 1Ch 24is concerning the courses of the priests, as 1Ch 23is of the Levites. Compare 1Ch 23:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 24
Now the order of the priest, the twenty-four orders of those that were to minister in the, actually, office of sacrifices and incense and so forth are first given in chapter 1Ch 24:2 and through verse nineteen. And then the sons of Kohath were divided for their duties. And then the Merarites in the rest of the chapter. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1Ch 24:1-6
1Ch 24:1-6
COURSES OF THE SONS OF AARON AND OTHER LEVITES;
HOW THEIR RELATIVE POSITIONS WERE CHOSEN
“And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office. And David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in the service. And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses, and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight. Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for there were princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God, both of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar. And Shemlah the son of Nethanel the scribe, who was of the Levites, wrote them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and of the Levites; one fathers’ house being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar.”
Due to the fact that many thousands of the Levites were eligible to participate in the temple services, it was necessary that some systematic manner of determining the order in which they would serve was required. One must be impressed with the manner of David’s making such a determination by lot, duly witnessed by all parties concerned.
“Princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God” (1Ch 24:5). “The distinction between these is not clear.” Curtis (Madsen) wrote that, “The two terms are probably synonymous.”
E.M. Zerr:
1Ch 24:1-3. This is an introduction to the subject matter of the chapter as a whole. Divisions means the groups of persons that descended from Aaron down to the time of this writing. Aaron had four sons, but two of them died leaving no children. The line of the priesthood therefore proceeded from the remaining two. By the time of David the eligible men descending from the two sons of Aaron came to number so many that he concluded to make some arrangement for some systematic method of administration.
1Ch 24:4. The chief men were the ones among the descendants of Aaron’s sons who were to head the lists that were to have charge of the priestly services thereafter. There were 16 such men in the group from Eleazar, and 8 in that from Ithamar.
1Ch 24:5. The families of these 24 men were to furnish the lots for the service from then on. But in order to have proper procedure, and give some fair distribution of the work, the arrangement was decided by lot.
1Ch 24:6. After the lot had been taken and the various households had been assigned to their position in the numerical order, the proper men made a record of the same, which became a part of the royal histories. That would avoid any dispute as to whose turn it was to serve at any given time. Smith’s Bible Dictionary has the following to say about this course or turn method of administering the priesthood. “Courses. –The priesthood was divided into four and twenty ‘courses’ or orders. 1Ch 24:1-19; 2Ch 23:8; Luk 1:5, each of which was to serve in rotation for one week, while the further assignment of special services during the week was determined by lot. Luk 1:9. Each course appears to have commenced its work on the Sabbath, the outgoing priests taking the morning sacrifice, and leaving that of the evening to their successors. 2Ch 23:8.” This information is found also in Josephus; Antiquities, Book 7, Chapter 14, Section 7.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
With great care and perfect democracy of choice the courses of the priests were next set in order. There was a tactful mingling in the arrangement of the older and the younger men, so that in this highest and holiest national service the experience of age and the enthusiasm of youth were naturally inspiring.
A description of these men in this chapter is very suggestive. They are called “princes of the sanctuary and princes of God.” In neither half of the description is there any thought of their exercising rule. They had no authority over the sanctuary; nor, of necessity, over God. Yet they were princes, and were to exercise authority.
This description indicates the source of their authority rather than its sphere of operation. Their government consisted in their obedience in the sanctuary to the will of God. This is always the only authority of priests. By obedience to all the service of God in the holy places and things, they are to make possible the people’s approach to God in order that they (the people) may by direct contact render obedience to His sovereign rule.
The true exercises of New Testament priesthood consists in this today. In proportion as we of the kingdom of priests exercise our holy service in perfect submission to the will of God in daily life we exercise the true authority among men of that mediation which attracts them to God, and makes possible their immediate dealing with Him.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
3. The Twenty-four Courses of the Priests
CHAPTER 24
1. The twenty-four courses (1Ch 24:1-19)
2. The organization of other Levites (1Ch 24:20-31)
In the previous chapter we read of 24,000 Levites set apart for the service. In the next chapter we find twenty-four leaders of song and music appointed, and here David instituted twenty-four courses of priests. Each of these ministered a full week, from one sabbath to the next. These courses were not only continued by Solomon, but also by Hezekiah and Josiah. From Luk 1:5, we learn the same order was still followed in the days our Lord was born. Zecharias belonged to the eighth course, that of Abijah.
In the book of Revelation (chapter 4, etc.) we read of twenty-four elders clothed in white raiment, crowned and seated upon twenty-four thrones. They represent symbolically all the redeemed brought into glory. This number is obviously an allusion to the arrangement of the priesthood made by David for the service of the temple under the glorious reign of Solomon, the blessed type of the reign of Christ in glory. As these twenty-four courses of Priests were to minister during Solomons glorious reign, they are typical of the redeemed, the holy and royal priesthood, associated with the Lord Jesus Christ when He occupies His throne of glory.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the divisions: 1Ch 23:6, *marg.
The sons: 1Ch 6:3, Exo 6:23, Exo 28:1, Lev 10:1-6, Num 3:2, Num 26:60
Reciprocal: Num 26:61 – General 1Ch 6:50 – Eleazar 1Ch 24:19 – under Aaron 1Ch 28:13 – the courses 1Ch 28:21 – the courses 2Ch 5:11 – wait by course 2Ch 7:6 – the priests 2Ch 8:14 – the courses 2Ch 23:8 – the courses 2Ch 35:2 – charges Ezr 7:5 – Eleazar Ezr 8:2 – Phinehas Mat 16:21 – chief priests Mat 21:23 – the chief priests Luk 20:1 – the chief
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ch 24:1-2. These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron The several branches into which that family was divided. Therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priests office Their brethren being dead, and leaving no issue, they and their sons were the only persons to whom the execution of that office could be committed according to the law.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 24:5. They were divided by lot, into twenty four courses. David might perhaps have interfered, and promoted one of each course to be the overseer of the other priests; but he did more wisely in leaving it to the lot. So, according to Eusebius, all christian bishops in the early ages were chosen by the whole congregation, and by apostolical sanction. We find in Cicero, that the Athenians also divided their priests into courses.
1Ch 24:10. Abijah, or Abia, of whose line John the Baptist descended.
REFLECTIONS.
The house of God is the throne of his glory. There he presides as Father and Lord. In his presence all things should be done decently and in order. The sons of Aaron might contend for precedency, and claims of birth. In Gods presence the princes of the earth, and of the church, are but as the small dust of the balance. The sons of Ithamar, and of Eleazar, inherited the altar by birth; for Nadab and Abihu had died before the Lord, for their presumption in burning incense with common fire. Of the former two there were now twenty four families; and the king following an ancient custom, caused them to ballot for their weekly course, during which space one of these venerable men burnt incense and presided at the altar, as a prince in the house of God. This wise regulation gave bread to all the families. So while their heart was in the work, and while righteousness and truth reigned among them, they worshipped the Lord in the beauty of holiness. But in the christian ministry we inherit by grace, and not by birth. The typical glory of the Jewish priesthood refers to Christ, and to him alone. He honours indeed his ministers with a glorious participation of his prophetic office; but the high atonement, and the cloud of incense, belong exclusively to the Lord of all, the angel of the covenant. May we then be thankful, that he has counted us faithful, and entrusted us with the ministry of his glorious gospel.
While the sons of Aaron officiated in course, as princes at the altar, the sons of Moses officiated as judges and levitical princes over the gates, the stores, and dwellings round the tabernacle. What a mercy that those two families had not by apostasy forfeited their high calling, but inherited the mercies promised to the fathers. May these considerations comfort and encourage christian parents to hope for their children. The Lord is able to keep them, and to make them heirs together with the Lord Christ of the grace of life.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ch 24:1-19. The courses of the priests (the sons of Aaron), twenty-four in number, took their turns in the service of the Temple, and each course cast lots for the particular place of service of each priest (cf. Luk 1:8 f.).
1Ch 24:20-31. Another list of Levites; this is probably from a later hand; the names coincide to a large extent with those already given in 1Ch 23:7-23, though some new ones are added.