Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 6:1
The sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.
Ch. 1Ch 6:1-15 (= 5:27 41 according to the Heb. division). The Descent of the High-priests from Levi. Their Line to the Captivity
Clearly the list of highpriests given in 1Ch 6:4-14 is not exhaustive. (1) In the first place allowing 20 years for each generation mentioned we get a space of 440 years only from the Mosaic age to the Captivity. The real interval must have been not less (and was probably much more) than 700 years. (2) In the second place some priests (doubtless highpriests) mentioned in the course of history find no place here, e.g. Eli, Ahimelech (son of Ahitub), Abiathar (David’s fellow-exile), Azariah (the contemporary of the leper-king Uzziah), Urijah (the contemporary of king Ahaz), and Azariah (2Ch 31:10). The object of the list seems to be simply to shew the legitimacy of the position of Jehozadak whose son Jeshua continued the succession after the Return.
1. The sons of Levi ] So Gen 46:11; Exo 6:16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The genealogy of the high priestly stem to the captivity.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER VI
The genealogy of Levi and Aaron, 1-30.
The offices of the priests and Levites, 31-53.
The cities assigned them, 54-81.
NOTES ON CHAP. VI
Verse 1. The sons of Levi] It has been well remarked that the genealogy of Levi is given here more ample and correct than that of any of the others. And this is perhaps an additional proof that the author was a priest, felt much for the priesthood, and took care to give the genealogy of the Levitical and sacerdotal families, from the most correct tables; for with such tables we may presume he was intimately acquainted.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The sons of Levi,…. After an account of the chief of the tribes of Judah and Simeon, of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, follows that of Levi, and his posterity; the kingdom being given to Judah, the birthright to Joseph, and the priesthood to Levi: the immediate sons of Levi were
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; as in Ge 46:11, from these sprung the three families of the Levites.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(5:27-41). The family of Aaron, or the high-priestly line of Aaron, to the time of the Babylonian exile. – 1Ch 6:1-3. In order to exhibit the connection of Aharon (or Aaron) with the patriarch Levi, the enumeration begins with the three sons of Levi, who are given in 1Ch 6:1 as in Gen 46:11; Exo 6:16, and in other passages. Of Levi’s grandchildren, only the four sons of Kohath (1Ch 6:2) are noticed; and of these, again, Amram is the only one whose descendants – Aaron, Moses, and Miriam – are named (1Ch 6:3); and thereafter only Aaron’s sons are introduced, in order that the enumeration of his family in the high-priestly line of Eleazar might follow. With 1Ch 6:2 cf. Exo 1:18, and on 1Ch 6:34 see the commentary on Exo 6:20. With the sons of Aaron ( 1Ch 6:44) compare besides Exo 6:23, also Num 3:2-4, and 1Ch 24:1-2. As Nadab and Abihu were slain when they offered strange fire before Jahve (Lev 10:1.), Aaron’s race was continued only by his sons Eleazar and Ithamar. After Aaron’s death, his eldest son Eleazar was chosen by God to be his successor in the high priest’s office, and thus the line of Eleazar came into possession of the high-priestly dignity.
1Ch 6:4-15
(5:30-41).
Thus there arose two places of worship, and in connection with them separate spheres of action for the high priests of both lines, – Zadok performing the duties of the priestly office at Gibeon (1Ch 16:39; cf. 1Ki 3:4.), while Abiathar discharged its functions in Jerusalem. But without doubt not only Zadok, but also his father Ahitub before him, had discharged the duties of high priest in the tabernacle at Gibeon, while the connection of Eli’s sons with the office came to an end with the slaughter of Ahijah (Ahimelech) and all the priesthood at Nob (1 Sam 22); for Abiathar, the only son of Ahimelech, and the single survivor of that massacre, fled to David, and accompanied him continuously in his flight before Saul (1Sa 22:20-23). But, not content with the slaughter of the priests in Nob, Saul also smote the city itself with the edge of the sword; whence it is probable, although all definite information to that effect is wanting, that it was in consequence of this catastrophe that the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon and the high-priesthood entrusted to Zadok’s father, a man of the line of Eleazar, because the only son of Ahimelech, and the only representative of Ithamar’s line, had fled to David. If this view be correct, of the ancestors of Ahitub, only Amariah, Meraioth, and Zerahiah did not hold the office of high priest. But if these had neither been supplanted by Eli nor had rendered themselves unworthy of the office by criminal conduct; if the only reason why the possession of the high-priesthood was transferred to Eli was, that Ozi’s son Zerahiah was not equal to the discharge of the duties of the office under the difficult circumstances of the time; and if Eli’s grandson Ahitub succeeded his grandfather in the office at a time when God had already announced to Eli by prophets the approaching ruin of his house, then Zerahiah, Meraioth, and Amariah, although not de facto in possession of the high-priesthood, might still be looked upon as de jure holders of the dignity, and so be introduced in the genealogies of Eleazar as such. In this way the difficulty is completely overcome.
But it is somewhat more difficulty to explain the other fact, that our register on the one hand gives too many names for the earlier period and too few for the later time, and on the other hand is contradicted by some definite statements of the historical books. We find too few names for the time from the death of Aaron to the death of Uzzi (Ozi), when Eli became high priest, – a period of 299 years ( vide the Chronological View of the Period of the Judges, ii. 1, S. 217). Five high priests – Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, and Uzzi – are too few; for in that case each one of them must have discharged the office for 60 years, and have begotten the son who succeeded him in the office only in his 60th year, or the grandson must have regularly succeeded the grandfather in the office, – all of which suppositions appear somewhat incredible. Clearly, therefore, intermediate names must have been omitted in our register. To the period from Eli till the deposition of Abiathar, in the beginning of Solomon’s reign – which, according to the chronological survey, was a period of 139 years – the last five names from Zerahiah to Zadok correspond; and as 24 years are thus assigned to each, and Zadok held the office for a number of years more under Solomon, we may reckon an average of 30 years to each generation. For the following period of about 417 years from Solomon, or the completion of the temple, till the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans, the twelve names from Ahimaaz the son of Zadok to Jehozadak, who was led away into captivity, give the not incredible average of from 34 to 35 years for each generation, so that in this part of our register not many breaks need be supposed. But if we examine the names enumerated, we find (1) that no mention is made of the high priest Jehoiada, who raised the youthful Joash to the throne, and was his adviser during the first years of his reign (2 Kings 11, and 2Ch 22:10; 2Ch 24:2), and that under Ahaz, Urijah, who indeed is called only , but who was certainly high priest (2Ki 16:10.), is omitted; and (2) we find that the name Azariah occurs three times (1Ch 6:9, 1Ch 6:10, and 1Ch 6:11), on which Berth. remarks: “Azariah is the name of the high priest in the time of Solomon (1Ki 4:2), in the time of Uzziah (2Ch 26:17), and in the time of Hezekiah (2Ch 31:10).” Besides this, we meet with an Amariah, the fifth after Zadok, whom Lightf., Oehler, and others consider to be the high priest of that name under Jehoshaphat, 2Ch 19:11. And finally, (3) in the historical account in 2Ki 22:4., Hilkiah is mentioned as high priest under Josiah, while according to our register (1Ch 6:13) Hilkiah begat Azariah; whence we must conclude either that Hilkiah is not the high priest of that name under Josiah, or Azariah is not the person of that name who lived in the time of Hezekiah. As regards the omission of the names Urijah and Jehoiada in our register, Urijah may have been passed over as an unimportant man; but Jehoiada had exerted far too important an influence on the fate of the kingdom of Judah to allow of his being so overlooked. The only possibilities in his case are, either that he occurs in our register under another name, owing to his having had, like so many others, two different names, or that the name has fallen out through an old error in the transcription of the genealogical list. The latter supposition, viz., that Jehoiada has fallen out before Johanan, is the more probable. Judging from 2Ki 12:3 and 2Ch 24:2, Jehoiada died under Joash, at least five or ten years before the king, and consequently from 127 to 132 years after Solomon, at the advanced age of 130 years (2Ch 24:15). He was therefore born shortly before or after the death of Solomon, being a great-grandson of Zadok, who may have died a considerable time before Solomon, as he had filled the office of high priest at Gibeon under David for a period of 30 years.
Then, if we turn our attention to the thrice recurring name Azariah, we see that the Azariah mentioned in 1Ki 4:2 cannot be regarded as the high priest; for the word in this passage does not denote the high priest, but the viceroy of the kingdom ( vide on the passage). But besides, this Azariah cannot be the same person as the Azariah in 1Ch 6:9 of our genealogy, because he is called a son of Zadok, while our Azariah is introduced as the son of Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, and consequently as a grandson of Zadok; and the grandson of Zadok who is mentioned as being high priest along with Abiathar, 1Ki 4:4, could not have occupied in this grandfather’s time the first place among the highest public officials of Solomon. The Azariah mentioned in 1Ki 4:2 as the son of Zadok must not be considered to be a brother of the Ahimaaz of our register, for we very seldom find a nephew and uncle called by the same name. As to the Azariah of 1Ch 6:10, the son of Johanan, it is remarked, “This is he who was priest (or who held the priest’s office; , cf. Exo 40:13; Lev 16:32) in the house (temple) which Solomon had built in Jerusalem.” R. Sal. and Kimchi have connected this remark with the events narrated in 2Ch 26:17, referring it to the special jealousy of King Uzziah’s encroachments on the priest’s office, in arrogating to himself in the temple the priestly function of offering incense in the holy place. Against this, indeed, J. H. Mich. has raised the objection, quod tamen chronologiae rationes vix admittunt; and it is true that this encroachment of Uzziah’s happened 200 years after Solomon’s death, while the Azariah mentioned in our register is the fourth after Zadok. But if the name Jehoiada has been dropped out before Johanan, and the Jehoiada held the high priest’s office for a considerable time under Joash, the high-priesthood of his grandson Azariah would coincide with Uzziah’s reign, when of course the chronological objection to the above-mentioned explanation of the words is removed.
(Note: Bertheau ‘ s explanation is inadmissible. He says: “ If we consider that in the long line of the high priests, many of them bearing the same name, it would naturally suggest itself to distinguish the Azariah who first discharged the duties of his office in the temple, in order to bring a fixed chronology into the enumeration of the names; and if we recollect that a high priest Azariah, the son, or according to our passage more definitely the grandson, of Zadok, lived in the time of Solomon; and finally, if we consider the passage 1Ch 6:32, we must hold that the words, ‘He it is who discharged the duties of priest in the temple which Solomon had built in Jerusalem, ‘ originally stood after the name Azariah in v. 9; cf. 1Ki 4:2. ” All justification of the proposed transposition is completely taken away by the fact that the Azariah of 1Ki 4:2 was neither high priest nor the same person as the Azariah in v. 10 of our register; and it is impossible that a grandson of Zadok whom Solomon appointed to the high-priesthood, instead of Abiathar, can have been the first who discharged the duties of high priest in the temple. Oehler ‘ s opinion (in Herzog ‘ s Realencyklop. vi. 205), that the Amariah who follows Azariah (1Ch 6:11) is identical with the Amariah under Jehoshaphat, is not less improbable; for Jehoshaphat was king sixty-one years after Solomon ‘ s death, and during these sixty-one years the four high priests who are named between Zadok and Amariah could not have succeeded each other.)
But lastly, the difficulty connected with the fact that in our passage Azariah follows Hilkiah, while in 2Ki 22:4. and 2Ch 31:10, 2Ch 31:13, Azariah occurs as high priest under King Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the time of his great-grandson Josiah, cannot be cleared away by merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah and Azariah. For, apart altogether from the improbability of such a transposition having taken place in a register formed as this is, “Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, and Azariah begat,” the main objection to it is the fact that between Azariah, 1Ch 6:13, who lived under Uzziah, and Hilkiah four names are introduced; so that on this supposition, during the time which elapsed between Uzziah’s forcing his way into the temple till the passover under Hezekiah, i.e., during a period of from 55 to 60 years, four generations must have followed one another, which is quite impossible. In addition to this, between Hezekiah and Josiah came the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, who reigned 55 years and 2 years respectively; and from the passover of Hezekiah to the finding of the book of the law by the high priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year of Josiah, about 90 years had elapsed, whence it is clear that on chronological grounds Hilkiah cannot well have been the successor of Azariah in the high-priesthood. The Azariah of v. 11f., therefore, cannot be identified with the Azariah who was high priest under Hezekiah (2Ch 31:10); and no explanation seems possible, other than the supposition that between Ahitub and Zadok the begetting of Azariah has been dropped out. On this assumption the Hilkiah mentioned in v. 13 may be the high priest in the time of Josiah, although between him and the time when Jehozadak was led away into exile three names, including that of Jehozadak, are mentioned, while from the eighteenth year of Josiah till the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans only 30 years elapsed. For Hilkiah may have been in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign very old; and at the destruction of Jerusalem, not Jehozadak, but his father Seraiah the grandson of Hilkiah, was high priest, and was executed at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:18, 2Ki 25:21), from which we may conclude that Jehozadak was led away captive in his early years. The order in which the names occur in our register, moreover, is confirmed by Ezr 7:1-5, where, in the statement as to the family of Ezra, the names from Seraiah onwards to Amariah ben-Azariah occur in the same order. The correspondence would seem to exclude any alterations of the order, either by transposition of names or by the insertion of some which had been dropped; but yet it only proves that both these genealogies have been derived from the same authority, and does not at all remove the possibility of this authority itself having had some defects. The probability of such breaks as we suppose in the case of Jehoiada and Azariah, who lived under Hezekiah, is shown, apart altogether from the reasons which have been already brought forward in support of it, by the fact that our register has only eleven generations from Zadok, the contemporary of Solomon, to Seraiah, who was slain at the destruction of Jerusalem; while the royal house of David shows seventeen generations, viz., the twenty kings of Judah, omitting Athaliah, and Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, the last two as being brothers of Jehoiakim (1Ch 3:10-24). Even supposing that the king’s sons were, as a rule, earlier married, and begat children earlier than the priests, yet the difference between eleven and seventeen generations for the same period is too great, and is of itself sufficient to suggest that in our register of the high priests names are wanting, and that the three or four high priests known to us from the historical books who are wanting – Amariah under Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada under Joash, (Urijah under Ahaz,) and Azariah under Hezekiah – were either passed over or had fallen out of the list made use of by the author of the Chronicle.
(Note: The extra-biblical information concerning the prae-exilic high priests in Josephus and the Seder Olam, is, in so far as it differs from the account of the Old Testament, without any historical warr Ant. Vide the comparison of these in Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, Opp. ed. ii. vol. i. p. 682ff.; Selden, De success, in pontific. lib. i.; and Reland, Antiquitatt. ss. ii. c. 2.)
1Ch 6:15
(5:41).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Genealogies. | B. C. 1450. |
1 The sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 2 And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. 3 And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 4 Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua, 5 And Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi, 6 And Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth, 7 Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 8 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, 9 And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, 10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:) 11 And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 12 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum, 13 And Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, 14 And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak, 15 And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. 16 The sons of Levi; Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. 17 And these be the names of the sons of Gershom; Libni, and Shimei. 18 And the sons of Kohath were, Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. 19 The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers. 20 Of Gershom; Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son, 21 Joah his son, Iddo his son, Zerah his son, Jeaterai his son. 22 The sons of Kohath; Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son, 23 Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his son, 24 Tahath his son, Uriel his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his son. 25 And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai, and Ahimoth. 26 As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai his son, and Nahath his son, 27 Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son. 28 And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni, and Abiah. 29 The sons of Merari; Mahli, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzza his son, 30 Shimea his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son.
The priests and Levites were more concerned than any other Israelites to preserve their pedigree clear and to be able to prove it, because all the honours and privileges of their office depended upon their descent. And we read of those who, though perhaps they really were children of the priests, yet, because they could not find the register of their genealogies, nor make out their descent by any authentic record, were, as polluted, put from the priesthood, and forbidden to eat of the holy things, Ezr 2:62; Ezr 2:63. It is but very little that is here recorded of the genealogies of this sacred tribe. I. The first fathers of it are here named twice, 1Ch 6:1; 1Ch 6:16. Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, are three names which we were very conversant with in the book of Numbers, when the families of the Levites were marshalled and had their work assigned to them. Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam, we have known much more of than their names, and cannot pass them over here without remembering that this was that Moses and Aaron whom God honoured in making them instruments of Israel’s deliverance and settlement and figures of him that was to come, Moses as a prophet and Aaron as a priest. And the mention of Nadab and Abihu (though, having no children, there was no occasion to bring them into the genealogy) cannot but remind us of the terrors of that divine justice which they were made monuments of for offering strange fire, that we may always fear before him. 2. The line of Eleazar, the successor of Aaron, is here drawn down to the time of the captivity, v. 4-15. It begins with Eleazar, who came out of the house of bondage in Egypt, and ends with Jehozadak, who went into the house of bondage in Babylon. Thus, for their sins, they were left as they were found, which might also intimate that the Levitical priesthood did not make anything perfect, but this was to be done by the bringing in of a better hope. All these here named were not high priests; for, in the time of the judges, that dignity was, upon some occasion or other, brought into the family of Ithamar, of which Eli was; but in Zadok it returned again to the right line. Of Azariah it is here said (v. 10), He it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built. It is supposed that this was that Azariah who bravely opposed the presumption of king Uzziah when he invaded the priest’s office (2Ch 26:17; 2Ch 26:18), though he ventured his neck by so doing. This was done like a priest, like one that was truly zealous for his God. He that thus boldly maintained and defended the priest’s office, and made good its barriers against such a daring insult, might well be said to execute it; and this honour is put upon him for it; while Urijah, one of his successors, for a base compliance with King Ahaz, in building him an idolatrous altar, has the disgrace put upon him of being left out of this genealogy, as perhaps some others are. But some think that this remark upon this Azariah should have been added to his grandfather of the same name (v. 9), who was the son of Ahimaaz, and that he was the priest who first officiated in Solomon’s temple. 3. Some other of the families of the Levites are here accounted for. One of the families of Gershom (that of Libni) is here drawn down as far as Samuel, who had the honour of a prophet added to that of a Levite. One of the families of Merari (that of Mahli) is likewise drawn down for several descents, 1Ch 6:29; 1Ch 6:30.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Chronicles – Chapter 6
Aaron’s Line, Verses 1-15, & 49-53
The genealogy of the priests is carried forward to the time of the captivity in Babylon. The lineage proceeds from Levi, the third son of Jacob, with all three of Levi’s sons, all of whom established Levitical families, being named. The priests themselves stemmed from the family of Kohath, through Levi’s son Amram. Amram was the father of three notable children, Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam.
Verses 49-53 show the work of the priests, allotted to the sons of Aaron. They were to administer the burnt offering, burn the incense on the incense altar, and do all the work pertaining to the holy place and the atonement rituals in Israel, just as the Lord gave commandment for it to Moses in the mountain.
The first high priest of Israel was Aaron, who was succeeded by his son Eleazar, who in turn was succeeded by his son Phinehas. God’s promise to Phinehas in Num 25:11-13 indicates, some scholars think, that the high priesthood was to belong to his descendants perpetually. That it did not is apparent in the case of Eli, who was high priest in the late period of the judges, and was of the family of Ithamar, rather than of Eleazar (see 1Ch 24:3-4, where Ahimelech, the great grandson of Eli, is said to be chief of the family of Ithamar, whereas Phinehas was of the house of Eleazar). Eli’s tenure was about the time of Meraioth and Zerahiah, probably. By the time of David there were two chief priests, Zadok of the line of Eleazar and Abiathar (succeeded by Ahimelech) of the line of Ithamar.
Beginning with Aaron there are twenty-three generations in the line that proceeded through Eleazar and Phinehas. The most prominent names after Phinehas in the line are; the first Zadok, who was David’s high priest and remained faithful to Solomon after David’s death; Ahimaaz, the valiant son of Zadok, who brought the news of Absalom’s death to the king in such a way as to prepare him for the shock (2Sa 18:19-33); the second Azariah, who was high priest at the time of the temple’s construction; Hilkiah, who was high priest when the lost book of the law was found in the temple, and who was the father of Jeremiah the prophet (2Ki 22:8-10; Jer 1:1); Seraiah, who was high priest when Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar, and who was put to death by him (Jer 52:24-27); Jehozadak, who went into captivity with the Jews at the fall of the city.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.] This chapter refers wholly to tribe of Levi. Gives the family of Aaron, 1Ch. 6:1-15; the descendants of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, 1Ch. 6:16-30; the pedigrees of the song-masters, 1Ch. 6:31-48; the line from Aaron to Ahimaaz, 1Ch. 6:49-53; and the towns assigned to the tribe, 1Ch. 6:54-81.
1Ch. 6:1-3.The sons of Levi. The genealogy of Levi follows (Exo. 6:16-25), as far as Phinehas, after which the writer must have had documents before him which have not come down to us [Speak. Com.].
1Ch. 6:4-15.Line of priests unto Captivity. This list must have been obtained from the priestly registers. It is given in inverse order (Ezr. 7:1-5), with omission of names between Meraioth and Azariah II. It wants the name Meraioth between Ahitub II. and Zadok II. (1Ch. 9:11). It is not a succession of high priests, but simply the line from Eleazar to Jehozadak [cf. Murphy]. Zadok, 1Ch. 6:8, priest with Abiathar (2Sa. 8:18), one probably in Gibeon, the other in Zion. Azariah, 1Ch. 6:9, grandson of Zadok, in the court of Solomon (1Ki. 4:2). Temple, 1Ch. 6:10, first to distinguish it from second existing in days of writer. Amariah, 1Ch. 6:11, high priest under Jehoshaphat (2Ch. 19:11). Shallum, ch. 1Ch. 9:11 (Neh. 11:11). Hilkiah, 1Ch. 6:12, in office under Josiah, took part in reformation then (2Ki. 22:4-14; 2Ki. 23:4; 2Ch. 34:9-22). Seraiah, 1Ch. 6:14, put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at time of Captivity (2Ki. 25:18-21; Jer. 52:24-27).
1Ch. 6:16-30.Sons of Levi. Having traced high priestly line from Levi to Jehozadak (1Ch. 6:1-15), writer returns to fountain head and gives general account of branches of tribe of Levi as far as materials allow. 1Ch. 6:16-21. The Gershomites, after first-born of Moses (Exo. 2:22). 1Ch. 6:17-19. These appear in Exodus 6. 1Ch. 6:20-21. This line appears to coincide with part of that of Asaph (1Ch. 6:39-43), except in Jeaterai, who may have been another son of Zerah. 1Ch. 6:22-28. The Kohathites. The same as that of Heman (1Ch. 6:33-38). Object of list to trace genealogy of Samuel, prophet and judge of Israel. 1Ch. 6:29-30. The Merarites.
1Ch. 6:31-48.Pedigrees of the three song-masters. Asaph, Heman, Ethan, or Jeduthan (Psalms 89), sons of Korah, set over departments of musical service. House, a tent erected by David to receive the ark, considerable time before building of the Temple. Waited in order, instituted by David, doubtless directed by Holy Spirit, for regulation of worship.
1Ch. 6:33. Shemuel, i.e., Samuel. 1Ch. 6:48. Levites employed in door-keeping or attending to priests.
1Ch. 6:49-53.Office of Aaron and his sons (cf. 1Ch. 6:3-8). Eleazar, third son, chief of Levites (Num. 3:32), ministered with his brother Ithamar, before death of Aaron, and succeeded him (Num. 20:28). In Eleazars family high priesthood remained till the time of Eli, who was descended from Ithamar. It returned to Eleazar in Zadok, fulfilling the words of 1Sa. 2:30.
1Ch. 6:54-81.The cities given to priestly families and to other Levites. Joshua 21, its parallel.
1Ch. 6:54-60. Cities given to Aarons family. Castles, places of defence against robbers or beasts of prey. 1Ch. 6:61-81. Cities of the Levites, their number and distribution: 13 cities to Gershom, 1Ch. 6:62; 1 Chronicles 12 to Merari, 1Ch. 6:63, as in Jos. 21:34-40; cities of other Kohathites, 1Ch. 6:66-70; of Gershomites, 1Ch. 6:71-76; and of Merarites, 1Ch. 6:77-81. 1Ch. 6:80-81, agree with those in Joshua. Ten only of twelve named. Only 42 out of 48 named, and some different from original cities assigned to Levites. This proof of accuracy of author. He remembers whole numbers in time of Joshua. But political arrangements readjusted in course of ages. State of things given which had supervened in time of David (1Ch. 7:2) [cf. Murphy].
HOMILETICS
A GLANCE OF HISTORY.1Ch. 6:1-15
In these verses we have a glance from deliverance in Egypt to bondage in captivity. Notice two or three features of the period.
I. The inequalities of men. Inequalities physical, mental, and social appear in whatever light we regard mankind. In this list some exalted to sacred office and perform noble deeds. Others fall into sin and disgrace. Vast differences in character and career! Royalty and beggary, grandeur and wretchedness, palaces and slums! There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.
II. The vicissitudes of families. Aaron a priest, but Aarons sons terrors of divine justice. Samuel a prophet, but Samuels sons perverted justice and dishonoured religion. According to political and religious feeling, ancestors exalted and descendants rejected.
III. The events of Providence. Deliverance from bondage. Scenes of conflict and triumph. Times of revival, relapse and punishment. Accession and dethronement of kings. Providences, special, striking, and constant. He hath not dealt so with any nation.
THE SONS OF LEVI.1Ch. 6:16-30
I. Their chief Fathers. Gershom the eldest, Kohath the second, and Merari the youngest son accompanied Levi into Egypt with Jacob (Gen. 46:11), and became heads of three great divisions of Levites.
II. Their numerous descendants. Many unknown or passed over. Others eminent in character, distinguished in service, and remarkable in career. Children of privilege and monuments of judgment, born in sunshine and dying in shadows. What a mixture of good men and bad men in life! What a contrast between character and circumstances, beginnings and ends!
THE MINISTRY OF SONG.1Ch. 6:31-48
Song a divine gift, has a mission or ministry.
I. Song an element of Christian worship. The service of song in the house of the Lord. A branch of natural and revealed religion in all ages, prevalent in Jewish and heathen worship. A duty reverently to be performed. Its decay a mark of desolation (Eze. 26:13).
II. Song an expression of human feeling. Joy and sorrow, gratitude and prayer, must have appropriate and audible expression. When the ark is in captivity, in times of darkness and depression, our harps are hung upon the willows. When the ark finds rest and fixed residence in times of revival, we sing praise to God (Davids joy, 2Sa. 6:17-21; 2Sa. 16:1-3). Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
III. Song a power for which its possessors are responsible. In pagan and Jewish nations recognised as a divine gift. It is a talent entrusted to individuals; a faculty to be cultivated, for which there is room, and which should be consecrated to God. The duty of all who have the gift to lay it upon the altar of God, in the home, the school, and the sanctuary.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 6:1. Three chief Fathers. Their names, history, and pedigree.
1Ch. 6:3. Nadab and Abihu. Improper spirit in worship; unlawful method and awful judgment. Perished on day of consecration! (Leviticus 10).
1Ch. 6:4. Phineas, a memorable name (Num. 25:7-13; Jos. 22:10-33; Psa. 106:30-31).
1Ch. 6:10. Azariahs important service. High priest in temple of Solomon. Executed, &c. Some think that he withstood King Uzziah, and thus risked life in faithful reproof (2Ch. 26:17-18).
1Ch. 6:13. Hilkiah most celebrated of seven bearing this name as priest and reformer. He discovered the Book of the Law (2Ki. 22:8); was zealous in reformations of Josiah (2Ki. 22:14-20; 2Ki. 23:4-27); and prominent in observing the Passover (2Ch. 25:1-19).
1Ch. 6:15. Jehozadak. Three forms of this name (see Ezr. 3:2; Hag. 1:1; and this verse). Only two forms in original. Jehozadak full form, and Jozadak contracted. The meaning is, Jehovah is righteous. It is noted as remarkable that the heads of both the priestly and the royal stock carried to Babylon should have had names (Zedekiah and Jehozadak) composed of the same elements, and assertive of the justice of God, which their sufferings showed forth so signally [Speak. Com.].
1Ch. 6:22. Korahs sin and punishment (Num. 16:1-33).
HOMILETICS
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.1Ch. 6:32-53
The order of song a matter of importance in time of David. The ark had a settled place. Choral service was established in the Temple, and chief singers were appointed.
I. Worship varied in its forms. Music and singing, prayer and praise, must not become formal and stereotyped All manner of service.
II. Lively in its spirit. Dulness and despondency dishonouring to God and unprofitable to men. This duty must be our delight. Then it becomes attractive and helpful. Serve the Lord with gladness; come before his presence with singing.
III. Orderly in its method. They waited on their office according to their order. Things not left to chance; arrangements made with care and thought. Each his own work, place, and time in keeping up the service. The order of the sanctuary. Let all things be done decently and in order.
IV. Universal in its participation. They waited with their children in the choir The service of song for the whole congregation not left to the choir to sing, nor to the preacher to pray. All hearts and all lips must join. Congregational worship must be sought and cultivated. Let the people praise thee, let all the people praise thee.
THE ANCIENT PRIESTHOOD.1Ch. 6:49-53
Aaron and his sons, the house of Aaron, appointed to the priestly office. Other Levites given to them and performed subordinate duties.
I. Its sacred dignity Not the investure of man; endowments for the work from God. The office not a personal assumption, but in obedience to divine call, manifest in Providence, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the help of friends. No man taketh this honour unto himself.
II. Its solemn duties. On the brazen altar, the golden altar and the mercy seat in the holy of holies, they performed their functions. This chiefly to make an atonement for Israel (1Ch. 6:49). A constant need for this; the life of the individual and the nation imperilled by sin; covenant relations must be restored. The day of atonement, an impressive scene and a typical truth.
III. Its typical Character. The high priests in fficial character, the ceremony of sprinkling blood were figures of good things to come. Under the gospel all believers are priests, ministering to God in his spiritual temple. Each has an appointed service which contributes to the perpetual worship and benefit of the whole. Only in fulfilment of prescribed ordinance can we secure the presence and favour of Jehovah.
CITIES AND DWELLINGS OF LEVITES.1Ch. 6:54-81
First cities given to the priestly family of Aaron (1Ch. 6:54-60). Next the number and distribution of those assigned to other Levites (1Ch. 6:61-81). Regard them as
I. A fulfilment of prediction. Jacobs dying prophecy was accomplished and this tribe was scattered in Israel (Gen. 49:7). Gods people are preserved, and events are arranged for their possessions.
II. An arrangement of providence. These cities wisely ordered, a provision of mercy and safety.
1. To facilitate the administration. Centres of justice and law, freeing individuals from avenging themselves, fixing authority and promoting peace and order.
2. To disseminate light. Each city the centre of light and instruction, the place where law was expounded and administered. A school of learning and social influence to the people.
3. To support the ministry. Cities allotted to priests and Levites for residence and maintenance. Certain provisions made for spiritual service. Men set apart for God, dependent upon the people they serve. Those who preach the gospel may reasonably expect to live of the gospel. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
1Ch. 6:31. The vicissitudes of the Ark. Without a proper resting-place from victory over Philistines in time of Eli till the tabernacle of David, about fifty years (1 Samuel 4; 2 Samuel 6).
1Ch. 6:32-33. Waited on their office.
1. Each an office or work, fixed in choir, leading in service of song, officiating at the altar, and waiting at the door.
2. Each responsible for the performance of his worknot envying his neighbour, waiting for something better; but with diligence, order, and delight each fills his position and renders his service.
1Ch. 6:31-48. Three chief song-masters. Hemans pedigree (1Ch. 6:33-38). Pedigree of Asaph, the Gershonite (1Ch. 6:39-43). He stood on right hand. Pedigree of Ethan, the Merarite (1Ch. 6:44-47). He stood on the left of Heman.
1Ch. 6:49-53. Priests and Levites, two orders of ministry in the Jewish Church. Their divine appointment, special duties, and worldly provision.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 6
1Ch. 6:31. Service. The three intentions of song: To improve the understanding, to improve the heart, and to soothe the mind. The three things which ought to pervade song: Perfect learning, perfect vigour, perfect nature [Catherall].
1Ch. 6:32. Waited in office. Man hath his daily work of body or mind appointed [Milton].
A servant with this clause
Makes drudgery divine:
Who sweeps a room, as for Thy laws,
Makes that and the action fine
[Geo. Herbert].
1Ch. 6:54. Cities. If the history of cities and their influence on their respective territories be deducted from the history of humanity, the narrative remaining would be of no very attractive description. If anything be certain, it would seem to be certain that man is constituted to realise his destiny from his association with man, more than from any contact with places. The great agency in calling forth his capabilities, for good or for evil, is that of his fellows. The picturesque may be with the country, but the intellectual, generally speaking, must be with the town [Dr. Vaughans Age of Cities].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
8. THE DESCENDANTS OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI (1Ch. 6:1-30)
TEXT
1Ch. 6:1. The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 2. And the sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. 3. And the children of Amram: Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 4. Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua, 5. and Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi, 6. and Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth, 7. Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 8. and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, 9. and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, 10. and Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priests office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem,) 11. and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 12. and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum, 13. and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, 14. and Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak; 15. and Jehozadak went into captivity, when Jeohvah carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. 16. The sons of Levi: Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. 17. And these are the names of the sons of Gershom: Libni and Shimei. 18. And the sons ot Kohath were Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. 19. The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers houses. 20. Of Gershom: Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son, 21. Joah his son, Iddo his son, Zerah his son, Jeatherai his son. 22. The sons of Kohath: Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son, 23. Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his son. 24. Tahath his son, Uriel his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his son. 25. And the sons of Elkanah: Amasai, and Ahimoth. 26. As for Elkanah, the sons of Elkanah: Zophai his son, and Nahath his son, 27. Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son. 28. And the sons of Samuel: the first-born Joel, and the second Abijah. 29. The sons of Merari: Mahi, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzzah his son, 30. Shimea his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son.
PARAPHRASE
1Ch. 6:1. These are the names of the sons of Levi: Gershom, Kohath, Merari. 2. Kohaths sons were: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel. 3. Amrams descendants included: Aaron, Mpses, Miriam. Aarons sons were: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, Ithamar. 415. The oldest sons of the successive generations of Aaron were as follows: Eleazar, the father of Phinehas, the father of Abishua, the father of Bukki, the father of Uzzi, the father of Zerahiah, the father of Meraioth, the father of Amariah, the father of Ahitub, the father of Zadok, the father of Ahima-az, the father of Azariah, the father of Johanan, the father of Azariah (the High Priest in Solomons Temple at Jerusalem), the father of Amariah, the father of Ahitub, the father of Zadok, the father of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah, the father of Azariah, the father of Seraiah, the father of Jehozadak (who went into exile when the Lord sent the people of Judah and Jerusalem into captivity under Nebuchadnezzar). 16. As previously stated, the sons of Levi were: Gershom, Kohath, Merari. 17. The sons of Gershom were: Libni, Shime-i. 18. The sons of Kohath were: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel. 19, 20, 21. The sons of Merari were: Mahli, Mushi. The subclans of the Levites were: In the Gershom clan: Libni, Jahath, Zimmah, Joah, Iddo, Zerah, Jeatherai. 22, 23, 24. In the Kohath clan: Amminadab, Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph, Assir, Tahath, Uriel, Uzziah, Shaul. 25, 26, 27. The subclan of Elkanah was further divided into the families of his sons: Amasai, Ahimoth, Elkanah, Zophai, Nahath, Eliab, Jeroham, Elkanah. 28. The families of the sublcan of Samuel were headed by Samuels sons: Joe, the oldest; Abijah, the second. 29, 30. The subclans of the clan of Merari were headed by his sons: Mahi, Libni, Shime-i, Uzzah, Shime-a, Haggiah, Asaiah.
COMMENTARY
The sons of Levi and their descendants are named in 1Ch. 6:1-30.[19] Levi attained a real importance among the twelve sons of Jacob. He and Simeon were guilty of taking vengeance upon the Shechemites (Gen. 34:25) for which action they were severely rebuked by their father. Jacob remembered this event (Gen. 49:5) at the time of the patriarchal blessing. Because of his share in the slaughter of the Shechemites, Levi was destined to be given the assignment of the priesthood and tabernacle service. His descendants would be scattered throughout Israel. The tribe of Levi was the smallest of the twelve tribes of Israel. Whatever glory was associated with the work the Levites were to do was theirs because they had distinguished themselves as faithful servants of Jehovah at Sinai when many other Hebrews were involved in worshipping the golden calf (Exo. 32:26).
[19] Clarke, Adam, A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. II, Carlton and Porter, New York, n.d., p. 588.
Levis sons were Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. The record here turns immediately to Kohath because his is the high priestly house. Kohaths sons are named and the most important of these is Amram because he was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Aaron was the father of four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.[20] Nadab and Abihu used strange fire in offering sacrifices and were struck down by Jehovah (Num. 3:4). Aaron was the first high priest in Israel. He was succeeded by his son, Eleazar. The next twenty names in the list, from Phinehas through Seraiah, are believed to be names of high priests. Phinehas served as high priest in Joshuas day (Jos. 22:10-33). Seraiah (Jer. 52:24) was high priest in the days of Zedekiah, Judahs last king. Some significant events related to the lives of some of these men are recorded in the Bible. Ahitub is identified as the father of Zadok. There are several references to him in the books of Samuel and Kings. Zadok and Abiathar were the leading priests at the time of Davids flight from Absalom (2Sa. 15:24). Later, Abiathar cast his lot with Adonijah (1Ki. 1:7-8); but Zadok remained loyal to David. Zadok probably died before the Temple was built. Ahimaaz, Zadoks son, was faithful to David in the Absalom crisis (2Sa. 15:36) and is well known as a post or a runner. In bringing the news of Absaloms death, Ahimaaz outran the Cushite messenger, but could not bring himself to tell David the bad news (2Sa. 18:19 ff). Azariah (1Ch. 6:10) is identified as a priest who served in Solomons Temple. Ahimaaz son was named Azariah and there was another priest by the same name who lived in Uzziahs day, about 750 B. C. (2Ch. 26:17; 2Ch. 26:20). Since some of these priestly names recur, it is not strange that the names of Ahitub and Zadok appear in 1Ch. 6:8 and also in 1Ch. 6:12. One of the most important names in this priestly list is that of Hilkiah. He was high priest when Josiah was king of Judah (640609 B. C.). He was a leading spirit in the great religious revival of that era. This revival was launched with the discovery of the book of the Law in the house of the Lord (2Ki. 22:8). 2Ch. 35:1-19 describes the great Passover in the eighteenth year of Josiahs reign under the leadership of Hilkiah. Seraiah is identified as the high priest in the days of Zedekiah (Jer. 52:24-27) when Jerusalem fell to Babylon. Jehozadak never attained to the high priestly office because of the overthrow of Jerusalem; but he is renowned as the father of Jeshua who served as high priest with Zerubbabel when Israel returned from Babylon.
[20] Spence, H. D. M. The Pulpit Commentary, I Chronicles, p. 83.
Having traced the high priestly register, the chronicler now turns (1Ch. 6:16-30) to a general listing of Levis people. The principal families of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari are named in 1Ch. 6:17-19. Then the lines of descent are traced through Levis grandsons. 1Ch. 6:22-28 trace the descendants of Kohath to Joel, Samuels son. Elkanah, Samuels father, was a Kohathite Levite. Samuel was the father of Joel and Abijah who were not good priests (1Sa. 8:2-3).
The regular responsibilities of the Levites are detailed in 1Ch. 6:31-48. David gave special attention to the organization of worship after he set up a tent for the ark in Jerusalem. The Levitical ministry of sacred music comes into its own at that time and was well ordered by the time the Temple was built. Heman, son of Joel, a Kohathite Levite is called a singer.[21] Careful attention is given in tracing his pedigree back to Israel or Jacob. Asaph is identified as Hemans brother. He is brother in the sense that the two men hold similar offices. Asaphs lineage is traced back to Levi and Jacob through Gershom, son of Levi. Ethan shared the office of musical direction with Heman and Asaph. He descended from Merari, son of Levi. In these three men all of the branches of Levis tribe were represented. We are advised in 1Ch. 6:48 that Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites continued to perform their respective duties at the tabernacle.
[21] Spence, H. D. M., The Pulpit Commentary, I Chronicles, p. 85.
Once more, in 1Ch. 6:49-53, Aarons family is singled out for special attention. Some of Aarons descendants down to the time of David are mentioned. Earlier (1Ch. 6:15), the list carried down to the overthrow of Jerusalem.
The rest of chapter six (1Ch. 6:54-81) is concerned about the villages of the Levites. When the land of Palestine was originally apportioned among the tribes of Israel, the tribe of Levi did not receive a designated plot like Judah or Ephraim. To the tribe of Levi forty-eight villages were assigned. These villages were located throughout Palestine and included the six cities of refuge (Num. 35:1-8). The Kohathite villages were located in Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh (1Ch. 6:57-61). Since the Kohathites would provide the officiating priests, their villages were nearer the location of the tabernacle and the temple. Among the Kohathite villages were Hebron and Shechem, cities of refuge. The Gershonite (Gershom) villages were situated in the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Manasseh (east of Jordan). Golan and Kedesh Naphtali were the Gershonite cities of refuge. The Merarite villages were located in the territories of Reuben, Gad, and Zebulun. The cities of refuge pertaining to Merari were Bezer and Ramoth. The suburbs of the Levitical cities encompassed an area extending one thousand cubits (about 500 yards) from the wall of the city all the way around the city (Num. 35:4). This area was used as a pasture land for the Levites flocks.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1-15) THE LINE OF AARON THROUGH ELEAZAR TO JEHOZADAK.
(1-3) Aarons descent from Levi.
(1) The sons of Levi; Gershon . . .So Gen. 46:11; Exo. 6:16, and uniformly in the Pentateuch. In 1Ch. 6:16 we have the spelling Gershom, which perhaps indicates a difference of source.
(2) The sons of Kohath.The names are the same as in Exo. 6:18. Khath, or Khath, was the chief house of Levi. The name is put second in the series, perhaps for euphonic reasons. (Comp. Sheni, Ham, and Japhet with Gen. 9:24; Gen. 10:21.)
(3) And the children.Heb., sons (bn mrm).
Aaron, and Moses.Exo. 6:20.
And Miriam.Num. 26:59 : the prophetess, the sister of Aaron (Exo. 15:20).
The sons also of Aaron.Heb., Aharon; Arab., Hrn. Exo. 6:23, Num. 26:60 name the four sons of Aaron in the same order as here. Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord (Num. 26:61). A fuller account is given in Lev. 10:1-7.
(4-15) Twenty-two successors of Aaron, for the interval between his death and the Babylonian exile (circ. 588 B.C.). How many centuries that interval comprises is uncertain. The Exodus has been placed at various dates from 1648 B.C. (Hales), and 1491 (Usher) to circ. 1330 (Lepsius and other modern scholars), and even so late as 1265. It is premature, therefore, to object, as some have done, that twenty-two generations are too few for the period they are supposed to cover. If the later dates assigned for the Exodus be nearer the truth, an allowance of about thirty years to the generation would justify the list. At least we have no right to say that the list requires a reckoning of forty or fifty years to the generation. On the other hand, it may well be the case that some links in the chain are wanting. Comp. Ezr. 7:1-7, where this list recurs in an abridged form, giving only fifteen names instead of twenty-two.
(4) Eleazar begat Phinehas.Num. 20:22-28 tells how Moses, by Divine command, made Eleazar priest in Aarons room. Jos. 14:1; Jos. 17:4 represent him as acting with Joshua in Canaan. Jos. 24:33 records his death and place of burial. For Phinehas, son of Eleazar, see Exo. 6:25; Num. 25:7; Num. 25:11; Jdg. 20:28 (as ministering before the Ark at Bethel). The list before us appears to ignore the line of Ithamar, Aarons remaining son. 1Ch. 24:1-6, however, proves that the chronicler was well aware that there had been other personages of high-priestly rank besides those registered here (see especially 1Ch. 6:5 : for there had been princes of the sanctuary and princes of God, of the sons of Eleazar and of the sons of Ithamar). The line of Eleazar alone is here recorded as being at once the elder and legitimate, and also the permanent one from the time of Solomon onwards.
(5) Uzzi is assumed to have been contemporary with Eli, whose immediate descendants to the fourth generation exercised the office of the high-priest, according to the data of the Books of Samuel and Kings. The line of Eli is as follows: Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar. (See 1Sa. 1:28; 1Sa. 2:4; 1Sa. 2:11; 1Sa. 14:3; 1Sa. 22:9; 1Sa. 22:20; 1Ki. 2:26-27.)
(6) Zerahiah begat Meraioth.Scripture is silent as regards the six persons named in 1Ch. 6:6-7. That the line of Eleazar abstained from the priestly functions during the ascendency of the house of Ithamar-Eli, is probably nothing more than a groundless guess on the part of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 1, 3). The indications of the Scriptures point the other way. Zadok and Abiathar enjoyed a co-ordinate authority in the time of David (1Sa. 20:25), and proofs are not wanting of the existence of more than one recognised sanctuary, in which the representatives of both houses might severally officiate. (See Note on 1Ch. 16:39.)
(8) Zadok was appointed sole high-priest by Solomon, who deposed Abiathar (1Ki. 2:27; 1Ki. 2:35).
Ahimaaz.2Sa. 15:36; 2Sa. 17:17; cf. 2Sa. 18:27. In all these passages Ahimaaz appears as a young man and a fleet runner, who did service to David in the time of Absaloms revolt. He nowhere appears as high-priest.
Azariah.See 1Ki. 4:2, which mentions Azariah son of Zadok the priest, in a list of Solomons grandees. The remark in 1Ch. 6:10, he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem, enigmatical where it stands, is intelligible if connected with Azariah son of Ahimaaz; contrasting him with his grandfather, Zadok, who had ministered at Gibeon (1Ch. 16:39); and with the other high-priests who were his namesakes, as the first Azariah. Solomon reigned forty years. Azariah, therefore, may have succeeded to the priesthood before his death.
(10) Johanan begat Azariah.Johanan is un. known. The name Azariah occurs thrice in the present listviz., in 1Ch. 6:9-10; 1Ch. 6:13. We have already identified the first with the son, or rather grandson, of Zadok, who is mentioned in 1Ki. 4:2. A high-priest (Azariah) withstood King Uzziahs assumption of priestly privilege (2Ch. 26:17), circ. 740 B.C. The Jewish exegetes Rashi and Kimchi supposed him to be identical with Azariah son of Johanan, fancifully explaining the remark, he it is that executed the priests office in the temple, &c., as a reference to his bold defence of the priestly prerogative against the king himself. If this were right, several names would be omitted in 1Ch. 6:9-10. But we have seen that the remark in question really belongs to a former Azariah, and has been transposed from its original position in 1Ch. 6:9 by the inadvertence of some copyist. Another Azariah is mentioned (2Ch. 31:10) as chief priest of the house of Zadok, early in the reign of Hezekiah. Him, too, we fail to identify with either of the Azariahs of the present list. (See 1Ch. 6:13, Note.)
(11) Azariah begat Amariah.Perhaps the Amariah of 2Ch. 19:11, who was high-priest under Jehoshaphat.
(12) And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum.See 1Ch. 6:8 : And Ahitub begat Zadok. The recurrence of names in the same families is almost too common to require notice, except where confusion of distinct persons has resulted or is likely to result, as in the instance of those among our Lords immediate followers, who bore the names of Simon, Judas, and James.
Somewhere about this part of the list we miss the name of Jehoiada, the famous king-maker, who put down Athaliah and set up Joash (2 Chronicles 23). In like manner, Urijah, the too compliant high-priest of the reign of Ahaz, who flourished a generation or so later, is conspicuous here by omission (2Ki. 16:10-16).
Urijah may have been omitted because of his unworthy connivance in an unlawful worship, not, however, as an unimportant man, as Keil thinks. (Comp. Isa. 8:2.) But if the list is a list of actual high-priests, Jehoiada can only have been omitted by accident, unless indeed he is represented in it by an unrecognised alias. Double names are common in Scripture, from Jacob-Israel, Esau-Edom, downwards.
(13) Hilkiah begat Azariah.Hilkiah is probably the well-known high-priest who found the Book of the Law which led to the great reformation of Josiahs reign (2Ki. 22:8, seq.). Azariah, his son, is not elsewhere mentioned. The Azariah of 2Ch. 31:10, who figures as high-priest under Hezekiah, at least eighty years earlier, is absent from this list.
(14) Seraiah begat Jehozadak.Seraiah was still high-priest at the moment of the fall of Jerusalem (588 B.C. ). Nebuchadnezzar caused him to be put to death at Riblah (2Ki. 25:18-21; Jer. 52:24, seq.) From Azariah (1Ch. 6:10) to Seraiah we find only ten names. In the list of the kings of Judah for about the same interval eighteen names occur (see 1Ch. 3:10-16). This fact undoubtedly suggests the omission of some generations from the list before us.
The use of the word begat throughout the series is not to be pressed to the contrary conclusion. Like the term son in Ezr. 7:3 (Azariah, son of Meraioth, though six intermediate names are given in Chron.), it is a somewhat elastic technical formula in these genealogies.
(15) And Jehozadak went into captivity.The Heb. is went away. Our version rightly supplies into captivity. (Comp. Jer. 49:3.) Jehozadak was presumably a child at the time; half a century later a son of his, the high-priest Jeshua or Joshua, returned with Zerubbabel at the head of the first colony of restored exiles, 536 B.C. (Hag. 1:1; Ezr. 3:2).
When the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.The chronicler is generally charged with a strong Levitical and priestly bias, in unfavourable contrast to the prophetical tendency of the writers of Samuel and Kings. The sentiment of this verse, however, and of many other passages, is thoroughly accordant with the point of view of the greater prophets. Isaiah, e.g., never wearies of proclaiming that the Assyrian conquerors were mere instruments in the hands of Jehovah, unconsciously executing His fore-ordained purposes.
Nebuchadnezzar.So the name is spelt in Kings, Chronicles, and Daniel, but incorrectly. Jer. 24:2, &c., reads Nebuchadrezzar, which is nearer the true name, Nabium-kudurri-aur (Nebo protect the crown).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The Genealogy of the Twelve Sons of Israel 1 Chronicles 4-8 gives a brief chronology of the twelve sons of Israel. However, there appears to be no certain order in listing these twelve children of Jacob, although a reference is made to Reuben’s genealogy being listed out of the order of birthright (1Ch 5:1).
1Ch 5:1, “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright .”
The genealogies are listed in the following order:
Judah 1Ch 4:1-23
Simeon 1Ch 4:24-43
Reuben 1Ch 5:1-10
Gad 1Ch 5:11-22
Manasseh (east) 1Ch 5:23-26
Levi 1Ch 6:1-81
Issachar 1Ch 7:1-5
Benjamin 1Ch 7:6-12
Naphtali 1Ch 7:13
Manasseh (west) 1Ch 7:14-19
Ephraim 1Ch 7:20-28
Asher 1Ch 7:30-40
Note that the tribes of Dan and Zebulun are not listed in these chapters.
If we compare the order of their births, we find that these genealogies in 1 Chronicles were not listed by order of birth:
1. Leah Reuben
2. Leah Simeon
3. Leah Levi
4. Leah Judah
5. Bilhah Dan
6. Bilhah Naphtali
7. Zilpah Gad
8. Zilpah Asher
9. Leah Issachar
10. Leah Zebulun
11. Rachel Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim)
12. Rachel Benjamin
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Line of Priests to the Captivity
v. 1. The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, v. 2. And the sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel, v. 3. And the children of Amram: Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, v. 4. Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua,
v. 5. and Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi. v. 6. And Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth,
v. 7. Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub,
v. 8. and Ahitub begat Zadok, v. 9. and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan,
v. 10. and Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the Temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem, v. 11. and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub,
v. 12. and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum,
v. 13. and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah,
v. 14. and Azariah begat Seraiah, v. 15. and Jehozadak went into captivity when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. v. 16. The sons of Levi: Gershom v. 17. v. 18. And the sons of Kohath were Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.
v. 19. The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers.
v. 20. of Gershom: Libni, his son; Jahath, his son; Zimmah, his son;
v. 21. Joah v. 22. The sons of Kohath: Amminadab v. 23. Elkanah, his son; and Ebiasaph, his son; and Assir, his son;
v. 24. Tahath, his son; Uriel, his son; Uzziah, his son; and Shaul, his son.
v. 25. And the sons of Elkanah: Amassai and Ahimoth.
v. 26. As for Elkanah, v. 27. Eliab, his son; Jeroham, his son; Elkanah, his son.
v. 28. And the sons of Samuel, v. 29. The sons of Merari, v. 19. v. 30. Shimea, his son; Haggiah, his son; Asaiah, his son.
v. 31. And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the Lord, v. 32. And they ministered before the dwelling-place of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, v. 33. And these are they that waited with their children, v. 34. the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah v. 35. the son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,
v. 36. the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,
v. 37. the son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,
v. 38. the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel, v. 39. And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, v. 40. the son of Michael the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,
v. 41. the son of Ethni, the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah,
v. 42. the son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimei,
v. 43. the son of Jahath, the son of Gershom, the son of Levi. v. 44. And their brethren, the sons of Merari, stood on the left hand: Ethan v. 45. the son of Hashabiah, the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah,
v. 46. the son of Amzi, the son of Bani, the son of Shamer,
v. 47. the son of Mahli, v. 48. Their brethren also, the Levites, v. 49. But Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar of the burnt offering, v. 50. And these are the sons of Aaron: Eleazar, his son; Phinehas, his son; Abishua, his son;
v. 51. Bukki, his son; Uzzi, his son; Zerahiah, his son;
v. 52. Meraioth, his son; Amariah, his son; Ahitub, his son;
v. 53. Zadok, his son; Ahimaaz, his son,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
1Ch 6:1-3
The tribe of Levi is now taken. The first three verses prepare the way for running rapidly down the line of high priest descent, from Aaron’s son Eleazar to Jehozadak, who is reached at the twenty-fifth name from Levi, though not necessarily the twenty-fifth generation, as there appear (1Ch 6:11-13) to be some omissions. Nor are all the names which are given those of high priests, for the genealogy of Jehozadak did not always pass though such.
1Ch 6:1
This verse gives the three branches of Levi,and is in agreement with the enumeration of them in Gen 46:11 and Exo 6:16, viz. Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. We have not the third parallel passage in the place of mention of the other tribes (Num 1:47-54), but it is compensated for somewhat later (Num 3:14-20).
1Ch 6:2
The second son, Kohath, rather Kehath, is at once singled out, in order to get at the priest line. He was one of the travellers with Jacob into Egypt, was probably about twenty years the junior of Joseph, lived thirty years after his death, and attained the age of one hundred and thirty-three years, after a residence in Egypt of about one hundred and fifteen years in all. The Kohathites are expressly mentioned in their sacred duties in the time of David (1Ch 15:5-8), and in the time of Hezekiah (2Ch 29:12-14). The four sons of Kohath are next instanced, in order to get another step nearer the clear beginning of the priest line. This is done in the person of the oldest brother, Amram, who became father of Aaron and Moses and Miriam.
1Ch 6:3
Once more, Aaron is singled out, and Eleazar, the third of his four sons, fixes the exact channel of descent required.
1Ch 6:4
Eleazar. From this name inclusive follow the twenty-two, which terminate with Jehozadak, who indeed never attained him s elf to the office of high priest, but was son of Geraiah, last high priest before the Captivity, and father of Jeshua, high priest, who returned with Zerubbabel from the Captivity. It has been pointed out by Lord A. C. Hervey that the name Jehozadak is of the same meaning with Zedekiah, the last king before the Captivity; and that Jeshua is the same in meaning with Joshua, the leader of the tribes into Canaan. The two elder brothers of Eleazar, viz. Nadab and Abihu, died without issue (Le Jos 10:1; Num 3:4, Num 3:32; Num 20:28; Num 24:1-3). It is somewhat obscurely said that the sacred office remained in the family of Eleazar till, in the person of Eli, it passed awhile into that of Ithamar, his brother (1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27; Jos 8:1, 3), to be recovered again in the Zadok of our verse 9 (1Ch 24:3, 1Ch 24:4). Phinehas; a memorable man (Num 25:7-13; Jos 22:10-33; Jdg 20:28; Psa 106:30, Psa 106:31; which Grove well compares with Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3). Abishua; only mentioned in this chapter and Ezr 7:1-5. Josephus (Ezr 8:1, 3) asserts that he it was who was succeeded in the high priesthood, not by any one of his own descendants, but by Eli, till Zedok, in the time of David, all the intervening members of the Eleazar family being private individuals. But no reliance can be placed on this assertion, for see Josephus again (Ezr 5:11, 5).
1Ch 6:5-7
Of the five succeeding names, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, it may be said that they reappear in the list of Ezr 7:1-28; but that little or nothing else is known of them. Lightfoot (‘Temple Service,’ 4. 1) supposes that the change of priesthood family to Ithamar took place after Meraioth. But it is just as probable that the gap between Abishua and Eli, or possibly even between Phinehas and Eli, was filled by holders of the high priest office unknown by name to us.
1Ch 6:8
Ahitub. With this name begins the light again. Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, and Azariah are of frequent mention in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Ahitub, here and elsewhere plainly given as father of Zadok, seems to be given as father of Meraioth in 1Ch 9:11 and Neh 11:11, and grandfather of Zadok; and in both passages is termed “ruler of the house of God”an expression probably equivalent to high priest, as Azariah, high priest in the reign of Hezekiah, is also so described (2Ch 31:13). The recurrence of the two names Ahitub and Zadok in verses 11 and 12 is very possibly the result of some error; and it is in favour of such a supposition, in some form of it, at all events, that in that place, where, including Shallum (or Meshullam), only three steps are found, several more seem to be requiredthe period one of some one hundred and eighty years, and filled in the list of Judah’s kings by as many as nine in succession. On the other hand, it is open to question whether the recurrence of the names Ahitub and Zadok be not legitimate. And this may then be the solution of 1Ch 9:11 and Neh 11:11, as above, with their insertion of Meraiothstill other names being absent which would make up the requisite number of generations. Zadok. The earliest glimpse we get of him is in 1Ch 12:28, where he is introduced as “a young man mighty of valour,” who now casts in his lot with David at Hebron, on Saul’s death. In 2Sa 15:24, 2Sa 15:29, 2Sa 15:35, we find him and Abiathar the recognized priests. In 1Ki 1:7, 1Ki 1:8, we find him true to David when Abiathar joined Adonijahthe punishment of the latter and the reward of the former being recorded in 1Ki 2:27, 1Ki 2:35, respectively. Up to that time it is evident. that Abiathar had precedence in rank over Zadok. His death is not recorded, but it must be assigned to a date previous to the dedication of the temple, from the account of which (1Ki 8:1-66.) his name is entirely absent. The last allusions to him are in 1Ki 4:2, 1Ki 4:4; in the latter of which verses (specially coupled as the name is with the deposed Abiathar) the notice is probably as merely historical as it certainly is in the former. This same verse states that Azariah was “the priest,” and that he was son, i.q. grandson, of Zadok, proving, with very little doubt, that the explanatory parenthesis of our verse. 10 should follow the Azariah mentioned in the previous verse.
1Ch 6:9
Ahimaaz. The first important notice of him is found in 2Sa 15:36, and the last in 2Sa 19:29. He is not to be identified with Solomon’s “officer” in Naphtali (1Ki 4:15). Azariah. As above said, it is almost without a doubt after this Azariah (1Ki 4:2) that the parenthetical comment of next verse should be read. Again, this Azariah must not be identified with him of the time of King Uzziah (2Ch 26:17, 2Ch 26:20), who must have been nearly a century later, and was contemporary with Isaiah, Joel, and Amos.
1Ch 6:10
Of Johanan and Azariah, his son, nothing can be found with any certainty. It is presumable that they were priests in the reigns of Abijah and Asa.
1Ch 6:11
Amariah. High priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 19:11; see Smith’s ‘Bible Dictionary,’ sub voce, 2). A step ascertainable as this helps to keep the line and chronology steady amid surrounding obscurity.
1Ch 6:12
(See above on 1Ch 6:8.)
1Ch 6:13
Shallum, called in 1Ch 9:11 and Neh 11:11 Meshullam. There are at fewest fifteen persons of this name. The present is named as ancestor of Ezra (Ezr 7:2). Hillkiah. There are seven persons of this name. The present was the celebrated one of them all; and from three chief circumstances:
(1) for the finding of the “book of the Law in the house of the Lord” (2Ki 22:8);
(2) the zealous spirit with which he joined in the reformation under Josiah (2Ki 22:14-20; 2Ki 23:4-27);
(3) the observance in his high priesthood of the Passover, in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign (2Ch 35:1-19).
1Ch 6:14
Azariah. The third occurrence of this name in this list. This person is found again in Ezr 2:1-70 :l, but is wanting in Neh 11:11. Seraiah; found also in Neh 11:11, in a list which omits the preceding Azariah, and in Ezr 7:1. The end of his high priesthood and of himself is recorded with that of Zephaniah (2Ki 25:18, 2Ki 25:21), and (not the Seraiah, “the quiet prince,” of Jer 51:59-64) he is also spoken of in Jer 52:24-27. He was high priest in the time of Zedekiah.
1Ch 6:15
Jehozadak. He did not share the violent end of his father, nor did he attain his father’s high priest office, but lived to the end a captive (see note on 1Ch 6:4). Where this name occurs in Haggai and Zechariah, it is the same in the Hebrew as here, though Englished in the Authorized Version as Josedech. Where it occurs in Ezra and Nehemiah, the shorter form of Jozadak is found in the Hebrew as in the Authorized Version.
1Ch 6:16-19
These verses have a re-enumeration of the three sons of Levi, and differ from the enumeration of 1Ch 6:1, in being followed by the sons of each of these three, and afterwards by the line of descendants from each, instead of by the sons of only one, Kohath, and his descendant in only one stem, the high priest stem, and with only one object. All these names agree with Exo 6:17-19 and Num 3:17-20 (comp. also Num 3:21-36 with Num 26:57-60), with the trifling exceptions already alluded to, in the Hebrew spelling of Gershom and the Authorized Version spelling of Shimei and the Authorized Version Mahali of Exo 6:19. The latter half of Exo 6:19, according to the Hebrew, should rather refer to what has preceded, and be a “subscription,” though it might best suit the connection to regard it as introducing what was to follow, and as being a “superscription.” Bertheau holds with the former of these views, Keil with the latter.
1Ch 6:20-21
(A) These verses apparently give seven lineal descendants of Gershom, through his eldest son Libni. The question is whether this list of seven is part of the longer list of thirteen from Gershom (1Ch 6:39-43). terminating with Asaph; and it seems impossible to decide the question satisfactorily. From the occurrence of the name Shimei in this latter, though in the wrong place, viz. after Jahath in the descending order, instead of before him, some think, Keil and Zockler among them, that it is a line from Shimei, the brother of Libni, and second son of Gershom. If this be so, the occurrence of three names, the same and in the same order, is a thing to be remarked, though possible enough in itself. But if not, then either the names Joah, Iddo, Jeaterai, in the former list, must be interchangeable with Ethan, Adaiah, Ethni, respectively in the latter (a thing which the similarity of the Hebrew letters might render credible), while the Shimei of 1Ch 6:42 is omitted from 1Ch 6:20, and the Libni of 1Ch 6:20 from 1Ch 6:43; or the one list must pick up some links and leave others, and the other do likewise, whilst those taken the same by both are in the minority. This last supposition may be the more probable, though not free from difficulty. Zimmah. Beside the uncertainty of the identity of this Zimmah with the same name in 1Ch 6:42, it is very remarkable that we find a Zimmah, also father of a Joah, in 2Ch 29:12; also in this same passage we find three other reproductions of a similar kindfather and son-of what have first been found in this sixth chapter, viz. “Mahath, son of Amasai” (2Ch 29:35); “Joel, son of Azariah” (verse 36); “Kish, son of Abdi” (verse 44). It seems as though the individual descendant was quoted in these instances by the name of the ancestor at a certain point.
1Ch 6:22-28
(B) These verses give descendants, probably twenty-one in number, from Levi, through his second son, Kohath, to Joel, eldest son of Samuel and (verse 33) father of Heman. The descendants of Kohath through his eldest son, Amram, have been given from verses 3-15. But the descendants now to he spoken of are through another son, here called Am-minadab, a name not appearing among the four of verse 2, but apparently standing for the Izhar of that verse. For he is said to have a son Korah, by whom, indeed, the genealogy moves on, while in verses 37, 38. and Num 16:1, Korah is said to be the son of Izhar. Without the occurrence of this clue, we should have been at a loss to tell who Amminadab was, as we are now at a loss to explain the unexplained substitution of this new name. The Vatican Septuagint has Amminadab, while the Alexandrine has altered to Izhar, probably deeming the other name a mere error.
1Ch 6:22, 1Ch 6:23
Korah (comp. Num 16:27, Num 16:32, Num 16:33, with Num 26:9-11). From Exo 6:24 we also learn that the throe next in lineal succession to Korah, were Assir, Elkanah, and Ebiasaph, or Abiasaph; though Elkanah and Assir are omitted from verse 37, in the ascending line.
1Ch 6:24-28
Tahath. From this name onwards to the end of 1Ch 6:28 we must have recourse to the reversed list of 1Ch 6:33 37, in order to make out our way. Even then we shall scarcely have a chain of all the licks; e.g. there is no evidence here (as there is in the case of Amminadab above) that Uriel and Zephaniah designate the same person. The lists may be brought, however, into pretty close harmony without any violent suppositions or substitutions, thus: Tahath, Uriel, Zephaniah, Uzziah (i.q. Azariah), Shaul (i.q. Joel), Elkanah, Amasai, Ahimoth (i.q. Mahath), Elkanah Zophai (i.q. Zuph), Nahath (i.q. Toah, Tohu, 1Sa 1:1), Eliab (i.q. Eliel, Elihu, 1Sa 1:1), Jeroham, Elkanah, Samuel (i.q. Shemuel), Joel (1Sa 8:2, which distinctly gives Joel as firstborn son, and supplies the explanation of the Vashni here by expressly mentioning Abish as “his second” son).
1Ch 6:29, 1Ch 6:30
(C) In 1Ch 6:19 the two sons of Merari, viz. Mahli and Mushi, are given. Here one of them, Mahli, is repeated, with six descendants, of no one of whom have we any other information. From comparison of Num 3:20 and Num 26:58 there can be no doubt that Mahli and Mushi were brothers, each of whom founded a family. The descending line of Mushi, unalluded to here, comes to the surface in Num 26:44-47.
1Ch 6:31-48
In the early verses of this section we may notice, if not the first beginning, yet some of the earliest crystallization of the forms of religious services. It was given to David to settle the ark after its travels through the wilderness, its sojourn in various places since then, doubtless always within the care of some Levitical family (except when taken by enemies, 1Sa 4:11; 1Sa 5:1-12; 1Sa 6:1-21.), and in especial its prolonged twenty years’ sojourn .at Kirjath-jearim (1Sa 7:1, 1Sa 7:2; 2Sa 6:1-19; 1Ch 13:3-14; 1Ch 15:1-3; 1Ch 17:5). It now had rest, though its place of rest was only within “curtains” (2Sa 7:2; 1Ch 17:1), i.e. in a special separate tent prepared for it by David, which tent was probably the suggestion, and as it were the nucleus, of the coming grand temple itselfthe house of God. The event was naturally one of great joy and thanksgiving, of which David himself was the chief leader (2Sa 6:17-21; 1Ch 16:1-3); but it appears also that it furnished the occasion of appointing fixed choir conductors, leaders of the service of song” (1Ch 16:4-7, 1Ch 16:37, 1Ch 16:41, 1Ch 16:42; 1Ch 25:1-7).
1Ch 6:32
Instances full of illustration of this ministering with singing and waiting on their office are found in 2Ch 5:12; 2Ch 29:26-31; 2Ch 35:15, 2Ch 35:16.
1Ch 6:33
We have now the name and pedigree of each of the three chief singers or musicians (their duty was both vocal and instrumental) of David’s appointment, beginning, according to the analogy of 1Ch 6:2, supra, with Heman, the descendant of Kohath, instead of Asaph from Gershom. So the place of Heman was still the place of honor, in the centre, with Asaph on the right and Ethan on the left (1Ch 6:39, 1Ch 6:44). Heman is the twenty-first according to this list (1Ch 6:33-38) after Levi, but the genealogy is indistinct (see above, 1Ch 6:22-28) between Shemuel and Assir, and according to Hervey, Heman comes fourteenth after Levi. This Heman is to be distinguished from Heman the “son of Zerah” (1Ch 2:6), and with but little doubt, therefore, from Heman the Ezrahite (Zerahite) of Psa 88:1-18. On the other hand, a theory has been suggested by Lord Arthur C. Hervey which might reconcile the two. He supposes that if Heman the Kohathite (or his father) had married an heiress of the house of Zerah, he might have become reckoned in the line of Zerah as well as in that of Kohath.
1Ch 6:39
Asaph is called brother of Heman, either as brother in office or generally as relative in the degree of cousin by many removes. He stands fourteenth in line of descent after Levi, while Ethan (1Ch 6:44) stands thirteenth. If the line of Heman (as given in 1Ch 6:33-38) were correct. it would force on us the conviction that there are several omissions in these two lines; but if these are correct, we must conclude that there are unwarranted additions in the other. On the names of Asaph’s ancestors, see notes on 1Ch 6:20, 1Ch 6:21. From 2Ch 29:30 it seems plain that Asaph was himself a composer of psalms, and not simply either the musician or rehearser of those of David.
1Ch 6:44
Ethan. This passage and 1Ch 15:19 are the leading passages for this name Ethan. But in succeeding references (and they are not a few) to the three chief leaders of song, the name appears as Jeduthun; unless, as seems scarcely credible, two different persons are designated. The occasion and significance of the alteration of the name are not stated, however, and elude detection so far. In 2Ch 35:15 the title of “king’s seer” () is added to the name Jeduthun, which is variously spelt ( ). This arrangement of chief singers, one from each of the three branches of Levi’s family, lasted unbroken to Josiah’s reign (2Ch 35:13); and the representatives of Jeduthun, at all events, are mentioned in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 11:17, Neh 11:18). Kishi. The most frequent form of this name is Kish (, equivalent to the Vulgate Cis), if, indeed, the form of this verse and that of 1Ch 15:17, Kushaiah (), are not merely the fruit of a corrupt text.
1Ch 6:48
The all manner of service, from that of the three “leaders of song” on their “cymbals of brass” (1Ch 15:19) down through the other Levitical grades, is fully illustrated in many places (1Ch 15:18-24; 1Ch 16:37-42; 1Ch 23:2-32; 1Ch 25:1-8; 1Ch 26:1-26).
1Ch 6:49-53
These verses allude to the more special functions of “Aaron and his sons,” as they are here called, i.e; his lineal descendants (1Ch 6:4-15; Ezr 7:2-5), whose names, stopping at Ahimaaz, the eleventh generation, are the same with those of 1Ch 6:3-8. The manifest inference is that the present enumeration, stopping with the name of one contemporary with David (2Sa 15:27), was borrowed from tables of the date of David, and not of the date of the Captivity (veres 15).
1Ch 6:49
The altar of the burnt offering (Le 1Ch 1:3-17). The altar of incense (Exo 25:6; Exo 30:1-7, Exo 30:7-9, Exo 30:34-38; Le Exo 16:12). Most holy (Le 1Ch 16:12, 1Ch 16:14, 1Ch 16:15, 1Ch 16:17, 1Ch 16:20). An atonement for Israel (Le 1Ch 16:3-19; 1Ch 23:26-32; Num 29:1-40.. 7-11).
1Ch 6:50
Eleazar. The third son of Aaron (by Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, and descended from Judah through Pharez) is the sea whose descendants are given here, inasmuch as he was appointed chief of the Levites (Num 3:32); ministered as a priest with his brother Ithamar, even before the death of Aaron; and succeeded him as high priest (Num 20:28). It was in Eleazar’s family that the high priesthood remained (as above) till the time of Eli, who was descended from Ithamar, and it returned again to the line of Eleazar in Zadok, fulfilling the intimation of 1Sa 2:30.
1Ch 6:54-81
The writer returns upon his steps to give the cities and dwelling-places of the Levites, beginning with the priestly members of the Kohathite line (1Ch 6:54-61), then taking those of the Gershomite (1Ch 6:62) and Merarite lines (1Ch 6:63-65) in order; and again in the same order disposing of the members not priestly (1Ch 6:66-70; 71-76; 77-81) of the same three branches.
1Ch 6:54-61, 1Ch 6:64-70
And these are their dwellings according to their enclosures in their territories, means the settlements of whatever people in question, surrounded and protected by whatever fence or defence customary. For theirs was the lot is more intelligible with the addition of the word “first,” supplied in Jos 31:10, i.e. theirs was the first lot. The whole drift of the present passage, with the remainder of the chapter, is made entirely plain by Num 35:1-8 and Jos 21:1-10. But the omission and the alteration of individual names of places occasion some delay. Our verse 55 is given somewhat more fully in Jos 21:11; our verse 56 is identical with Jos 21:12; and our verses 57-60 correspond substantially with Jos 21:13-19, but from this latter source we are glad to supply the two names Juttah and Gibeon, without which we cannot add up correctly the thirteen cities of verse 60. Also in Joshua, our Hilen, Ashan, and Alemsth appear as Holon, Ain, and Almon respectively, although in regard to the intermediate name of these three the places cannot be accepted as identical, for they are mentioned side by side in Jos 19:7 and in 1Ch 4:32, but we must admit an error involved. Verse 56 (see Jos 14:14; Jos 21:12). Verse 61 seems to be an anticipation of verses 66-70, with which verses, if we incorporate it, we shall obtain substantially the same results as are found in Jos 21:5, Jos 21:20-26; but again we are glad of the latter source to supply for us the two places, Eltekeh and Gibbethon, necessary to enable us to count up the ten cities of our verse 61, while our Jokmeam, Aner, and Bileam appear as probably the corrected readings of Kibzaim, Tanach, and Gath-rimmon respectively in Joshua. The sons of Kohath, left (verse 61), the residue (Authorized Version, verse 66), the remnant (verse 70), point (as above) to the non-priestly descendants in the Kohath line. Summing up, we see that the Kohathite priests had thirteen cities from the allotments of Judah and Simeon and Benjamin, and the Ko-hathite non-priests had ten, from Ephraim, Dan, and West Manasseh. One might detect in all this some germ of the more modern parochial system, so far at least as regards the distributed residence of a clerical and ministerial order, though not with sacred buildings similarly distributed.
1Ch 6:62
The twenty-three cities that belonged to the sons of Kohath are now followed by the thirteen due to the sons of Gershom, taken from the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and half Manasseh. The fact only is stated here, the details being supplied in verses 71-76. And it is easily to be seen that, as from the most important tribes were levied the cities for Levites first in precedence, so the same principle is observed to the end.
1Ch 6:63
The distribution of cities to the third branch of Levi’s family, that of Merari, now follows. They are selected, four from each of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Zebulun (Jos 21:7, Jos 21:34-40).
1Ch 6:71
Golan was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan (Jos 20:8), the other two being Bezer, of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead, of the tribe of Gad. Ashtaroth, in its previous history, had been closely connected with Og King of Bashan (Deu 1:4; Jos 9:9, Jos 9:10; Jos 12:4, Jos 12:5; Jos 13:12). It is called Beeshterah in Jos 21:27.
1Ch 6:72
Kedesh. There were three places of this name.
1. Kedesh, at the extreme south of Judah (Jos 15:23; Jos 19:20, Jos 19:21), perhaps the same with Kadesh-barnea (Jos 15:3).
2. The Kedesh of this verse, perhaps the same with the Kedesh of Jos 13:22; it is called Kishon in Jos 21:28.
3. The Kedesh of verse 76, i.e. Kedesh in Galilee, one of the cities of refuge in the tribe of Naphtali (Jos 19:37; Jos 20:7; Jos 21:32; Jdg 4:6-10). Daberath (Authorized Version, Dabaroh, Jos 21:28); mentioned as on the boundary of Zebulun in Jos 19:12.
1Ch 6:73
Ramoth; called in Jos 21:28, Jos 21:29, Jarmuth; a place of which nothing else is known, but possibly one with Remeth (Jos 19:21). Ahem; probably the En-gannim of Jos 19:21 and Jos 21:29, and perhaps a contraction of the name.
1Ch 6:74-76
Mashal, Hukok, Hammon, Kirjathaim, are found as Mishal, Helkath, Hammoth-dor, Kartan, in Jos 21:30, Jos 21:31, Jos 21:32; Jos 19:35.
1Ch 6:77
Unto the rest of the children of Merari. Since none have yet been spoken of as having received their cities, we find the explanation of these words in their order in Jos 21:34, “Unto the families of the children of Merari, the rest of the Levites.” To our list here, Jokneam and Kartah (Jos 21:34) need to be supplied, and Rimmon and Tabor here appear (Jos 21:35), there as Dimnah and Nahalai.
1Ch 6:78
Bezer. The full description of the place is “Bezer in the wilderness, in the land of the Mishor” (Deu 4:43), and “Bezer in the wilderness, in the Mishor,” i.e. “the plain,” or as some, “the downs” (Jos 20:8). This, as mentioned above, was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan. Jahzah (Authorized Version, Jos 21:36, Jahazah).
1Ch 6:79
The two names of this verse, with the two of the preceding, i.e. all the four names of the cities of Reuben, are absent from their proper place in the list in Jos 21:1-45. in the Hebrew Textus Receptus and the Vulgate, though found in Jos 13:18.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
1Ch 6:10, 1Ch 6:15.–Two high priests
Among the sons of Levi the family of Aaron was the most conspicuous, inasmuch as the Lord selected this family for the priestly office. The high priest was always of Aaronic blood. And the succession of high priests could no more be omitted from the chronicles of Israel than the succession of popes from those of Rome or the series of Archbishops of Canterbury from those of England. We select two high priests for special notice.
I. THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD IN NATIONAL PROSPERITY. Azariah executed this very important office during that part of the reign of Solomon which saw the dedication of the magnificent first temple. This was the very culmination of the splendour of the Hebrew monarchy, and the office and duties of the national pontiff would be encompassed with peculiar glory. As the religious representative of the nation, Azariah had sacred functions to discharge, especially on the day of atonement, when the sins belonging to the people’s prosperity were brought and confessed before the Lord, and favour shown to the sacrificing and repentant nation.
II. THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD IN NATIONAL ADVERSITY. Jehozadak, as in the succession, nominally filled the same office when the Jews were carried into captivity. He shared the lot, the exile, of his countrymen. It was well that he should go with the others and rather share the fate of the nation, than remain in Jerusalem to fulfil the form of his office. Where the nation was, it became its religious head to be also.
III. THE CONJUNCTION OF THESE TWO HIGH PRIESTS TEACHES A VALUABLE LESSON. Ministers of religion should dwell among the people, partake their lot, interest themselves in their concerns, and be their leaders in praise, in obedience, in submission. Touched, like their Master, with the feeling of the people’s infirmities, they are thus able to “rejoice with those who do rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” In such sympathy lies their true, their spiritual and legitimate, strength. Not as lords over God’s heritage, but as shepherds, sharing the lot of their flock, may they follow Christ, serve the people, and do the will of God.T.
1Ch 6:31.-The service of Song.
The ministry of psalmody, in its definite organization, was instituted by David. The occasion of this was when the ark was placed, as in a resting-place, in the tabernacle of the congregation. The arrangements then made were the germ of the more elaborate temple service under Solomon. From the time of David, “the sweet singer of Israel,” “the service of song in the house of the Lord” occupied an important position in the religious observances of Israel. To justify this, consider that
I. SINGING IS THE NATURAL EXPRESSION OF EMOTION. The outburst of joy, the fervour and rapture of love, the pathos of sorrow, find their form and utterance in song.
II. MAN‘S NATURE MAKES SONG THE SUITABLE EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS FEELING. The highest form of human feeling impels to the expression vocally appropriate. Psalmody, especially choral and congregational psalmody, forms the most inspiriting vehicle of religious gratitude, adoration, and praise.
III. SCRIPTURE HISTORY RECORDS SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS OF PSALMODY. The lyric outbursts of joy which took place when the Lord confounded Pharaoh and delivered his chosen people, were the first recorded instances. But David himself was the true leader of psalmody, both Hebrew and Christian. Christ and his disciples “sang an hymn,” and Paul and Silas sang praises at midnight in the gaol of Philippi. The early Christians were accustomed to sing God’s praises in their social assemblies.
IV. SCRIPTURE REPRESENTS THE SERVICE OF SONG AS ACCEPTABLE TO GOD. Presuming that the service, the homage, the love, are sincere, the inspired writers summon all God’s people to join in thus celebrating his praises. “Sing ye praises; praise God, all ye people,” is the admonition of the psalmist; and the apostle thus directs us: “Is any merry? let him sing psalms.”
V. SCRIPTURE SANCTIONS THE CONSECRATION TO PSALMODY OF LABOUR, ART, AND DEVOTION. We find that, under the old dispensation, there was a regular ministry consecrated to “the service of song.” It would be strange if it were lawful to spend time, money, strength, skill, upon exercises intended to give pleasure to men, and at the same time unlawful to offer aught to God save that which cost us nothing. God will have our best; and when we have offered this, of his own have we given him.
VI. SCRIPTURE REMINDS US THAT THE EFFICACY AND ACCEPTABLENESS OF THE SERVICE OF SONG DEPEND UPON THE WORSHIPPER‘S SPIRITUALITY AND SINCERITY. The form without the substance, the art without the spirit, the song without the love and faith it should express,these are vain and worthless. Let us offer acceptable sacrifices, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks unto his Name.T.
1Ch 6:32 -Waiting on their office.
The Levites were the ministers of the tabernacle and the temple, whose business it was, in subordination to the priests, to attend to the appointed services, sacrifices, ceremonies, and festivals. Of these, certain families were selected for the conduct of the musical part of the religious services. David, himself a poet and a musician, set apart these families; the members of which, from his time forward, were trained for “the service of song in the house of the Lord.” Clothed in white garments, some performed upon cymbals, psalteries, harps, and other instruments of music; whilst others lifted up their voices, and sang the praises of him who is “good, and whoso mercy endureth for ever.” It is recorded that, upon certain great occasions in Jewish history, as, for example, when Solomon dedicated his temple, when Hezekiah cleansed the same building and restored the dignity of its services, and when Josiah observed a solemn Passover, these musical attendants took a prominent part and rendered an effective service in the sacred solemnities that were observed (2Ch 5:12; 2Ch 29:27-30; 2Ch 35:15). Perhaps nothing at once more simple and more significant can be said of any men or any class of men than is here said in description and to the credit of the families of Heman, Asaph, and Jeduthun: “They waited on their office according to their order.” The language may fairly be taken as applicable to all true servants of God, to all true friends and followers of Christ.
I. PROVIDENCE APPOINTS FOR EVERY ONE OF US AN OFFICE TO FILL, A SERVICE TO RENDER.
1. Mark the divinity apparent in every human life. It is only within limits that we choose or that others choose for us. “The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord.” “Our times are in his hands.”
2. Mark the individuality of every man’s vocation. The Levites did not perform the priests’ service; and amongst the Levites all were not appointed to “the service of song.” So is it with us and our several positions in the Church and in the world. Nothing is weaker and more foolish than to say, “How well I could fill the position and do the work of my neighbour!” It is your duty to which you must look, that there may be no lack of service through your failure.
II. GOD EXPECTS US TO RENDER OUR APPOINTED SERVICE UPON A PROPER SYSTEM AND IN AN ORDERLY WAY. The Levites had their regulations to which they were obedient. And the same is true of us all. “Order is Heaven’s first law.” We have not only a duty to fulfilwe have to fulfil it at the right time and place. Qualities necessary for efficiency in ordinary business or professional life are requisite in the service of God. Take these three:
1. Diligence.
2. Method.
3. Perseverance.
Without these it is scarcely possible to glorify God in a practical and active life. Without these we shall lose our self-respect, and we shall lose our influence over our fellow-men.
III. FOR SUCH SERVICE WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE DIVINE LORD AND JUDGE.
1. The watchful eye of God is always upon us.
2. By providential appointment, careful fidelity makes its mark upon our character.
3. “We must all of us appear before the judgment-seat.” “The fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.”
IV. IN OUR ENDEAVORS TO RENDER SUCH SERVICE, WE HAVE A MODEL AND A MOTIVE IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
1. Consider how Christ “waited upon his office.” He came to do the will of God. “He took upon him the form of a servant.” He was found faithful. It was only when he could say, “It is finished!” that he consented to die. In life and in death it was his meat and drink to do his Father’s will. Thus he left us an example.
2. Consider that his humiliation, his cross, are the inspiration of the service and obedience of his people. It is the love of Christ which constraineth us. Do not suppose that Divine love cannot work according to the principles of human order and system; these are the machinery, but that is the motive.
APPLICATION. We have here a rebuke to the irreligious, and a summons to a better life. We have also an admonition and encouragement to those who are endeavouring to serve their Saviour, and glorify their God.T.
1Ch 6:48, 1Ch 6:49–Levites and priests.
These two verses contain a brief account of the offices of the two orders of ministry in the Jewish Church.
I. LESSONS PECULIAR TO THE OLD COVENANT. Nothing was more prominent or important in Israel than the provision alluded to in this passage. We are reminded:
1. That amongst the chosen people there was a consecrated tribe, and within this a consecrated family.
2. That thus a provision was made for perpetual temple worship and appointed sacrifices.
3. That, in obedience to these prescribed ordinances, Israel abode beneath the favour of Jehovah.
II. LESSONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO THE RELIGIOUS LIFE.
1. Order and decency are becoming in the service of a righteous and holy God. It is possible to regard the form and neglect the substances but it is also possible to despise the form and so to lose the substance.
2. In the service of God, the most menial office is honourable, whilst the loftiest office can never be executed by man otherwise than imperfectly and unworthily.
3. Under the Christian dispensation, all believers are ministers and priests, daily serving in God’s spiritual temple, and offering, through the Divine Mediator and Intercessor, spiritual and acceptable sacrifices. Every. family and every individual has an appointed office and ministration.T.
1Ch 6:57 -The city of refuge.
Hebron was one of the six cities of refuge, which were provided to shelter the manslayer from the wrath of the avenger of blood, and thus to cheek the savage lawlessness of a warlike people in a primitive state of society. They are, in one passage of the New Testament, regarded as emblematical of the provision made in Christ for the security of the penitent and returning sinner. There is suggested
I. A CASE OF NEED AND DANGER. The cause of the peril and alarm is sin. And the righteous Law and retributive government of God render the case of the sinner one serious in itself and its issues. This appears from the gospel admonitions to repentance.
II. A PROVISION OF MERCY AND WINDOW. As the city of refuge was appointed for the innocent manslayer’s escape from vengeance and death, so the guilty sinner is the object of the Divine compassion which has provided in Christ a safe and eternal shelter. In the Divine Redeemer is refuge from sin and condemnation, is the favour and life of God.
III. AN ACTION OF FAITH AND ENERGY. The city was of no use except the imperilled Israelite fled unto it for safety. So with Christ, whose almighty sufficiency avails for those, and those only, who accept him and shelter themselves in his riven side. They are saved who have “fled for refuge to the hope set before them in the gospel.”
IV. A DIVINELY PLEDGED SECURITY FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST. The Jewish Law assured of safety those who made use of the provision for refuge. And the Divine word and faithfulness are pledged to those who confide in Christ, that they shall never perish, but shall have eternal life.
V. A TRUE GOSPEL. It is the office of the Church of the Redeemer both to warn sinners of the danger to which they are exposed and to point them to the one only Refuge provided by Divine wisdom for their security and peace. It is a refuge accessible to all and sufficient for all, and there is no reason in the heart of God why any poor sinner should remain outside this refuge and spiritually perish.T.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
1Ch 6:1-30–Lessons from lists; or, a sermon in names.
Here is a number of names; they belong to men of varied characters and different careers, though all of them were children of privilege, most of them in a high degree. We learn
I. THAT THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF PRIVILEGED MEN. We might suppose that men who have come under the same class of influences would be much like one another in spirit and behaviour. But such a supposition would be a great mistake. It is true that there is much of human nature in us all, and that the best men have their failings while the worst have their redeeming points; but it remains true that between man and man, having the same advantages, there is often a great gulf found. In the same list of names of the sons of Levi we have Moses and Samuel, who were holy among the holy, and also the sons of Samuel, who accepted bribes and perverted judgment (1Ch 6:3, 1Ch 6:28). It is painful to think that, while among the children of privilege may be found some that are like God himself in, their spirit and their life, there are others in whose heart the basest passions dwell, and whoso lives are pestilent and shameful. It is sadly possible for those that are “exalted to heaven” in privilege to be “cast down to hell” in guilt and condemnation.
II. THAT THERE IS A CLOSE INTERMINGLING OF GOOD AND BAD UPON THE EARTH. This is a list of men belonging to different generations, but we are reminded by contrast of the truth that good and bad are contemporaneous and closely intermingled. Here the wheat and the tares grow together. Dwelling beneath the same roof, sitting down to the same hearth and table, working in the same shop, writing at the same desk, walking the same street, are the holy and the profane, the pure and the unclean, the generous and the selfish, the wise and the foolish.
1. What a reason for watchfulness and prayer!
2. What opportunity for usefulness!
III. THAT OUR RECORD WILL BE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF GOD AS WELL AS IN THE LIVES OF MEN. Not much is written in the Book of God respecting most of these; we know nothing of them but their names. A deeper obscurity than this will be our portion; not even our names will go down one century, certainly they will not descend to thirty centuries. We need not regret that; but we shall do well to remember:
1. That not only our names but our actions are written in some imperishable record in God’s unerasible handwriting.
2. That our lives are written and are repeated in the hearts and lives of men whom we have influenced. Fame is rare enough and vain enough. Lasting work, abiding influence, is common enough and serious enough.C.
1Ch 6:31 -The service of song in the house of the Lord.
The “house of the Lord” is the place whither we go primarily to worship him. So, at least, it should be. We may have learnt to go thither in order to enjoy, sacred oratory or even for some less honourable purpose. The primary end of service in the sanctuary is the worship of God; and the service of song should be regarded as one most important feature of public worship. In sacred song we present ourselves to God in every attitude which our souls can assume toward him, and if we went and sang together with the heart as well as with the voice, and then returned, we should have rendered an acceptable offering and gained a valuable blessing. If “the service of song in the house of the Lord” be perfect, or as perfect as it is possible to make it, there will be
I. AN APPROACH TO GOD IN EVERY VARIETY OF SPIRITUAL ACCESS. In our hymns:
1. We shall adore him, as when we sing, “Great God, how infinite art thou!” etc; or “My God, how wonderful thou art!” etc.
2. We shall praise and bless him, as when we sing, “Oh for a thousand tongues to sing,” etc.
3. We shall confess cur sin to him, as when we sing, “Oppressed with sin and woe,” etc.
4. We shall make supplication to him; for there is no essential distinction between “praise” and “prayer.” In the latter we frequently bless God for his mercies, while in the former we often supplicate him for his blessing, as when we sing, “Guide me, O thou great Jehovah,” etc.
5. We shall reconsecrate ourselves to him, as when we sing, “My Saviour, I am thine,” etc; or “Lord, in the strength of grace,” etc.
6. We shall intercede with him on behalf of others, as when we sing, “O Spirit of the living God,” etc.
II. A SACRED SUMMONS, AS IN HIS HOLY PRESENCE, TO FIDELITY AND DEVOTION. We shall call upon ourselves and one another to illustrate our truest and highest convictions as Christian men and the soldiers of Christ, as when we sing, “Stand up, stand up for Jesus!” etc; or “Ye servants of the Lord,” etc. We shall have holy and elevating fellowship with the whole Church of Christ, as when we sing, “Come, let us join our friends above,” etc.
III. SPIRITUAL AS WELL AS VOCAL PARTICIPATION. Our service of song will be only a hollow sound, unmusical in the Master’s ear, if we rise no higher than the harmony of blending voices. There must be living, spiritual sympathy. All souls must join together as well as all tongues. In this great matter of the service of song, as in all other things, “the Lord looketh upon the heart.” We must “make melody in our hearts” unto him, or the sound of our song will rise no higher than the roof of our building; it will not reach his throne.
IV. UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION. Choral singing may find its place in the new dispensation as it did in the old; but it must take the “lower room.” Congregational psalmody is the desideratum, the perfect thing, the standard at which to aim. “Every creature in heaven and on the earth” did John hear saying, “Blessing, and honour, and glory” etc. (Rev 5:13); “A great multitude, which no man could number… stood.; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God,” etc. (Rev 7:9, Rev 7:10). Let the Church on earth anticipate the Church in heaven, by every voice, the voice of a great multitude, being heard in the accents of praise, participating in “the service of song in the house of the Lord.” This will be:
1. A source of joy to each participant.
2. A service to fellow-worshippers.
3. An acceptable offering to the Saviour.C.
1Ch 6:32-81–Religious culture.
The promised land was to be a well-cultivated country in more ways than one. Not only was its soil to be well tilled, but its population was to be well trained. Harvests of grain were to be gathered from its fields, and fruits of holiness were to be seen in the lives of its sons and daughters. Excellent and ample provision was made for this religious culture. It was to be, as it should be everywhere and always
I. ATTRACTIVE IN FEATURE. The tabernacle service (1Ch 6:32), and subsequently the temple service, was made inviting and enjoyable with sacred song (1Ch 6:32). The singers sang the praises of Jehovah, and care was taken that they should not be absent from their post. Music, pleasant and attractive, was to make the heart more glad when the Israelites were summoned to go up to the house of the Lord. We are not only at liberty, but are under obligation, to draw as large a company as we can attract to the sanctuary by making its services agreeable and inviting. Good reading, good singing, appropriate prayer, simple and short enough to be entered into by the people, earnest and faithful exhortation, provision for all bodily needs,these are rightful and desirable things; they should be religiously provided.
II. WELL ORGANIZED. “They waited on their office according to their order” (1Ch 6:32). Every necessary arrangement was made that, when one course had concluded, another should begin: the temple would never be without those who were wanted to take up what others were laying down. Things must not be left to the impulse of the hour or to happen as they may: everything is to be carefully and systematically arranged in the service of God, in the culture of the soul.
III. VARIED IN MANNER OF SERVICE. “The Levites were appointed unto all manner of service,” etc. (1Ch 6:48). These were
(1) of many kinds; and they were probably
(2) of many degrees of importance.
Certainly there were many that were menial, and there must have been some that were valuable and high. The priests, we know, had nearer access to God, and engaged in the more sacred offices (1Ch 6:49). In the Church of Christ there must be these varieties in kind and in degree. We can only cover the whole ground of sacred service, of religious culture, by dividing the work into many parts, and by some taking higher while others take lower posts. Let us feel that
(1) any work done for God and at his bidding is highly honourable;
(2) those who are apportioned to the simpler offices are least burdened with responsibility;
(3) they who undertake the most sacred functions have especial need of human devotedness and Divine direction.
IV. BASED ON POPULAR INTELLIGENCE. Here we have the cities through which the Levites were distributed. They were to be scattered throughout the land, to be mingled with every tribe, in order that they might impart religious instruction to all (Deu 33:10; and see 2Ch 17:9; 2Ch 30:22; 2Ch 35:3). It was their function to “teach the good knowledge of the Lord,” to make known and understood the Law of God. The service of Jehovah was to rest on popular intelligence. Ignorance is not the mother of devotion; it is the fruitful parent of superstition and folly. Religion builds on knowledge, thrives on intelligence. It is the aim of those who wish for a land well cultivated for God that in every town and every smallest village the instructor in Christian truth shall be found:
1. Making known the will of God in Christ Jesus.
2. Interpreting and explaining, so far as may be, the mind of the Divine Master.
3. Enforcing his will by earnest words, and by a blameless, beautiful life.C.
HOMILIES BY F. WHITFIELD
1Ch 6:31-48 -Priesthood and service.
In the rather lengthy genealogy of the priesthood in this chapter, there is much instruction. The children of God have each their appointed service in the vineyard of the Lord. We have here four kinds of service
(1) The service of rest (1Ch 6:31);
(2) the service of song (1Ch 6:31);
(3) the service of waiting (1Ch 6:32, 1Ch 6:33);
(4) the service of work (1Ch 6:48).
This is the Divine order of every believer’s service.
I. THE SERVICE BEST. Christ Jesus, the true Ark, rests in his own finished work on the cross. “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of the throne of God.” His people find their rest also in that finished work. “We which have believed do enter into rest.” This is the first in the Divine order. There can be no service of song till we know the service of rest. You cannot praise .God till you know your sins are forgiven. You have nothing to praise him for. This, then, is the first service in which you are called to engagethe service of rest. Rest in Jesus, rest in his finished work for your soul, rest in his full and free and ever. lasting salvation. Header, have you thus found rest in Christ?
II. THE SERVICE OF SONG. After the service of rest, you can enter on the service of song. And what is that song? “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus;” “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen; ‘ “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” These are some of the notes in that service of song which they can sing who have entered on the service of rest. Reader, can you sing them?
III. Next is THE SERVICE OF WAITING; for “They also serve who only stand and wait.” Indeed, it is one of the highest services in which the redeemed soul can engage. What is this service of waiting? It is that spirit that waits upon God continually, in each day and each hour looking up and saying, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” It is renouncing our own will, our own way, our own inclination, our own pleasure, and as “the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God.” The cloud may tarry long, but wait for it. Waiting time is not only never lost time, but it is most blessed discipline for the soul. “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry” (Hab 2:3). Reader, are you waiting thus upon God?
IV. Lastly, we have THE SERVICE OF WORK. Mark what is said of this: “Their brethren also the Levites were appointed unto all manner of service of the tabernacle of the house of God” (verse 48). Yes, “all manner of service.” There are all kinds of work in the great spiritual temple of God, and work for all. And this work may be of the very humblest kind. One day the disciples may be summoned to hold converse with Moses and Elias, and to behold their Saviour transfigured. What a privilege! some will say. A few days afterwards they are sent to unloose a colt and foalto do what had all the appearance of an act of robbery! Yet it is the same Master who sends on both errands. Some of the eminent ones of Israel, while passing through the wilderness with the tabernacle, had to spend whole years in taking care of pins, others in taking care of curtains, some of boards, and bars, and pillars, and sockets (Num 3:1-51.). Yet all was God’s work. It was to the Lord they did it, not to man. Look not at the work, but at the Master. It is the Master that makes the meanest service grand and noble. “Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.” This makes the “cup of cold water” grand. Jesus!this makes a tattered thought glorious. Jesus!this ennobles every work, makes the meanest honourable, the smallest great. And the mightiest work that has not this motive is lighter than the small dust of the balance. Reader, never forget the Spirit’s order of service: resting, praising, waiting, working.W.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
1Ch 6:14, 1Ch 6:15 -A witness in a man’s name.
In the midst of a long list of names the compiler of this record stops, as if one name set him thinking. The name was one with a significant meaning; yet it was one that seemed very strange when taken in the light of the man’s history. This name, Jehozadak, meant “Jehovah is righteous;” but the man who bore it “went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem,” “It has been noted as remarkable that the heads of both the priestly and the royal stock carried to Babylon should have had names (Zedekiah and Jehozaoak) composed of the same elements, and assertive of the ‘justice of God,’ which their sufferings showed forth so signally.”
I. THE WITNESS OF A SIGNIFICANT NAME. This was a singular recurrence to the ways of an older time, when children’s names were given as embodying circumstances of birth, feelings of parents, etc; and when names were changed to express new relations of the life. In those earlier times names became elements of Divine revelations and agents of Divine witness and teaching. Ab-ra-ham taught men by his name, and so did Is-ra-el. Other instances of revival of this witness by names may be found in the prophetic names given by the later prophets to their children, such as Immanuel, Shear-jashub, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz. It is interesting to add that, among the glories of the future held out before the faithful, is this, “And I will give him a new name.” So Jehozadak had his mission in his name. Down into captivity he went, but in all his intercourse with the humbled and captive people, he pleaded with his name, saying, “Jehovah is righteous.” And so we may learn that the least thing about us, a matter as seemingly unimportant as our name, may be taken up into God’s service, and used by him. Therefore we “present our bodies” (our entire selves) “a living sacrifice.”
II. THE POSSIBLE CONTRAST BETWEEN A MAN‘S NAME (OR THE PROMISE OF A MAN‘S BIRTH) AND HIS CIRCUMSTANCES. It looked to be a most unlikely thing that a man whose very name declared that “Jehovah was righteous” would ever go into captivity, and be remarkable for a suffering and humiliated life. And yet this is the contrast often observed. It puzzled Asaph and the writer of Job and the writer of Ecclesiastes, in the olden time. It puzzles God’s people still. Men born in sunshine spend lives in the ever-deepening shadows; and sufferers for life, lying in their sick-beds, are the noblest of all witnesses that “Jehovah is righteous.” Illustrate by the exquisite reference in the life of Dr. Arnold of Rugby, to the beautiful witness for God made through long years by his invalid sister. Can there be Jehovah’s righteousness seen even in the sufferings which come upon men as the natural fruitage of their own wrong-doings? for that is precisely the case with Israel crushed under the Babylonian tyranny. The presence of Jehozadak and Zedekiah among the captives declared that there can be. Look below the train of causes of which captivity seems the natural effect, and we may see God’s purposes being accomplished, God’s laws being vindicated, and God’s Judgments being executed. Ever we may turn away from the mere course of history and details of events, and watch the “Judge of all the earth doing right.” If, however, the suffering of the good troubles us, we may find rest in an appeal to the great caseour Lord suffered. He was not merely “smitten of God and afflicted.” There was Divine righteousness in the affliction. He was man’s Sin-bearer, and judged for others. Here is a firm foundation-truth, then, which no earthly appearances or strange human experiences can shake. Proclaim it once again, and proclaim it ever”Jehovah is righteous.”R.T.
1Ch 6:31, 1Ch 6:32 -The ministry of song.
To King David is traced the ordering and arranging of the service of song in connection with Divine worship, but we are hardly justified in regarding him as the originator of sacred music and song. Miriam’s chant, and the songs of Moses, Deborah, Hannah, etc; indicate previous culture of both the gifts of poetry and of music, and the relation in which both stood to public acts of worship. In the earlier Mosaic system there was the clanging of cymbals and blowing of trumpets on special occasions, but probably the connection of intelligent words of trust and praise with the musical chant, in which the worshippers may unite, led by a trained choir, must be traced to David. It is one of his great achievements that he helped to make Divine worship more interesting and attractive, lifting it from the sacrifice of things to the sacrifice of praise, the utterance to God of thankful, trustful, and loving feelings; man offering to God the sacrifice of his own emotions, and finding such sacrifice accounted a “sweet savour.” It will at once be recognized that the poetical and musical endowments of David prepared him to serve his God and his fellows in this particular ministry. And his own practice and culture of the gifts enlarged his preparation, and so his fitness for the work, when the providential time for it came. The service of song was commenced in the new tabernacle erected by David on Mount Zion, but probably not until after the ark was restored and made to rest within it; and the service was greatly extended and elaborated to fit in with the more gorgeous surroundings of Solomon’s temple. Many of the psalms were composed for use in the public worship, and are arranged for solo and chorus, or for answering choruses. “David put the musical part of the service under the direction of Asaph. Distinctions are made between the different kinds of instruments for which different psalms were suited, indicating that bands composed of stringed instruments, and other bands composed of wind instruments, were employed. We have also notices of trained men and women singers. The singing was managed by responses, or by solo and chorus, many of the psalms lending themselves readily to these forms of music.” Taking the references in these verses as suggestive of a general truth, we dwell on
I. THE FACT THAT SONG IS A DIVINE GIFT. Among the pagans it was so recognized, as it was also in David’s time. It is singular to find how small a place poetry and music took in the apostolic Church. The power of song is found characteristic of individuals, and it often follows in family lines, as is illustrated in the cases of Asaph and Heman. It becomes, for the individual, the entrusted talent, the inspired gift, the faculty which is to be put out to the Lord’s use, the speciality which gives a man his niche and his work.
II. SUCH A GIFT MAY BE CONSECRATED TO THE DIVINE SERVICE. It has its distinctly fitting place in relation to public service; and the modern developments of worship give it a most prominent and important place. This is true of all forms that public worship takes, and may be precisely illustrated in relation to each form. The importance of song as attracting to the house of God, as interesting and spiritually benefiting those engaged in worship, add as finding audible expression for devout feeling, should be fully enforced. It therefore becomes the duty of all who have the gift to lay it on the altar of God’s service in the sanctuary.
III. SUCH A GIFT MAY BE USED FOR THE COMFORT AND ,HELP OF OTHERS. There is a sphere for the ministry of song in our homes, in society, at sick-beds, in visiting the poor, and among the children. Illustrate by references to Philip Phillips, the singing pilgrim, and to Ira Sankey, the companion of D. L. Moody.
IV. SUCH A GIFT MAY BE TRAINED AND SET IN ORDER FOR THE MOST EFFICIENT SERVICE, both in public worship and in private spheres. We are responsible to God for faithful and wise use of such a gift, and for the efficient culture of it. Impress on all who have the endowment the duty of using it for all gracious and loving and helpful ends in all the spheres where they may be set.R.T.
1Ch 6:48 -The honourableness of lesser service.
It is a familiar thought to the Christian that what is done to others is really done unto Christ. Upon it rests our Divine Master’s observation, and to it he gives his Divine approval. And we are permitted even to consider that such approval may rest upon so small and so simple a thing as the offering of “a cup of water.” We have the corresponding teaching from the older dispensation suggested in this verse. What was done in the old tabernacle service was done unto God, and was accepted of him. Common work, porters’ work, scavengers’ work, all the wide circle of commonplace Levites’ work, servants’ work, was as truly service to God as the offerings of priests and the chantings of the singers. Two things may be fully opened and contrasted.
I. MAN‘S ESTIMATE OF THE GREAT AND SMALL. To him the great is that which makes a large figure to the eye, and man has in every age a set of arbitrary standards by which he judges the great and small.
II. GOD‘S ESTIMATE. To him its mere world figure and relation are of little significance. Things are judged according to their capacity for expressing character, quality, principle, virtue. To God a thing is miserably small that can offer no sphere for the utterance of a soul’s love, and loyalty, and obedience, and unselfishness, and trust. So often to God man’s high things are low, man’s first things are last. Nothing has character in itself. It gains character only by the spirit in which it is done. Then we ask what spirit is it which can give greatness or littleness to our human actions. There are certainly these two:
(1) loyalty to God and the right; and
(2) service to others.
St. Paul argues that the “lesser services” have the honourable stamp of superior necessity and usefulness. Porters’ work in the temple bore directly on decency and cleanliness, and cultivated the idea of the pure and the orderly in God’s worship. As well do without priests as without Levites. “Careful less to please thee much than to serve thee perfectly.”R.T.
1Ch 6:49 -The constant work of atonement
It is only to the atonements of the Mosaic system and the general truths which they suggest that we propose here to direct attention. The subject of the Divine atonement for sin is too large and many-sided for efficient treatment in any one homily or sermon; and yet there is the danger of producing an imperfect or erroneous impression when any piece or portion of the great subject is isolated for consideration. The word “atonement” in the Old Testament means a “covering over,” and “hiding from view;” and it is applied to some sacrifice whose acceptableness covers over and hides from view the unworthiness and transgression of him who brings it, or to some act, such as that of Phinehas, which, because it vindicates the Divine honour, Law, and righteousness, is regarded as covering over iniquity, and making possible the pardon of the transgressors. But some changes passed in the connotation of the term, so that the New Testament Greek equivalent became the word “reconciliation,” which appears to regard the word as at-one-merit, but does not carry over the idea of covering transgression by a sacrifice or a loyal act. The appointment of Aaron and his sons for this particular work emphasizes the fact that, under the older dispensation, there was constant need for atonement. Every individual needed that it should be made for him again and again, and every year a great public atonement was made for the sins of the people. The reason appears to be this: every fresh act of wilfulness and sin imperilled the standing of the individual and the nation as within the Divine covenant, and brought down upon them all the penalties of the broken covenantpenalties involving even the surrender of life. It would help greatly to clearness of view if we recognized that atonement always bears relation to man‘s standing before God, and not to man’s personal cleanness or cleansing. The constant atonement covered the sin which broke the covenant-relations, and restored, for the individual and the nation, the old covenant-conditions. The daily burnt offering was a daily atonement, or vindicatory act, which covered the people’s sin and set them again in full covenant-standing. The private burnt offerings did the same thing for the individual. And the “day of atonement” did it, in a sublime way, as a grand national spectacle, for the due impression of the entire nation. As carried over into Christianity, and gaining its moral and spiritual aspects, we must duly conserve the features illustrated in the Old Testament atonements. These are:
1. Man‘s lost standing with God by reason of his transgressions. This is fully argued by St. Paul in the earlier chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. Beyond and besides other effects of human sin, this must be fully recognizedit sets us all out of our true standing with God, out of the covenant-relation which is conditioned by our obedience and faithfulness.
2. Man‘s standing recovered on the ground of something offered to God that is infinitely acceptable to him. In Judaic symbol, the spotlessly pure and absolutely complete animal presented entire. In Christian history, the offering of the person of the Son of God and Son of man, the Lamb without blemish or spot, on the altar of the Divine will.
3. The full acceptance of the atoning sacrifice, by the offerer, as the representation to God of his own will and purpose. This declared the sincerity of a Mosaic atonement; this makes Christ’s offering to be for us. There is, however, for us no need of a constantly renewed atonement. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews argues this from the surpassing dignity and worth of the atonement offered by Christ, and from the relation in which he, the Divine Son and Divine man, stands both to God and to us. But that one sacrifice is our constant daily pledge to God that we will keep in the covenant of holy service to him. Every morning to name Christ’s Name is to do, in effect, what the Jew did every morning by sharing in the burnt offering. It is to declare our standing within the new covenant, and to pledge ourselves afresh that we will be true and faithful to all its responsibilities and claims.R.T.
1Ch 6:54–Carnal provisions for spiritual men.
The references here made to the provisions for the support of the priests, and the allotment of cities for their residence, are designed to confirm their claim for reinstatement in their properties on the return from the Captivity. Priests and Levites had a right to this independent support by the appointment of God and the good will of the people they served. Levi had no proper tribal allotment. This tribe was separated for the religious service of the whole nation. Its material sustenance was made dependent on the people it served, and each tribe gave up certain of its towns for the habitation of Levitical families, and certain lands to provide them with necessary food. So we have introduced for consideration, the dependence of religious teachers on those they serve in spiritual things for the due supply of their material wantsa subject to which St. Paul gives careful consideration, urging that they who “preach the gospel” may reasonably expect to “live of the gospel.” Those engaged in spiritual ministrations properly expect to receive carnal ministrations,
I. THE DIVINE DESIGNATION OF MEN TO SPIRITUAL WORK. Seen in Aaron and his descendants, in the prophets, in the Lord Jesus Christ himself, in apostles, and equally in the Christian Church. A designation recognized in
(1) the demand for such work;
(2) the Divine endowment of men for such work; and
(3) the call of men to undertake such work,
by the inward impulses of the Holy Spirit, by the leadings of Divine providence, and by the recognition of fitness on the part of our fellow-men. Spiritual work has in every age formed a sphere of its own, and those engaged in it have been wisely separated from common business responsibilities. Good reasons are found in
(1) the absorbing character of spiritual duties;
(2) the prolonged and continuous preparations which such duties demand;
(3) the relation of efficient spiritual work to personal soul-culture;
(4) the exigencies of human life making demands on spiritual men at all hours and seasons;
(5) and the tendency of thorough occupation with spiritual things to unfit men for the stress and toil necessary to achieve success in business life.
Some forms of spiritual work (as Sunday school, visiting, etc.) are found compatible with a life amid ordinary carnal scenes; but it is well that some should leave “serving tables,” and give themselves “to the Word and prayer.”
II. SUCH DESIGNATION TO SPIRITUAL WORK DOES NOT RELIEVE MEN FROM CARNAL NECESSITIES. The whole circle of personal and family needs remains; and God has never seen fit to employ any miraculous means for the supply of such needs for Levites, prophets, or apostles. The exception seems to be Elijah. But even God’s own Son, the world’s spiritual Redeemer, might not make stones bread, though he felt hunger, thirst, weariness, and want.
III. THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON MEN TO ARRANGE THE CARNAL PROVISIONS. God sends us back on two principles:
(1) brotherhood;
(2) gratitude for blessing received.
Each should find for the other what that other lacked. Those who are constantly receiving spiritual blessings are bound to acknowledge them by kindly and thoughtful gifts and provisions. Such should ever be arranged on liberal and generous scales, and such provision is sure to prove a means of grace to those who provide. St. Paul’s teaching and example on this matter are opposed. He distinctly claimed full temporal support for all Christian teachers; and he refused such aid in his own case for such sufficient reasons as make his case an exception that proves the rule.
Show wherein lies the distinction between the spiritual and the carnal, and carefully urge that it must not be unduly pressed, or the spiritual man will exaggerate his separateness, and the carnal man will feel freed from all claim to be spiritual. The carnal man is to become spiritual, learning how to be “in the world, and not of it;” and aid in attaining this the spiritual man is called to provide. So there is to be mutual helpfulness.R.T.
1Ch 6:57, 1Ch 6:67 -The doctrinal witness of the refuge cities.
(See Exo 21:13; Num 35:6, Num 35:11, Num 35:14; Deu 19:1-10; Jos 20:1-9.) The severity of the Mosaic laws and institutions has often been dwelt on, but a careful estimate of the prevailing sentiments of surrounding nations, in those early times, would rather impress us with the mercifulness of Judaism, and the ways in which customs which pressed with undue severity on individual rights and liberties were toned and modified, in the East two things are familiar which appear strange and unworthy to us:
(1) irresponsible governments, usually involving tyrannous dealings; and
(2) a very light estimate of the value of human life.
The mercifulness of Judaism is plainly seen in the Mosaic appointment of the refuge cities. The laws relating to murder are clearly defined, and the different forms of the crime are duly recognized. Premeditated murder is distinguished from unintentional homicide, and the man who accidentally kills another is secured until he can prove the circumstances of the accident. But in the arrangement made for him Moses wisely retains the older sentiment of justice, which called upon the nearest relative of a slain man to act as his blood-avenger, or goel. Amongst the other nations, as the Arab tribes of the present day, “any bloodshed whatever, whether wilful or accidental, laid the homicide open to the duteous revenge of the relatives and family of the slain person, who again in their turn were then similarly watched and hunted by the opposite party, until a family war of extermination had legally settled itself from generation to generation, without the least prospect of a peaceful termination.” Moses allowed the goel still to pursue; but the homicide had his chance of escape. Cities conveniently situated on both the west and east of Jordan were made refuge cities, and the roads to them were kept clear. Once within the gates a calm consideration of the circumstances was assured; and only if proved guilty of wilful murder could the man be delivered up to the goel-avenger.
I. THE SOCIAL WORKING OF THE REFUGE SYSTEM. Its influence may be shown in:
1. Its cultivation of a worthier sense of justice.
2. Its teaching as to the relation of motive to crime, such motive giving the act of crime its serious quality.
3. Its tendency to relieve the individual from the thought of executing his own vengeance.
4. Its claim to have a fixed authority for the settling of all social laws, and their vindication by due punishments. A worthy and strongly enforced legislative system lies at the very foundation of the peaceful order and stable progress of every nation. The element of personal passion must be removed if punishment is to be wisely administered; men must be willing to put aside their own avengings if social order is to be secured. Nations need to be very careful to secure purity in the administration of justice.
II. THE RELIGIOUS SUGGESTIONS OF THE REFUGE SYSTEM. These will differ according to the school of thought to which the preacher may belong. From the evangelical standpoint, the city of refuge symbolizes Christ. The avenger represents the law-penalty under which the sinner comes, which seeks his death. There is made by Christ Jesus a free and open road to himself, the Refuge. But the sinner must himself arise and flee, running into the shelter of the ever-opened gates. When “in Christ,” if a due examination be made of his sins, the all-sufficing answer which secures eternal safety is this: “Jesus has already borne the penalty of them all, and the Law cannot revive its satisfied claim.” There is “no condemnation” for those who have “fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before them in the gospel.”
More generally treated, we may learn:
1. The Divine righteousness in affixing a natural and necessary penalty to every act of sin.
2. The fallen state of man, in that he so readily makes holy avenging into passionate revenging.
3. The mercifulness of the Divine administration, in that God puts man’s passions under wise restraints; and secures the fair, considerate, and honourable treatment even of the sinner.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2. The Descendants of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, in a Double Series: 1Ch 6:1-15
1Ch 6:1-2.The sons of Levi: Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. And these are the 3names of the sons of Gershom: Libni and Shimi. And the sons of Kohath: 4Amram and Izhar, and Hebron and Uzziel. The sons of Merari: Mahli and 5Mushi. And these are the families after their fathers.
6To Gershom: Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son. Joah his son, Iddo his son, Zerah his son, Jeatherai his son.
7The sons of Kohath: Amminadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son. 8, 9, Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his son. Tahath his son, 10Uriel his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his son. And the sons of Elkanah: 11Amasai and Ahimoth. Elkanah his Song of Solomon , 1 Elkanah of Zoph his son, and Nahath 12, 13his son. Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son. And the sons of Samuel: the first-born2 Vashni, and Abiah.
14The sons of Merari: Mahli, Libni his son, Shimi his son, Uzzah his son. 15Shima his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son.
3. The Ancestors of the Levitical Songmasters Heman, Asaph, and Ethan: 1Ch 6:16-34
16And these are they whom David set over the singing in the house of the 17Lord, after the resting of the ark. And they ministered before the dwelling of the tent of meeting with singing, until Solomon built the house of the Lord 18in Jerusalem, and they attended in their order to their service. And these are they who attended, and their sons: of the sons of Kohath: Heman the 19singer, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel. The son of Elkanah, the son of 20Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah. The son of Zuph,3 the son of 21Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai. The son of Elkanah, the 22son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah. The son of Tahath, 23the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah. The son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel.
24And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, Asaph the son of 25Berechiah, the son of Shima. The son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah, the 26son of Malchiah. The son of Ethni, the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah. 27, 28The son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimi. The son of Jahath, the son of Gershom, the son of Levi.
29And the sons of Merari, their brethren on the left hand : Ethan the son of 30Kishi, the son of Abdi, the son of Malluch. The son of Hashabiah, the son 31of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah. The son of Amzi, the son of Bani, the son of 32Shamer. The son of Mahli, the son of Mushi, the son of Merari, the son of Levi.
33And their brethren the Levites, given for all service of the tabernacle of 34the house of God. And Aaron and his sons offered on the altar of burnt-offering, and on the altar of ineense, for all the work of the holy of holies, and to atone for Israel, in all that Moses, the servant of God, had commanded.
4. The Series of High Priests from Eleazar to Ahimaaz (in the time of Solomon) : 1Ch 6:35-38
35And these are the sons of Aaron: Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son, 36, 37Abishua his son. Bukki his son, Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son. Meraioth 38his son, Amariah his son, Ahitub his son. Zadok his son, Ahimaaz his son.
5. The Towns of the Levites: 1Ch 6:39-66
39And these are their dwellings, by their districts, in their border, of the sons of Aaron: of the family of the Kohathites, for to them was the lot. 40And they gave them Hebron, in the land of Judah, and its suburbs round 41about it. And the field of the city and its villages they gave to Caleb the 42son of Jephunneh. And to the sons of Aaron they gave the free towns,4Hebron and Libnah and its suburbs, and Jattir and Eshtemoa and its suburbs. 43, 44And Hilen5 and its suburbs, Debir and its suburbs. And Ashan and its 45suburbs, and Bethshemesh and its suburbs. And out of the tribe of Benjamin: Geba and its suburbs, and Allemeth and its suburbs, and Anathoth and its suburbs; all their cities were thirteen cities in their families.
46And to the sons of Kohath that remained of the family of the tribe, were 47from the half-tribe, the half of Manasseh, by lot, ten cities. And to the sons of Gershom for their families, of the tribe of Issachar, and of the tribe of Asher, and of the tribe of Naphtali, and of the tribe of Manasseh, in Bashan, 48thirteen cities. To the sons of Merari for their families, of the tribe of Reuben, and of the tribe of Gad, and of the tribe of Zebulun, by lot twelve cities.
49And the sons of Israel gave to the Levites the cities and their suburbs. 50And they gave by lot out of the tribe of the sons of Judah, and the tribe of the sons of Simeon, and the tribe of the sons of Benjamin, these cities which they called by names.
51And of the families of the sons of Kohath, some had the cities of their 52border out of the tribe of Ephraim. And they gave them the free towns, Shechem and its suburbs in Mount Ephraim, and Gezer and its suburbs. 53, 54And Jokmeam and its suburbs, and Beth-horon and its suburbs. And 55Aijalon and its suburbs, and Gathrimmon and its suburbs. And out of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Aner and its suburbs, and Bilam and its suburbs, to the family of the remaining sons of Kohath.
56To the sons of Gershom, out of the family of the half-tribe of Manasseh, 57Golan in Bashan and its suburbs, and Ashtaroth and its suburbs. And out of the tribe of Issachar, Kedesh and its suburbs, Daberath and its suburbs. 58, 59And Ramoth and its suburbs, and Anem and its suburbs. And out of the 60tribe of Asher, Mashal and its suburbs, and Abdon and its suburbs. And 61Hukok and its suburbs, and Rehob and its suburbs. And out of the tribe of Naphtali, Kedesh in Galilee and its suburbs, and Hammon and its suburbs, and Kiriathaim and its suburbs.
62To the sons of Merari that remained, out of the tribe of Zebulun, 63Rimmono and its suburbs, Tabor and its suburbs. And beyond Jordan by Jericho, east of Jordan, out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the wilderness 64and its suburbs, and Jahzah and its suburbs. And Kedemoth and its 65suburbs, and Mephaath and its suburbs. And out of the tribe of Gad, 66Ramoth in Gilead and its suburbs, and Mahanaim and its suburbs. And Heshbon and its suburbs, and Jazer and its suburbs.
EXEGETICAL
Preliminary Remark.Of the five subdivisions into which this section falls, the first (1Ch 6:27-41) is a list of the high priests from Aaron to the exile, which appears to be taken from a peculiar older source, partly because one portion of the high priests is enumerated again (1Ch 6:35-38) under a different genealogical form (instead of before the name, comes after it), partly because Gershon (1Ch 6:27) appears instead of Gershom, which is used throughout 1 Chronicles 6 But the four divisions also in 1 Chronicles 6 bear a more or less fragmentary character ; only the genealogies of the three Davidic songmasters Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (1Ch 6:16-34), appear to be complete in themselves, and without delect. In the register of the three Levitical families Gershom, Kohath, and Merari (1Ch 6:1-15), many names are obviously wanting, and some parts, especially in the series of the Kohathites, 1Ch 6:7-13, appear to have come down in a state of some confusion. The list of the Levitical cities, 1Ch 6:39-66, presents great corruptions of the text in considerable number, with many inaccuracies, and a notorious perversion of the original order (see on 1Ch 6:49-50), as a cursory comparison of it with that drawn from other sources in the book of Joshua , 21, will show. And lastly, the short list of the high priests appears clearly to be a fragment from its breaking off with Ahimaaz ; is, moreover, closely connected with the preceding remarks in 1Ch 6:33-34, on the ministry of the Aaronites in the temple, and might be fitly formed with these two verses into a special section referring to the of the house of Levi and its functions. Comp. moreover, H. Graf, Zur Gesch. d. St. Levi, in A. Merxs Archiv. f. Wissenschaftliehe Mrforsclmng des A. T. vol. i. 1870 (hypercritical on the content of our chapter, and throughout).
1. The Family of Aaron, or the High-priestly Line to the Exile: v. 2741. a. Aarons descent from Levi : 1Ch 6:27-29.Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. So run the names of the three sons of Aaron in the Pentateuch, Gen 46:11, Exo 6:18. The form is there constant, while for is occasionally .
1Ch 6:28. The names of the four sons of Kohath (the father of the chief Levitical line) are literally the same in Exo 6:18. Likewise the names of the three children of Amram, and those of the four sons of Aaron, 1Ch 6:29, agree literally with Exo 6:20; Exo 6:23 ; comp. Num 3:2-4, and in 1Ch 24:2, the account of the premature death of Nadab and Abihu by a divine judgment, reminding us of Lev 10:1 ff.b. The descendants and successors of Eleazar (Num 20:28; Jos 14:1) in the office of high priest: 1Ch 6:30-41. Only this series of high priests from Eleazar is given here, as in 1Ch 6:35 ff., not that from Ithamar, as the former only is strictly legitimate. That the line from Ithamar, to which Eli belonged (1Sa 2:30),whose son was Phinehas, and grandson, Ahitub (1Sa 4:11; 1Sa 14:3), further, Ahitubs son Ahijah or Ahimelech (comp. 1Sa 14:3 with 1Ch 22:9 ff.), lastly, this Ahimelechs son Abiathar (from whom Solomon took the high-priesthood to give it to Zadok, 1Sa 22:20; 1Ki 2:26-35),was not unknown to our author, is shown by his account in 1Ch 24:3 ff. But the line of Eleazar only must have passed with him as really legitimate ; for here, and in 1Ch 6:35 ff., he ignores the line of Ithamar running parallel with it for several generations (from Uzzi, 1Ch 6:31, the contemporary of Eli, to Zadok, the contemporary and rival of Abiathar, 1Ch 6:34). On the relation existing between those collateral lines in the times of Saul and David we find nothing certain, either in our books or in those of Samuel or Kings. So much appears certain, however, from various intimations in the latter books, that the statement of Josephus (Antiq. Jud. viii. 1.3; comp. 1Ch 5:12), that the descendants of Eleazar kept quiet, and lived as private persons during the supremacy of Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, and Ahimelech, is incorrect, and rests on mere conjecture. Rather, from 1Ki 3:4 ff. (comp. 1Ch 16:39), Zadok appears to have presided at Gibeon, contemporary with Abiathar (the constant companion of David, 1Sa 22:20-23) at Jerusalem over the service of the sanctuary ; and even before David, there seems to have been a certain co-existence of different sanctuaries with different high priests in different places,an assumption that is at least better supported than the conjecture proposed by Thenius on 2Sa 8:17, that, in Davids time, the two high priests of the collateral houses might have held office in alternate years.
1Ch 6:35. And Ahimaaz begat Azariah. As Ahimaaz (1Ch 6:38) is son of Zadok, he belongs to the reign of Solomon, within which also his son Azariah may have been high priest. Without doubt, the notice standing in 1Ch 6:36, beside a younger Azariah (grandson of the other), he that served as priest (, Exo 40:13; Lev 16:32) in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem, only suits the present Azariah, the grandson of Zadok. For in 1Ki 4:2, also, Azariah the son (more exactly grandson) of Zadok is named as priestly prince under Solomon; his grandson of the same name in 1Ch 6:36 cannot have lived before the time of Rehoboam, or even Asa or Jehoshaphat. We must therefore assume, with Bertheau, that the words quoted from 1Ch 6:36 b originally stood after the name , 1Ch 6:35 a,an assumption which, from the second occurrence of the same name shortly after, and from the notorious occurrence of such erroneous transpositions in our section (see on 1Ch 6:49 f.), involves no difficulty, and at least commends itself more than the attempt of Keil to identify the Azariah of 1Ch 6:36 with the high priest of this name under king Uzziah (who, 2Ch 26:17, boldly resisted the attempt of this king to burn incense in the sanctuary).6 The name Azariah appears to have often recurred in the family of the high priest in the time of the kings ; for as our series contains this name no less than three times (1Ch 6:35-36; 1Ch 6:40), we know from other accounts several other high priests of the name before the exile ; thus, besides the one in Uzziahs time, another in the time of Hezekiah, 2Ch 21:10, who cannot possibly be identical with those here mentioned. For the one named in 1Ch 6:40 as the son of Hilkiah (2 Kings 22) may have lived under Josiah, nearly a century after Hezekiah; of all the three Azariahs of our section, therefore, only the first (1Ch 6:35) can coincide with one of the elsewhere mentioned high priests of this name, and this can have been no other than that contemporary of Solomon named in 1Ki 4:2.7
1Ch 6:37. And Azariah begat Amariah. This is the Amariah mentioned, 2Ch 19:11, in the history of Jehoshaphat. Here Oehler, Art. Hoherpriester in Herzogs Real-Encycl. vi. 205, is certainly right, though opposed by Keil; in the sixty-one years between Solomons death and Jehoshaphats accession, the four high priests named between Zadok and Amariah may very well have followed in succession.
1Ch 6:38. And Ahitub begat Zadok. In the neighbourhood of this second Ahitub, whom we must place at the beginning or middle of the ninth century b.c., we miss the Jehoiada who dethroned Athaliah, and governed some time for the young king Joash (who was perhaps, however, not properly high priest, but only chief of the priesthood of his time, that is, a very influential priest; see on 2Ch 23:8). Even so somewhat later in the vicinity of Shallum is wanting the Uriah, known from 2Ki 16:10 ff., who was high priest under king Ahaz. The list from 1Ch 6:37-40, or for the last period of the kings (ninth, eighth, and seventh centuries), appears very defective and concise, like the New Testament genealogies of Jesus (Mat 1:8-10; Luk 3:28-31), which make the longest leaps in this very epoch. The number of the links omitted in our list between the high priests for the time of Solomon (1Ch 6:36) and Seraiah must be at least seven; for with the ten generations of high priests enumerated 1Ch 6:36-40, correspond seventeen generations of the house of David, from Solomon to Zedekiah (comp. 1Ch 3:10-24); and there is no reason why the line of priests should have a less rapid succession of generations than that of kings.
1Ch 6:41. And Jehozadak went away, to captivity in Babylon. stands here for the usual more definite , Jer 49:3. The carrying away of this Jehozadak must have taken place before the destruction of Jerusalem (perhaps 599); for at the destruction of Jerusalem (588), not he, but his aged father Seraiah, grandson of Hilkiah, was high priest, as appears from the account in 2Ki 25:18; 2Ki 25:21, of his capture by Nebuchadnezzar and execution at Riblah. Jehozadak, in exile, became father of that Joshua who returned 536 b.c. with Zerubbabel at the head of the exiles, Ezr 3:2; Ezr 5:2, Hag 1:1.
With the series here given of the high priests from Aaron to the exile, agrees that in Ezr 7:1-5, which is more summary, and makes even greater omissions. If we compare the sixteen names there given, from Seraiah to Aaron, with twenty-two of our list, the shorter list of Ezra appears to be an abbreviated extract of the present longer one. But the author of the latter cannot have aimed at absolute completeness. The used by him to denote the descent is quite as much a mere phrase of indefinite and elastic meaning as the of Ezra. Moreover, the argument of Gramberg, p. 55, from the repeated occurrence of the same names in our list, for the assumption of an arbitrary process of compiling by the Chronist, has been long refuted by Movers, Keil, and others. On the extra-biblical traditions concerning the series of high priests before the exile, in Josephus, in the Seder Olam, etc., comp. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, Opp. t. i. p. 682 sqq.; Selden, De successione in pontif. l. i; and Reland, Antiq. ii. c. 2. So far as these accounts supplement the statements of our text, they are almost devoid of any historical authority. [The line from Aaron is not said to be a list of actual high priests. External influence seems to have often determined who should be the actual high priest.J. G. M.]
2. The Descendants of Gershom, Kohath, and Merari: 1Ch 6:1-15.These are first given alone with their sons (1Ch 6:1-4); then follow further genealogical statements regarding the descendants of the most important of these sons, who became the ancestors of the three chief families of the Levites. That in the Kohathite family the line of Amram, the father of Aaron, is not given again, as in 1Ch 6:27 ff., is explained by this, that the families of the Levites, not that of the high priest, are here to be registered. For the form Gershom, comp. on 1Ch 6:27. The two sons each of Gershom and Merari, and the four sons of Kohath, bear the same names as in the Pentateuch, Exo 6:16-19, Num 3:17-20; Num 26:57 ff.
1Ch 6:4 b. And these are the families of Levi, after their fathers. This formula, found by the author in his source, seems rather to be the superscription for the following special genealogy of the Levites, than the subscription to what precedes; but comp. Exo 6:19, where the same words serve clearly as the subscription to the list of the sons and grandsons of Levi.
1Ch 6:5-6. Descendants of Gershom.To Gershom: Libni his son, etc. The before serves for introduction, and therefore stands in another sense than in Ezr 2:6; Ezr 2:16, where it is nota genitivi; comp. rather Psa 16:3; Isa 32:1.Jeatherai, the last in this eightlink chain of the descendants of Gershom, may have lived in the times of Saul and David, but is not otherwise known. That some of the names in this series, Jahath, Zimmah, and Zerah, occur also among the ancestors of Asaph, who springs from the line of Shimi (1Ch 6:24-28), does not warrant the identification of the two series, nor (as Bertheau affirms) the assumption that these are inserted, not because they lead to Jeatherai, but because they belong to the ancestors of Asaph. As if the recurrence of the same names in different lines were not usual in our genealogical sections!
1Ch 6:7-13. Descendants of Kohath. Three series of names, each beginning with a new or (1Ch 6:7; 1Ch 6:10; 1Ch 6:13), without exhibiting their genealogical connection. The very beginning: The sons of Kohath: Amminadab his son, involves a surprising deviation both from 1Ch 6:3 and from Exo 6:18 ff., where no Amminadab occurs among the sons of Kohath. As the latter parallels, as 1Ch 6:23, agree in naming an Izhar as the link between Kohath and Korah, with Keil and the majority of older expositors, Amminadab is to be regarded as a by-name of Izhar; for to regard Amminadab, with Bertheau, as a descendant of Izhar, and suppose an omission of the latter by some oversight, is less probable. Why should not the name Amminadab, otherwise occurring among the descendants of Judah as father of Nahshon and father-in-law of Aaron (Exo 6:23; Num 6:23; Rth 1:19; comp. 1Ch 2:10), by some no longer discoverable cause, serve as a by-name to Izhar, the second son Kohath ?Korah his son, Assir his son, Elkanah his non, and Ebiasaph his son. If we compare the series in 1Ch 6:18-23 of the ancestors of Heman, which presents so many points of contact with the present, that it may and must be used for the elucidation of several of its obscurities, it appears that Ebiasaph also (the father of that second Assir who is named 1Ch 6:8) is a son of Korah, and a brother of that first Assir; and in fact Assir, Elkanah, and Ebiasaph appear in Exo 6:24 as sons of Korah. Thus these three, not withstanding the inexact phraseology of our list, which seems to exhibit them as father, son, and grandson, are rather to be taken for brothers. That Ebiasaph, the third of these Korahites, had a son Assir, and this a son Tahath, is recorded also in the genealogy of Heman, 1Ch 6:22. On the contrary, the names of the three following members, Uriel, Uzziah, and Shaul, vary from the parallel names Zephaniah, Azariah, and Joel, in the line of Heman, 1Ch 6:21; whence it would appear natural to assume a double name (favoured by the known identity of the kings name, Uzziah-Azariah) for these three members; but this is liable to grave doubts.
1Ch 6:10. And the sons of Elkanah: Amasai and Ahimoth. Among the ancestors of Heman also, 1Ch 6:20, an Amasai is named as son of an Elkanah. It is natural to identify that Elkanah with the present, to take him for a son of Joel, son of Azariah, and so supply the severed connection between Shaul, 1Ch 6:9, and Elkanah. The present Elkanah might also, indeed, be the son of Korah mentioned 1Ch 6:8, and brother of Ebiasaph. It is impossible, however, to decide absolutely.
1Ch 6:11. Elkanah his son, Elkanah of Zoph his son, or Elkanah Zophai. As the text is here notoriously corrupt, and an Elkanah, be it the first or the second, is redundant (see Crit. Note), it should perhaps be emended, with Bertheau, Elkanah his son, Zophai his son, etc. In this case, a desirable agreement with 1Ch 6:20 is gained, where Elkanah appears, not indeed as son, but as grandson of Amasai (through a certain Mahath omitted in our text), and where, further, Zuph is named as son of this Elkanah, a name that is obviously identical with Zophai (comp. Kelubai, 1Ch 2:9, with Kelub, 1Ch 4:11).
1Ch 6:12. Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son. As Nahath, the father of Eliab, bears a name that is closely allied in etymology to Toah, the son of Zuph (or Zophai), in the series of the ancestors of Heman, 1Ch 6:19, and so may pass for a by-form of this name, also appears to be a collateral form of , 1Ch 6:19; but Jeroham and Elkanah coincide exactly with the two there named predecessors (or rather descendants) of Eliab. Hence the two parallel series actually agree out and out, from Zuph to the last Elkanah. So much the more certainly is a (comp. 1Ch 6:18), forming the transition to 1Ch 6:13, to be supposed omitted at the end of our verse, or the assumption at least to be made that the author (as follows at once from 1Ch 6:13) meant by the last Elkanah no other than the father of Samuel.
1Ch 6:13. And the sons of Samuel: the first-born Vashni, and Abiah. That here the name of Joel, who was actually the first-born of Samuel, and is named, 1Ch 6:18, as his proper scion, has fallen out, appears indubitable from 1Sa 8:2; comp. Crit. Note. On the whole, the present genealogy of Kohath coincides with that of the ancestors of Heman in 1Ch 6:18-23, though the text of our list appears the more defective, inaccurate, and partly corrupt.
1Ch 6:14-15. Descendants of Merari, of the line of Mahli, from whom six generations of direct descendants are given. Against Bertheaus attempt to identify the names Mahli, Libni, Shimi, Uzzah, Shema, Haggiah, Asaiah with those of the ancestors of Ethan in 1Ch 6:29-32 (Mushi, Mahli, Shamer, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah), in order to represent the three series of our section as mere parallels to the three series of the following section, see the remarks of Keil (p. 89). The latter justly asserts, in reference to 1Ch 6:4 a: The 1Ch 6:14-15 furnish a list of the family of Mahli, whereas the ancestors of Ethan, 1Ch 6:29-32, belong to the family of Mushi. Accordingly, our series cannot be designed to introduce Ethan or Ethans ancestors. This hypothesis is altogether a castle in the air.
3. The Ancestors of the Levitical Songmasters Heman, Asaph, and Ethan: 1Ch 6:16-34.And these are they whom David set over the singing in the house of the Lord; comp. 1Ch 15:17 ff. and 2Ch 29:27., properly: to the hands of song, that is, for the singing, for the purpose of leading and executing it.After the resting of the ark; from the time when the ark ( = ), instead of its previous wandering, had a permanent abode on Mount Zion, 2Sa 6:2; 2Sa 6:17.
1Ch 6:17. And they ministered before the dwelling of the tent of meeting with singing. Before the dwelling; for in the court, before the holy tent, or before the temple, took place the public worship, consisting of sacrifice and singing. The genitive, of the tent of meeting (institution), is explicative of the dwelling, that is, the dwelling of God among His people. This means, in the first place, the tent of institution or meeting (), which David erected on Zion, as the immediate predecessor of the stone temple (2Sa 6:17 ff.; 1Ch 21:28 ff.; 2Ch 1:3), and along with which the old Mosaic tent of meeting continued a long time in Gibeon, with a separate service (1Ch 1:29; 2Ch 1:3; 1Ki 3:4). That this Davidic tent on Zion is intended in the first place, is shown partly by the following reference to the building of Solomons temple, and partly by the circumstance that the following genealogy takes its start from the three songmasters of David.And they attended in their order to their service. In their order (), that is, according to the order prescribed by David,so, namely, that (1Ch 6:18 ff.) Heman the Kohathite, as chief leader of the whole choir, should stand in the middle, Asaph the Gershonite, with his choir, on his right, and Ethan the Merarite on his left, in conducting the sacred singing of the temple (comp. 1Ch 16:37 ff., 1Ch 24:1 : 2Ch 30:16).
1Ch 6:18. And these (the following) are they who attended, and their sons, with the choirs formed of their sons and their families. The names of their sons, see in 1Ch 25:2-4. Here it is intended to trace, not so much the descendants of these songmasters from Davids time down, as rather their ancestors up to Levi.Of the sons of Kohath: Heman the singer. He stands before the rest, and is distinguished from them by the mere predicate, the singer ( Sept. ), because the chief leading of the temple singing belonged to him. He appears here as the grandson of Samuel, which is chronologically and genealogically admissible, and is needlessly questioned by Hitzig (Gesch. d. Isr. p. 125 f.), who denies that Samuel belonged to the house of Levi. On the series of Kohathites now following to 1Ch 6:23, consisting of twenty-two generations, and its relation to that in 1Ch 6:7-13, see above.
1Ch 6:23. The son of Levi, the son of Israel. Only here is this ascent beyond Levi to the patriarch of all Israel; comp. Luk 3:38 : .
1Ch 6:24-28. The ancestors of Asaph the Gershonite.And his brother Asaph. Brother, obviously in a wider sense, as relative and fellow-officer in the sacred service. On the relation of his genealogy, including fifteen members to the earlier series of Gershonites, see on 1Ch 6:5-6.
1Ch 6:29-32. The ancestors of Ethan the Merarite.And the sons of Merari, their brethren on the left, forming the choir standing on the left. For the name Jeduthun (, praiseman), otherwise occurring for Ethan, perhaps an honorary surname, comp. 1Ch 16:41, 1Ch 25:1; 2Ch 35:15; Neh 11:17. The series of Ethans ancestors must be greatly abbreviated, as it contains only twelve names up to Merari.
1Ch 6:32. The son of Mahli, the son of Mushi, the son of Merari. If Mahli and Mushi, 1Ch 6:4, be named together as sons of Merari (as also Num 3:20), this does not contradict our passage, as Mahli is plainly enough designated, not as son, but as grandson of Merari, therefore as nephew or perhaps grand-nephew of Mushi the younger son of Merari. On the diversity of the whole series, 1Ch 6:29-32, from that in 1Ch 6:14-15, see on these verses.
1Ch 6:33 f. And their brethren the Levites, given for all service, etc. Their brethren the Levites are other Levites beside the singers already mentioned. A general notice of the ministry of the Levites not belonging to the families of the singers thus closes our section, as the like notice of the liturgical functions of the singers themselves (1Ch 6:16-17) opened it. , given to all service, that is, given to Aaron and his descendants, to the priestly family appointed for service in the performance of worship ; comp. Num 3:9; Num 8:16-19; Num 18:6; also Samuels consecration or dedication to the temple service, 1Sa 1:11; 1Sa 1:28, and the oblati of monkery in the middle ages, for example, Bernard, etc.
1Ch 6:34. And Aaron and his sons offered. There are three functions of the priestly portion of the Levites:1. Sacrifice (on the altars of burnt-offering and incense), Num 18:1-7; Numbers 2. Ministration in the holy of holies, 1Ch 28:13; 1 Chronicles 3. Propitiation or expiation for Israel, Lev 16:32.In all that Moses, the servant of God, had commanded. For this honourable designation of Moses, comp. Num 12:7 ; Deu 34:5; Jos 1:1; Jos 1:13; Heb 3:2 ff.
4. The Series of High Priests from Eleazar to Ahimaaz: 1Ch 6:35-38.This section is closely connected with the two preceding verses; for it states who were the sons of Aaron named, 1Ch 6:34, as the conductors of the priestly service in the temple. This series (which agrees essentially with 1Ch 6:30-34; comp. Ezr 7:1-5) is brought down only to Ahimaaz, the contemporary of Solomon (comp. 2Sa 15:27), because in the whole section, from 1Ch 6:16, a source is used in which the prominent families of Levi in the time of David (and Solomon) were described, and along with the genealogies of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, that of Ahimaaz also stood, which the author of Chronicles was induced to insert for the sake of completeness and confirmation of the former series (Bertheau). This series of high priests, breaking off with the time of Solomon, does not form a specially suitable transition to the following list of the Levitical cities (against Keil), although by its introductory words (especially by the suffix in , 1Ch 6:38, that points to , 1Ch 6:35) it appears closely connected with the foregoing section.
5. The Cities of the Levites: 1Ch 6:39-66.And these are their dwellings, by their districts in their borderthe border which was then assigned to the several Levitical families. The superscription may have stood in the document which the Chronist here follows; it is wanting in the list of the dwellings of the Levites, Joshua 21, which runs in the main parallel to this, but deviates in form and in many details. For (from circumdare), in early times, village of nomades, of tents (Gen 25:16 ; Num 21:10), here district, circuit of dwellings, comp. Psa 69:26.Of the sons of Aaron, of the family of the Kohathites; for to them was the lot. These words form the special superscription to 1Ch 6:40-45. After , perhaps has fallen out; comp. Jos 21:10. At all events, the first lot is here in question.
1Ch 6:40-41 agree almost literally with Jos 21:11-12, only Hebron has there its old name Kiriath Arba; and for in the land of Judah, stands on the mountains of Judah.And its suburbs round about it. is the standing phrase for the pastures (Kamph.) or commons belonging to the cities, as distinguished from the field , or arable land, 1Ch 6:41. For the historical contents of 1Ch 6:41, comp. also Jos 14:14; Jos 15:13.
1Ch 6:42. And to the sons of Aaron they gave the free towns Hebron and Libnah. As Hebron only was a free town ( , place of refuge for the manslayer), the plural appears at least inexact. The parallel, Jos 21:13, has the correct form . The same occurs with respect to Shechem, 1Ch 6:52.And Jattir, and Eshtemoa, and its suburbs. After , the standing addition , which is found in Jos 21:13 as always.
1Ch 6:43. And Hilen and its suburbs. Instead of , Jos 21:15 has the more correct (comp. Jos 15:51).
1Ch 6:44. And Ashan and its suburbs. The name in this place appears more correct than in Jos 21:16. Immediately after this Ashan the name of Juttah must have fallen out, as appears from Joshua 21; as in 1Ch 6:45 the name of Gibeon before Geba. This twofold omission is indirectly confirmed by the closing notice in 1Ch 6:45 : all their cities were thirteen cities in their families; for at present, the list referring to the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, 1Ch 6:42-45, contains only eleven cities. Besides, the third of the Levitical cities in Benjamin is called, Jos 21:18, not Allemeth (), but Almon (). It is impossible to decide which is the original form.
1Ch 6:46-48 give summarily only the number, not the names, of the cities of the remaining Levites of the families of Kohath, Gershom, and Merari (parallel to 1Ch 6:5-7 in Joshua 21); the enumeration by name follows 1Ch 6:51 ff.Of the family of the tribe, from the half-tribe. Between these words of 1Ch 6:46 ( and ) there is an obvious gap; according to Jos 21:5, the words Ephraim, and of the tribe of Dan and have here fallen out.
1Ch 6:47. And of the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan. More exactly, Jos 21:6, and of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, though we may do without the missing . 1Ch 6:49-50 disturb the progress of the enumeration, which, after the summary statements of the foregoing three verses, raises the expectation of a specification of the cities of the other Kohathites in a way so surprising, that their original occupation of another place, and that before 1Ch 6:39 b (of the sons of Aaron, etc.), admits of no doubt; comp. Joshua 21, where they stand in 1Ch 6:8-9 as superscription of the list of cities assigned to the priests. As they are there annexed to the summary statement, 1Ch 6:5-7, which forms here 1Ch 6:46-48, a mechanically proceeding compiler takes them over with these at once, and the Chronist, who followed this compiler, neglects to repair his negligence.These cities which they called by names. The plurals and are suitable explanations, instead of the corresponding singulars in Jos 21:9, as the subject, the sons of Israel, is easily supplied to the verb from 1Ch 6:48, and several names of cities are given. The masc. , instead of , may be only an oversight (Berth., Keil).
1Ch 6:51-55. The cities of the remaining Kohathites; comp. Jos 21:20-26. And of the families of the sons of Kohath.Instead, of , is perhaps to be read , and with respect to the families, etc.
1Ch 6:52. For the pl. free towns, comp. on 1Ch 6:42.
1Ch 6:53. And Jokmeam. Jos 21:22 gives for this an otherwise unknown ; but the Sept. confirms the former reading by its .
1Ch 6:54. And Aijalon and its suburbs, and Gath-rimmon and its suburbs. In Jos 21:23-24, these two Levitical cities, with two others here omitted, Eltekeh and Gibbethon, belong to the tribe of Dan. According to this, before these words a whole verse has fallen out: and of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh and its suburbs, Gibbethon and its suburbs. That the mention of the tribe of Dan is here for the second time avoided (comp. 1Ch 6:46), can scarcely be called accidental; comp. on 1Ch 7:12.
1Ch 6:55. Aner and its suburbs, and Bilam and its suburbs. Jos 21:25 calls the two Levitical cities in West Manasseh rather Tanach and Gathrimmon; but these names appear to be errors of transcription originating in the foregoing verse. In this case, our text should be the more correct, only that (Jos 17:11) should perhaps be changed into .To the family of the remaining sons of Kohath. These words, formally annexed to they gave, etc., 1Ch 6:52 a, form a kind of subscription, in which, perhaps, the singular family should be changed into the plural; comp. , Jos 21:26.
1Ch 6:56-61. The cities of the Gershonites; comp. Jos 21:27-33.Golan in Bashan. That Golan is one of the six cities of refuge, like Hebron, Shechem, etc., is not mentioned; this again is one of the omissions in which our text abounds. For the name Ashtaroth, Jos 21:27 substitutes Beeshterah (), perhaps compounded of .This city (Deu 1:4, Jos 13:12, once the seat of king Og) was perhaps formerly called Ashteroth-karnaim, Gen 14:5, now Tell Ashteroth, some hours north-west of Edrei.
1Ch 6:57. Kedesh and its suburbs. For , Jos 21:28 has more correctly , as in 1Ch 6:58 the reading , Jos 21:29, is perhaps more correct than , and than .
1Ch 6:59. Mashal () is contracted for , Jos 19:26. On the contrary, , 1Ch 6:60, appears to be wrongly transcribed for , which Joshua has in our passage and Jos 19:25 ( in Naphtali, Jos 19:24, cannot be here intended),
1Ch 6:61. Kedesh in Galilee. Of this city, also, it is not noted that it belonged to the six free towns, Jos 21:32. On its site, west of the lake Merom, where Kedes now lies, see Rob. 3:682, Raumer, Palst, p. 116.The following Hammon corresponds to Hammoth-dor, Jos 21:32, and to Hammath, Jos 19:35, which three forms appear all to point to hot springs in the vicinity of the place. In Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2. 3, the name is . For Klriathaim, Jos 21:32 has the contracted form Kartan (), that stands to the present full form as , 2Ki 6:13, to , Gen 37:17. 1Ch 6:62-66. The cities of the Merarites; comp. Jos 21:34-37.To the sons of Merari that remained, namely, the Levites, as the fuller form , Jos 21:34, shows, which may mean, those of the Levites still to he mentioned. Rimmono and its suburbs, Tabor and its suburbs. Here the names of two other cities of Zebulun have fallen out, Jokneam and Kartah. But even the two here named have other names there, where, for , the probably less correct appears (comp. the repeated mention of a city in Zebulun, Jos 19:13), and where, in place of our , stands the name , which is certainly identical with Nahalol, Jdg 1:30, and is perhaps found in the present Nalul, south-west of Nazareth. It is hard to say how our came into the text instead of the undoubtedly original ; possibly the author meant, instead of the city, only the region where it layMount Tabor (Movers); possibly the name of the city fell out, and of the determination of its site, that was perhaps included in the words , only the last word remains (Berth.); or possibly the place bore two quite different names.
1Ch 6:63-64 are wanting in some editions of the books of Joshua, where they are Jos 19:36-37. But the most and best mss. contain them, and there is no decisive reason for their condemnation as spurious; see the particulars in Fay on the passage.And beyond Jordan by Jericho, east of Jordan. This determination of place (which is often found in like terms, Num 22:1; Num 26:3; Num 34:15; comp. on 2Ch 8:3) is wanting in the book of Joshua, which in other respects agrees with our verse, only that it omits not to mark Bezer as a free town.
1Ch 6:65. And out of the tribe of Gad, Ramoth in Gilead. Here also is wanting the mention of its being a city of refuge; comp. Jos 21:36, where also the name is written, not as here, , but , as, of the two places mentioned in the following verse, the latter is there not Jaazer but Jazer; comp. Num 21:32. The situation of these towns is wholly unknown.
Moreover, let us compare, with respect to the Levitical cities in general, the not unimportant remark of Hengstenberg, Gesch. d. Reichs Gottes unter dem A. B. ii. i, p. 1Chr 259: the number of the cities in all amounted to forty-eight. At first sight, for a comparatively small tribe, this appears to be too great. But this appearance vanishes, when we consider that in these cities, not the Levites alone, but, along with them, craftsmen and others from the other tribes dwelt, who made often the greater part of the population; comp. Lev 25:33; 1Ch 6:40-41 (Caleb as inhabitant of the lands of Hebron), etc. There is weight also in his remark, p. 260, on the many differences between our list and Joshua 21; these are most easily explained by the fact that some of the cities assigned to the Levites were at the time (when the land was divided among the twelve tribes) in possession of the Canaanites, and as the hope of their immediate conquest failed, were first recovered from them by others, in whose possession they remained, on account of the inconvenience of the change. In many cases this assumption may be correct, and serve to explain the double names, as Ashan and Ain, Allemeth and Almon, Kedesh and Kishion, Anem and Engannim, Tabor and Nahalal, etc. (See on 1Ch 6:44-45; 1Ch 6:57-58; 1Ch 6:62.) But that, besides numerous corruptions of the text, errors in transcription, and omissions of names, sentences, and clauses, took place not merely in our text, but also in that of Joshua, must have been abundantly evident from our exegetical and critical remarks.
Footnotes:
[1]The Kethib is ; the Keri puts for , and places (with Athnach) as a separate superscription. The text is, at all events, corrupt (see Exeg. Expl.), whether the first is to be erased, and to be read, or the second removed, and the sing. to be retained.
[2]After , the name must have fallen out, as the comparsion of 1Sa 8:2 shows (comp. also 1Ch 6:18).
[3]The Kethib has ; the Keri, more correctly, .
[4]For , some old prints, after the Bibl. Veneta Rabb. 1525, have . The mss. (see de Rossi, Var. Lect) do not show this addition, which appears to have come into the text from the margin.
[5]For (in Jos 21:16, ), the more accurate mss. have, according to R. Norzi and Ed. Neapolit., .
[6]It is only an insipid rabbinical conceit, which Keil should not have reproduced, of Rashi and Kimchi to apply the words ver 36b, he that served as priest in the house that Solomon built, to the bold stand of the Azariah, under Uzziah, against this king recorded in 2Ch 26:17. But no less untenable is Netelers assertion (Chron. pp. 58. 240), that Azariah was the son of Jehoiada, the husband of Jehoshabath, and effecter of that revolution which raised Joash to the throne (2 Kings 11; 2Ch 23:1 ff.); see on 2Ch 23:8.
[7]With Keils and Bhrs attempt (Bibelw. part vii. p. 25 ff.) to regard the Azariah son of Zadok of this passage, not as priest or high priest, but as the first of the great civil functionaries of Solomon, we cannot agree, because is thereby taken in too abnormal a sense. Comp. Gesen.-Dietrich on the word .
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Prosecuting the genealogy of Israel’s son, the tribe of Levi is made the subject of this chapter, and particularly with an eye to the priesthood, in the person of Aaron and his sons.
1Ch 6:1
The tribe of Levi, in point of rank and importance, stood very high, for God set it apart, on account of the priesthood, for himself. Perhaps it is for this reason, the relation of this tribe, in the registry of it, is more minutely attended to. If the Reader will consult Ezr 2:62-63 , he will perceive how very tenacious Israel was, concerning the relationship among the priests.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Aaron Eleazar Unknown Workers Religious Uses of Music
1Ch 6
This chapter traces the line of Aaron through Eleazar to Jeho-zadak. The chronicler takes infinite pains to trace the genealogy of Aaron from the period of his descent from Levi through his successors in the line of Eleazar until the Babylonian exile, and after setting forth the double series of the three sons of Levi, viz., Gershom, Kohath, and Merari, he repeats the line of Aaron from Eleazar to the age of David and Solomon as preliminary to an account of cities of the Levites given in 1Ch 6:49-81 . We ought now to be in good company seeing that we are in the lineage of priests. Every man’s white robe will symbolize his holy character, and every man’s official duties will indicate the nobler exercises of spiritual worship. Society has a right to draw inferences from the occupations of men. No surgeon should be inhuman because by profession he is a healer and restorer. No lawyer should be seditious, rebellious, dishonourable, because he is supposed to know the law and to have entered upon its exposition, because of his love of high study and the discipline of citizenship. If this is so in high professions, what shall be said of the priests of the living God? From them we look for whatsoever things are true, lovely, pure, honest, and of good report, and in so far as they fall short, they themselves must bear the responsibility, for they, and they only, are to blame for every lapse. But are we to look for absolute perfectness even in consecrated men? We may look for it, but certainly we shall not find it in any real sense. It is unjust to expect more from men than men can render. There must however be a steady determination to realise the ideal and to attain the divine. The apostle Paul did not count himself to have attained, but he continually pressed toward the mark, and by so much proved the earnestness of his spirit. There is an infinite difference between falling short of an ideal and seeking to accommodate the life to the lowest level of purpose and service. It should never be forgotten that the man who selects a high ideal is himself the creator of the very standard which his enemies may turn into a taunt against him. If he had not made known his determination to climb the highest of all hills he might have secured some reputation by ascending much lower elevations. When he said he meant to go to heaven, he put into the hands of his enemies a rod with which they might chastise him. It must therefore never be forgotten that even an imperfect Christian may be a better man than the loudest boaster of virtue who knows nothing of spiritual motive or ideal standards. As a speck is more easily seen upon a white surface than upon a coloured one, so the flaws and drawbacks of Christians are the more conspicuous because of the dazzling purity of the Christianity which is professed.
We read of Eleazar that he was “priest in Aaron’s room.” This reminds us of the commonplace, that the first and best of the priests must succumb to the law of death. When God appointed Aaron as priest, he did not only elevate an individual, he founded an office which was not to be abrogated until it was fulfilled as to its highest purpose in the man Christ Jesus. Aaron, therefore, may be said to have continued to the very end of the priesthood, which was begun in him through his legitimate successors. It is nothing to the point to say that the individual man has died, if so be the office is continued in full vigour and efficiency. The popular view is that the king never dies. So may it be said of the Christian ministry. Consecrated apostles, enterprising evangelists, learned teachers, individually die and are forgotten, but the great work of the ministry never ceases. Nor does the ministry ever go permanently back in efficiency. On the surface there may be great differences as to what is called pulpit power, but within the view of God, the motion of Christian influence is always towards increase and consolidation. The sentence however that Eleazar was priest in the room of Aaron is pathetic, as reminding us how difficult it is to fill the room which great men have occupied. In many instances we do not know how much a man has been really doing until we endeavour to find a successor to bear his mantle and carry forward his obligations. No man is less valued than a spiritual teacher. In many cases he is regarded as little better than an intruder and a meddler, who comes with an uncertain message, and is expected to deliver it in the least offensive form. When to outward disadvantages, often concealed in the form of distrust or contempt, there is added a sense of personal inferiority to the Aaron who went before, the position of the Christian teacher becomes one of positive distress. The only mitigation of such sorrow must come from looking at the work rather than at the worker, steadfastly looking beyond and having respect to the recompense of the reward. If Eleazar thinks only of Aaron, he may well tremble to succeed so renowned a priest; the Christian teacher however is not to think that he has succeeded Paul or John, but to consider that he directly represents Jesus Christ, and that to represent Jesus Christ is to be assured of spiritual sustenance and final reward.
In this chapter as in others, we come upon a long list of unfamed priests and workers. Who ever heard of Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Ahitub, Ahimaaz, or Johanan! There were twenty-two successors of Aaron in the interval between his death and the Babylonian exile. It is quite uncertain how many centuries that interval comprised; but in the lengthened period through which the succession ran we cannot but be struck with the absence of illustrious names. What social advantages are necessary to the development of men of supreme power? Can such men be born in slavery? Are they the product of ignorance and darkness? Are the great men of any period the natural issue of their times, or are they created on purpose to throw their times into contrast. Of some of these men we hear a little, but that little only shows how far short they fall of the highest reputation. Of Uzzi we hardly know more than that he was contemporary with Eli. Scripture is absolutely silent as regards the six persons named in 1Ch 6:6 and 1Ch 6:7 . We know little more of Zadok than that he was appointed sole high priest by Solomon who deposed Abiathar (1Ki 2:27 , 1Ki 2:35 ). Ahimaaz is chiefly known as a young man and a fleet runner, who rendered service to king David at the time of the revolt of Absalom. Johanan is utterly unknown. Yet all these men were either priests, or workers, or recognised persons in the social and official circles to which they belonged. So again and again we come upon the familiar lesson that there is a middle point between renown and contempt; there is a point of life-influence thorough downright good work which never blossoms into the kind of conspicuousness which belongs to world-wide and enduring fame. Even amongst the disciples of Christ there were only three who really stood out so as to attract the attention of all men. At the last indeed, one did stand out, not in fame, but in infamy, a man whose name can never be pronounced without horror and disgust. It must ever be true that the great majority of men must work within narrow limits and be content with the eulogium of domestic recognition. At the last the whole matter of reputation will be adjusted and determined by the Judge of the whole earth. The first may be last, and the last may be first. The very fact that all our awards may be reversed should make us cautious in the distribution of primacies which concern themselves more with the coronation of genius than with the recognition and encouragement of simpler merits. We are not to hesitate to give honour to whom honour is due, but we should never be so far carried away with pomp and grandeur, however real, as to neglect the least of Christ’s servants or the humblest ministrants who wait upon his altar.
In reading 1Ch 6:19 “And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers” we must remember that the word “families” does not mean single households but groups of households or clans. This is important as showing the beginning of an enlargement which is to continue until the whole world shall be regarded as constituting one family. Towards this consummation we can but proceed with painful slowness. The work of grace within us is long in subduing the idea that God is partial in his choices and blessings. The heart almost secretly cherishes the idea that walls of separation between men and men must in some degree continue for ever. It is hard for one nation to believe that other nations are as near to God as themselves. All this may not be admitted in theory, but an examination of the heart will lead to the conclusion that every man clings more or less to the notion that God is interested in his fortunes more than in the fortunes of other men. The spread of Christianity is important in a social as well as in a theological sense as tending to the instruction of men in mutual interpretation of motive and purpose. Christianity brings men together; never divides and antagonises men; it always points towards brotherhood, mutual confidence, reciprocal honour, and united action. All this is possible of Christianity simply because Christianity represents the second Adam, the one man who idealises and crowns humanity. Nothing is more noticeable in the progress of Christianity than the disillusioning of the apostolic mind as to God’s partiality for the Jews. [See the case of Peter and Cornelius as representing the whole Biblical idea upon this question of humanity.] Christianity is opposed to all limitation, narrowness, bigotry, exclusiveness; its noble watchword is the world, the whole world, the whole world for Christ.
In the thirty-first verse we are introduced to what may be called the larger ministry.
“And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the Lord, after that the ark had rest.” ( 1Ch 6:31 ).
They were made to stand, according to a literal interpretation, by the sides [hands] of song as if to minister to the sacred music. They continue ministering, before the dwelling of the tent of meeting, with the music. The religious uses of music is a question which the Church has hardly yet considered. Possibly there will never be wanting those who look upon music as an alien, and regard every advance made by it with suspicion and condemnation. There are not wanting those who would describe thorough attention to music in the church as turning the church into a concert room. All such opposition however must end in nothing. It is now beginning to be recognised that music may be turned into a grand evangelical instrument, and the sneer about “singing the Gospel” is gradually losing the confidence of those who first ignorantly applauded. As a matter of observation and experience it is beyond all doubt that people will gather in great numbers to listen to music when no attraction of an ordinary kind will bring them to the sanctuary.
The wise religious guides of any age will watch the temper of the people, and will respond to it in a way which will involve nothing of degradation, but which will secure the attention which may be turned to the highest ends. On all such matters argument is simply needless. Obstinate bigotry is not to be put down by reasoning; it is simply left to be converted by events. Let the church be open night and day for music; let the music always be religiously rendered; let every singer make the words heard as well as the notes; and in the end it will be found that the music of the appeal has found an entrance for the truth of the doctrine. The service of song in the house of the Lord should be the most beautiful of all religious exercises. The heavenly ones are continually praising God in the upper sanctuary. We read nothing of preaching in heaven, but we do read of songs and harps, thanksgivings, and of praises louder than the sound of many waters. We are perfectly well aware that there are persons who would pervert the use of music and do injury to the very spirit of the Church, but we must not take our rule of procedure from them; but endeavour to displace them by a right adaptation of music; and to supersede them by pointing out and following a more excellent way.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Levi. This care to give these genealogies after the captivities was to show that God’s promises to preserve the nation would be faithfully kept. Compare Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6.
Gershon. Compare Exo 6:16. The Western Massorite spelling; the eastern spelling being “Gershom”.
Kohath. The second son placed first because Aaron descended from him.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 6
Now in chapter six, we now get to the tribe of Levi from which was the priestly tribe.
[And the three sons which made the major families within the tribe of] Levi were Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. And of Kohath was born Amram. And from Amram was born Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam, [their sister] ( 1Ch 6:1-3 ).
And so Moses and Aaron both came from the family of Kohath in the tribe of Levi. And then you follow the high priest line from Aaron, his son Eleazar and so forth. You follow that line on down to the captivity of Nebuchadnezzar when he took them away. Babylon from verse four to fifteen. You have a direct line, a bunch of unpronounceable names. And then he brings up Gershom in verse seventeen and tells you some of his sons. And then again Kohath and some of his sons. And then Merari and some of his sons. Your basic families.
Now as we get down into verse thirty-one, it is interesting in verse twenty-eight, Samuel the prophet is listed in his line, the son of Elkanah. In verse thirty-one.
And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the LORD, after the ark had rest. And they ministered before the dwelling place of the tabernacle of the congregation with singing, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem: and then they waited on their office according to their order. And these are they that waited with the children. Of the sons of the Kohathites: and Heman the singer ( 1Ch 6:31-33 ).
And so forth. Now David actually appointed these men, and their job was just to stay in the tabernacle and just sing unto the Lord.
You know, sometimes we have some of the ladies that come and practice the organ here in the church. And I love for there to be music here in the church. In fact, one time we sought to set up a tape that we could just play music in the church all the. I like it. I like it whenever you come in to just have music of praise unto God. I think that’s great. I just, I think it’s great when God gives people the talent to sing. And if you want to rehearse or anything, come on down to the church and do your singing here. It’s great. I love it. And you’re welcome. Anytime you want to just worship the Lord or sing unto Him, just come on down. You’re free at any time to just come on in and just to worship the Lord with singing.
They had hired musicians. David appointed certain ones, and they were just to be there singing all the time. It would be great. Now I’m not much of one for choirs on Sunday morning to sing their little ditty and then that’s it, you know. But I would be all for a choir that would, you know, be here all day long or evening just singing praises and worshipping God. I think that would be outstanding. And so David had appointed from the tribe those that were to just spend their time worshipping the Lord in music.
Now another portion of the tribe, the descendants of Merari, their brothers were appointed to all of the manner of the service of the tabernacle of the house of God. So they were the janitors and those that kept the physical aspects of the thing in repair.
But Aaron and his sons [they were the ones that made the offerings unto the Lord there at the altar, the burnt offerings, and offered the incense, and made the atonements and they were the ones that did that portion of the service unto God] ( 1Ch 6:49 ).
And of course, during the time of Moses problems arose, because they said, “Hey, Moses, you take too much on yourself. You’ve appointed your brother, the other priest, the other descendants of Levi.” They said you’ve appointed your brother, you know, to the task of going in before the Lord and we have as much right. Korah and his little crew. “We have as much right as Aaron.” And so that’s when Moses said, “Well, let’s see if this thing be of God. You guys bring in your walking canes and Aaron will bring his rod, we’ll set it before the Lord tonight and see what happens.” So they set them in the tabernacle before the Lord, and in the morning, Aaron’s rod had budded and blossomed. It had ripe almonds on it. And so he says, “Well, looks like God’s trying to tell us something. But let’s make sure. Korah, you and your buddies stand out there in the field. Now this thing be of God, then let God do a new thing. Let the earth open up and swallow you guys alive.” And the earth opened up and Korah and his whole rebellious crew went down into the pit and the earth closed behind them. And they said, “Well, I guess it was of God.” No, it said, “And a great fear came on all Israel.” I’ll bet it did.
Now it goes on now and tells the cities that were given to the priest. The cities that were given to them in Judah and the cities that were given to them in the tribe of Manasseh and in the tribe of Issachar and Reuben and Gad and Zebulun and Ephraim and all. And it names the cities that were given to the priest. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1Ch 6:1-15
1Ch 6:1-15
“The sons of Levi: Gershom, Kohath, and Merari. And the sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel. And the children of Amram: Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. Eleazar begat Phinehus, Phinehus begat Abishua, and Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi, and Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth, Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, and Johanan begat Azariah (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem), and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum, and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak; and Jehozadak went into captivity, when Jehovah carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.”
E.M. Zerr:
1Ch 6:1. Levi was the 3rd son of Jacob. He was eliminated from the blood line for the same reason as was his brother Simeon, which was murder. (Gen 49:6). This applied to him personally, however, and did not affect the standing of his descendants in their work for the Lord. The tribe that sprang from him was honored by being chosen as the one to have entire charge of the religious services of the tabernacle. And the three sons of Levi were assigned their respective parts of the service. That is the reason the three are named in this one verse.
1Ch 6:2. Special importance was attached to one of the sons of Levi, named Kohath. And his son Amram became peculiarly important in that he was the father of the two brothers who will be named next, and who became the outstanding men in connection with the religious activities of the nation.
1Ch 6:3. Amram had two sons and a daughter. The two sons became famous in the history of Israel, each for a special cause. Aaron was the first high priest, and father of the entire priestly line throughout the life of the nation. Moses was the lawgiver, and the man who was inspired to write the first five books of the Bible. Since Aaron was exclusively the founder of the priestly group of God’s people, his four sons are named in this verse.
1Ch 6:4-15. All of the sons of Aaron were eligible for the priesthood and served whenever needed. But the high priesthood normally descended through the oldest son, unless some circumstance made a switch to another necessary. This paragraph cites the line of high priests to the Babylonian captivity. The account starts with Eleazer, although he was not the firstborn son of Aaron. The reason is that the two brothers older than he were slain for their sin about the strange fire. (Lev 10:1-2.) The priesthood was then passed to the next oldest brother because neither of them had left any children. (Num 3:4.)
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
In this whole chapter, consisting of eighty-one verses, the one subject is the priestly tribe. This in itself reveals the standard from which the history was written. Judah, the kingly tribe, is the only one which has more space devoted to it, occupying, as it does, one hundred and two verses. These, however, center in David.
In the section now under consideration, the sons of Levi, around whom the divisions of the tribe for service were made, are named-Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Then there follows a list of the priests, which undoubtedly is intended to reveal the ground of Joshua’s claim by succession. The list is not complete, for names are omitted here, to be found elsewhere in the Scripture records. The chain, however, is perfectly complete from Aaron to Jehozadak, the father of Jehoshua. After this list has been given, the genealogies return to the three sons of Levi already mentioned, and the subject proceeds in four movements. In the final one the genealogies of each of the sons of Levi culminate in the person of one man, Kohath in Heman, Gershon in Asaph, Merari in Ethan. These were men prominent in the reign of David.
Continuing to deal with the tribe of Levi, the chronicler first described the special work of Aaron and his sons. While the Levites generally had the charge of the whole house of God, the work of the high priests was specifically attendance at the altar of burnt-offering, at the altar of incense in the Holy Place, and in connection with the Day of Atonement. Following this, the chapter is occupied with an account of the arrangements made for the dwelling of the Levites. As we have seen in the consideration of earlier records, this distribution ensured the scattering of the priestly order throughout all the land.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
4. Levi
CHAPTER 6
1. The high-priestly line (1Ch 6:1-15)
2. Levitical genealogies (1Ch 6:16-30)
3. Davids chief musicians (1Ch 6:31-48)
The high-priestly line is first given, starting with Levi, and followed down to the exile. From Eleazar the son of Aaron, twenty-two generations are named. Moses is not mentioned in this list. With Aaron his brother he is called a priest (Psa 99:6), yet he was chosen as the great leader of the people before the consecration of the levitical priesthood. This is the reason why his name is not found here. The last priest named before the captivity is Jehozadak (also called Jozadak). He was carried into captivity and was the father of Joshua, the high-priest, who returned from Babylon (Ezr 3:2; Ezr 5:2; Neh 12:26; Hag 1:1; Hag 1:12; Zech. 6).
After the genealogies of the sons of Levi, who were not priests, the list of the names of Davids singers and musicians is given. These are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the LORD, after that the ark had rest. And they ministered before the dwelling place of the tabernacle of the congregation with singing, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, and then they waited on their office according to their order. Heman stands first. He was Samuels grandson. Psalm 88 is by Heman, the Ezralite. Asaph, the son of Berachiah (verse 39), was the poet-prophet. Psalms 50 and 73-88 bear his name. The sons of Asaph are later mentioned as choristers of the temple (1Ch 25:1-2; 2Ch 5:12; Ezr 2:41, etc.). Two other prominent persons bore the name of Asaph; Asaph, the recorder to King Hezekiah (2Ki 18:18; Isa 36:3), and Asaph, the forester under Artaxerxes (Neh 2:8). Ethan or Jeduthun (1Ch 9:16; 1Ch 16:41; 1Ch 25:1; 2Ch 35:15) is the author of Psalm 89.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 2304, etc. bc 1700, etc
sons of Levi: 1Ch 23:6, Gen 46:11, Exo 6:16, Num 3:17, Num 26:57
Gershon: 1Ch 6:16, 1Ch 6:20, Gershom
Reciprocal: Exo 2:1 – of the house Num 1:47 – General 1Ch 6:43 – Gershom 1Ch 6:61 – And unto Ezr 8:19 – Merari Heb 7:3 – descent
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ch 6:4. Eleazar begat Phinehas. A correct table of the Jewish highpriests would be very desirable to every lover of sacred literature. The best list I can collect is as follows: Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerathiah, and Meraioth. Here Eleazars line suffered a chasm for the admission of Elis house, who filled the pontificate for seven generations; but God shortened their lives for their familys sin. Some think that Abimelech whom Saul slew, with eighty four other priests, was not a highpriest, nor Abiathar his son, who fled to David. The latter was banished from the altar that God might accomplish the denunciation against the house of Eli. 1Ki 3:27. Then follow Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok. There were however, according to Josephus, from Aaron to Zadok thirteen highpriests; and from Zadok to the captivity eighteen; viz. Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanan, Azariah or Ezriah, 2Ch 26:17; Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Seraiah, Jehozadak, Jeshua, Jehoiakim, Eliashib or Ezra, Joiada, Jonathan, and Jaddua.
1Ch 6:14. Seraiah, the highpriest, put to death in Riblah. 2Ki 25:18; 2Ki 25:21.
1Ch 6:39. Asaph, author of twelve of the psalms.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
PART I (1 Chronicles 1-9). Genealogical Lists, together with Geographical and Historical Notes.These chapters form a general introduction to the whole work. They contain the following genealogies, often in an incomplete form: Adam to Israel (1Ch 1:1 to 1Ch 2:2)with the exception of Cains descendants (Gen 4:16-22)the whole material is taken from Genesis 1-36; Judah (1Ch 2:3-55); David (1Ch 3:1-24); Judah again, and made up of fragments (1Ch 4:1-23); Simeon (1Ch 4:24-43); Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe (the eastern) of Manasseh (1Ch 5:1-26); Levi and the Levitical cities (1Ch 6:1-81); Issachar (1Ch 7:1-5); Benjamin (1Ch 7:6-12); Naphtali (1Ch 7:13); half the tribe of Manasseh (the western) (1Ch 7:14-19); Ephraim (1Ch 7:20-29); Asher (1Ch 7:30-40); Benjamin again, together with the house of Saul (1Ch 8:1-40). Then follows an enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem given in the order: sons of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, priests, Levites, doorkeepers (1Ch 9:1-44); 1Ch 9:35-44 are repeated verbally from 1Ch 8:29-38.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
4. The family of Levi ch. 6
This list clearly defines the priests and Levites’ line of descent. Its purpose seems to be to legitimate and clarify their role and service in the temple. [Note: Idem, "1 Chronicles," in The Old . . ., p. 301.] Only the descendants of Aaron, the priests, could serve in the temple by offering sacrifices on the incense altar (1Ch 6:49; cf. Num 3:5-38). Nehemiah correctly barred priests who could not demonstrate that they were descendants of Aaron from serving in the rebuilt (second) temple (Neh 7:63-65).
The priests could only function when Israel dwelt in the Promised Land and as long as the tabernacle or temple God had blessed with His presence stood. With the return from exile the ritual of covenant worship was again possible. Consequently the priesthood was very important to the restoration community (the company of Israelites restored to the land from Babylonian exile).
God had given the special privilege of being priests to Aaron and his sons as a gracious blessing. Normally the first-born son acted as priest of the family in the ancient Near East. This was one of the privileges of the birthright. Reuben had forfeited this, too, by his sin.
1Ch 6:1-15 trace Aaron’s descendants, the high priests, to the Babylonian exile.
"Some writers have wanted to portray the high priest in postexilic times in an exalted position. But it is striking how little attention the Chronicler gives to the role of high priest. . . .
". . . in a number of passages he put considerable emphasis on faith in God as the way to blessing but rarely on ritual perfection." [Note: Thompson, p. 36. See Braun, 1 Chronicles, p. 84, for a chart of Israel’s high priests as they appear in Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 Chronicles.]
1Ch 6:16-53 give a more general list of the descendants of Levi whom God allowed to assist the priests in certain aspects of Israel’s worship. They received this privilege as a result of God’s grace as well (Num 3:12-13; Num 3:45; Num 8:14). God’s physical provision for the Levites concludes the chapter (1Ch 6:54-81).
The writer placed Levi’s genealogy at the heart of the chiastic structure that he used to set forth these genealogies. In this way he drew attention to Levi’s central importance in Israel. [Note: See Leslie C. Allen, "Kerygmatic Units in 1 & 2 Chronicles," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41 (June 1988):22. This article contains many helpful insights into the structure of Chronicles.]
A The lineage of David (chs. 1-3)
B Judah and Simeon in the South (1Ch 4:1-43)
C The Transjordanian tribes to the north (ch. 5)
D Levi (ch. 6)
C’ The other northern tribes (ch. 7)
B’ Benjamin in the South (ch. 8)
A’ The lineage of Saul (ch. 9)
"The emphasis on Judah and Levi in the genealogies marks the center of the Chronicler’s hope and faith. Two things marked the true Israel: the king and the priest." [Note: Thompson, p. 56.]
As we compare parallel genealogies in various parts of Scripture, we observe that some lists contain omissions and additions. This shows that genealogical lists are not always complete.