I Chronicles
24
In this chapter we have brought before us a catalogue of
the Aaronites,
or
priests, who were divided into twenty-four classes, corresponding to the
sons of Eleazar and Ithamar,
and appointed to perform the service in
succession as determined by lot, prominent notice being given to the
heads
of
these twenty-four classes; and a list of the fathers’ houses of the other
descendants of Levi, in the order of succession, also settled by lot
The Twenty-Four
Classes of Priests (vs. 1-19)
1 “Now
these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron;
Nadab, and Abihu,
Eleazar, and Ithamar.” The Hebrew
of this verse reads,
And to the sons of Aaron, their divisions μt;wOql]j]m"); the sons of Aaron:
Nadeb and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. The word “divisions” is the same
word that is translated “courses”
in v. 6, and which verse also would read literally,
“And David divided
them divisions to the sons of Levi, to Gershon, Kohath,
and Merari.” Our present
verse evidently continues both the subject
and construction
of
that verse. Of the four sons (Exodus 6:23),
two died without issue, viz. Nadab and
Abihu (v. 2); and the other two have to supply the “chief
men of the house,” viz.
Eleazar sixteen, and Ithamar eight
(v. 4).
2 “But Nadab and Abihu died before their
father, and had no children:
therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office.” (Compare
Leviticus 10:1-2, for the death of these; and for their being
childless, Numbers
3:2-4; 26:60-61).
Principles in a Parenthesis (v.2)
This verse is parenthetical; we may let it suggest to us
some valuable
principles.
HISTORY. After
the full statement of the sin committed by these young
men (Leviticus 10.), and the allusion made to it in the Book
of Numbers
(Numbers 3:4), we might have
supposed that we had heard the last of it
in the sacred narrative. But here it comes up again; once
more we are
reminded how Aaron’s sons provoked the Lord, and brought down his
displeasure. So now are THERE ARE SINS
AGAINST GOD AND
CRIMES AGAINST MEN
WHICH HISTORY WILL NOT LET
ALONE! It records them
on its page, and, further on, it writes them
down again, that the attention of another generation may be
called
thereto. Some iniquities there are
which are of such significance
that no writer of his country’s story will leave them out of
his record. But
this is as pathetically true of individual life. Too often it
happens that men
cannot shake themselves free from the sins of earlier days. They
think they
have done with them, but some way further on they present
themselves
again, and look them in the face. How many a man is called upon to say,
again and again, as the miserable effects of past sin come up to
reproach,
or to enfeeble, or to balk him, “Ah! that
that word had been left
unspoken, that deed undone, that habit unformed, that course unchosen!”
If such is sin in its resurgent
powers:
Ø
what a compensatory
fact we have in the truth that it may be
wholly forgiven by the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, so that
it does not continue to interpose between our souls
and HIS
DIVINE FAVOR, and
Ø
how wise to bring
our life at its very commencement under the
law of holiness, so that those sins may be avoided which would,
if incurred, dog our steps and haunt our spirits!
THE LIFE OF MAN.
So far as the word can be used appropriately in
such a case, we may say that it is the natural thing for the
sons to close
the eyes of their father (see Genesis 46:4), to carry him to
the grave, to
cherish his memory, to follow his last directions. There is
something
strikingly unnatural when it has to be written that “they died before
their father.” But it is the constant consequence of sin. Sin is the great
overturning, confusing, inverting power in the world; putting that
before
which should be behind, and that below which should be above,
disordering and disarranging everything in the world which God made
beautiful and blessed.
Illustrations abound in every sphere of human
activity.
THOUGHT TO GIVE US. These young men died, and “had no
children.” In the common course of providence they would have had
the deep, full joy of parents, and their children and
descendants would
have carried down their lineage to the distant future. But that one
“PRESUMPTUOUS SIN”
cut all this off. In how many ways does
human guilt shut the hand of beneficence, impoverishing itself and
all whom it can affect!
FOR LONELY AGE.
These words may be written of those who are not
sinful but unfortunate. In the families of the holy and the
faithful it is
often the painful record — the young men, the young women, “die
before
their parents.” No one who is wise
will risk anything on the assurance of
continued life. Youth in all its
vigor may be but a step or two distant from
the grave. Strong manhood,
rejoicing motherhood, may be about to enter
on a life of clouded loneliness. Be ready for early death,
and for the long
dark shadow of bereavement.
(“Lord, help me to be ready to leave this
world, or to be left!” (Philip Henry, the father of Mathew Henry)
The Abiding Warning of the Willful (v.2)
The narrative of Nadab and Abihu which is here recalled is given in
Leviticus 10:1-5. The wording of the verse is taken from Numbers
3:4.
It is a story which we find it difficult to understand.
Probably its
explanation depends on an intimate acquaintance with the Jewish
system,
and
the sentiments prevailing in those earlier times. Nadab
and Abihu had
been honored with special privileges (see Exodus 24:1, 9-10); by
reason of this they may have become unduly exalted, and have been
tempted by spiritual pride to imagine that they were not bound by
ordinary
rules in the discharge of the duties of the priest’s office. Kitto gives a brief
but
sufficient sketch of the incident. “Among the priestly services was that
of
offering the precious incense upon the golden altar within the tabernacle,
at the
very time that the daily sacrifice was being consumed upon the
brazen altar in the court without. At the time the ritual service had been
inaugurated, the fire of the great altar was kindled from heaven; and
it was
made an ordinance that this holy
fire should always be kept up and
preserved, and that this, and this alone, was to be used in all the
sacred
services. The priests who
offered incense had, therefore, to fill their censers
with fire from the great altar when they went into the tabernacle to burn
incense. It was in this matter that
Nadab and Abihu sinned.
Treating this
ordinance as of no importance, thinking to themselves that common fire
would
burn their incense quite as well as the other; or, perhaps, as there is
reason to fear, having been led into a mistake, or neglect, by inebriety, they
filled their censers with ‘strange fire,’ unhallowed fire, not from the altar,
and
ventured to bring it into the tabernacle?
Permanent instruction may be
drawn from this incident by regarding willfulness as the very essence of
these men’s sin. When there was a distinct, definite, and well-known
Divine command, it pleased them to act on the dictate of
their own feeling.
In view of that full loyalty to Christ, and daily waiting
upon Him for
guidance and direction, which are necessary features of the
Christian life,
wilfulness is as perilous and as wicked in the
modern dispensation as in
the
older. In setting forth this evil and its fatal influence, consider:
bias left on humanity from our first father’s fall. We see the
signs of
human depravity mainly in this — that men’s wills are set against God’s
will, and have to be
subdued to His obedience. This is true of man:
Ø
as an individual, and
Ø
equally true of men when acting together in society or in the
nation.
(witness
the post-Christian era in Europe and now in the United
States – CY – 2012)
But there are different degrees
of willfulness, and in some the self-will is
a master-passion. Some
measures of willfulness in the common affairs of
life ensure energy
and mastery of circumstance; BUT IT IS WHOLLY
OUT OF PLACE IN THE
RELIGIOUS SPHERES, where energy must
depend on the spirit of service to Christ.
King Saul in his later and worse
moods, or from Judas Iscariot, who, with
views of his own, came to betray his very Lord. The apostle
warns us
concerning those who “will be
rich, and so fall into temptation and a
snare” (I Timothy
6:9). Willfulness expressed in acts
brings us at once
under Divine notice, because it then affects the comfort and
well-being
of others.
It puts a wrong tone upon
all the relations, and spoils the whole life by
possessing it with the spirit of self. God the Spirit cannot
rule the life, and
self rule at the same time; and if it be self that really
rules, then we are
“dead
while we live.” Practically dead, because
none of the “means of
grace” can prove the soul’s nourishment when willfulness rules.
(My besetting sins over my
lifetime have been sins of:
Ø
the flesh,
Ø
pride,
Ø
vanity,
Ø
selfishness,
Ø
an unforgiving Spirit and
Ø
not allowing the Holy Spirit of God to control me.
This last one is the source of
them all, because if I allowed the Holy
Spirit to control me, I would not have as much trouble with the flesh,
pride, vanity, and selfishness.
I also would be more forgiving, for no
man has sinned against me as I have sinned against God! (Like Paul,
I can only moan and say, “O wretched man that I am, who
shall
deliver me from the body of this death? I can then thankfully say,
“I thank God
through Jesus Christ. So then with the
mind I
myself serve the law of God; but
with the flesh the law of sin.” –
Romans 7:24-25 – CY - 2012)
Illustrated in
the case of Nadab and Abihu. Where willfulness is
but
growing, Divine chastisements
come for correction. Where willfulness
has gained full mastery, there must be Divine
judgments, such as utterly
crush down the pride. Exactly what Christianity proposes is the
“conversion
of self-will,” and the bestowment of the spirit
that
worships, and follows wholly, the
“good, and acceptable, and
perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:1)
3 “And
David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar,
and Ahimelech of the
sons of Ithamar, according to their offices in
their service.” The
Hebrew of this verse reads, And
David divided them, and
Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimalech of the
sons of Ithamar,
according to their offices (μt;D;suk]l"), in their service (μt;d;bo[]B"). And
the
evident purport of it is that the three, David, Zadok,
and Ahimelech,
conjointly made the arrangements. This is virtually repeated in vs.
6, 31
(see also ch.
25:1 for an analogous case). For the “Ahimelech” of this verse
and
vs. 6, 31, should be read “Abiathar,” as shown in ch.18:16, by comparison
of
I Samuel 22:20; II Samuel 20:25; I Kings 1:7-8; Mark 2:26.
4 “And
there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar
than
of the sons of Ithamar,
and thus were they divided. Among the
sons of Eleazar there
were sixteen chief men of the house of their
fathers, and eight among the sons of Ithamar according to the
house of their fathers.” The simpler translation of this verse might run thus:
And there were
found (of) sons of Eleazar,
more for chief men, than (of)
sons of Ithamar, and they divided them — to sons of Eleazar,
sixteen
chiefs of fathers’ houses; and to sons of Ithamar, eight.
5 “Thus
were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the
governors of the sanctuary, and governors of the
house of God,
were of the sons of Eleazar,
and of the sons of Ithamar.”
Translate, And
they divided them by lots, these with those;
i.e. as there was no
ground of choice between the two families, which
differed only in number, and as the highest ecclesiastical places
had been
filled already by both of them, the impartiality of the “lot” was resorted to,
for
the settling of the order in which they would take the services now in
question (ch.25:8). The governors; read rather, the
princes.
The distinction intended between “the holy princes,” or
“princes of the
sanctuary,” on the one hand, and “the princes of God” on the other,
is not
very clear. One instance of the former expression is found in Isaiah
43:28. Keil supposes there may be
no distinction between them, but adds
that if there is, he would take the “princes of God” to stand for the
regular
high priests exclusively, viz. those who could enter into the most holy place
before God. The “princes of God” is a title evidently illustrated
by the
word “
6 “And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the
scribe, one of the Levites,
wrote them before the king, and the princes, and
Zadok the priest,
and Ahimelech the
son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the
fathers of the priests and Levites: one principal
household being
taken for Eleazar, and
one taken for Ithamar.” The
person who acted
as
clerk or secretary on the occasion, and the whole number of the witnesses, and
the
lot-taking itself, are here given.
The present Hebrew text repeats the word zjua;
(taken) twice, before the name of Ithamar, at the end of the sentence. The evident
and
easy correction
of the first occurrence of which into dj;a,
(one) will make the
clause and sense correspond with what goes before. Bertheau, however,
and
Keil, and some others do not accept this correction,
and would keep
the
present Hebrew text, the first-named, moreover, contending that the
repetition of the word for “taking” points to two lots being
represented by
each house of Ithamar, whose total number was only
eight, for one of
Eleazar, whose total was sixteen. Not
only does the repetition of the
present Hebrew text not avail to authorize such a supposition, but
the
supposition itself would be unsupported and gratuitous. What is really
told
us
amounts to this only, that the drawing was first from the collection of
families under the name of Eleazar, and
then from that descended from
Ithamar.
For anything we are here told, the urn of Ithamar can
have held
out
only half as long as that of Eleazar, and it can be
only conjecture to
suppose that two lots were drawn from the urn of Eleazar for every one
from that of Ithamar, so as to make them run out
together at the end.
Could any one of the names from sixteen to twenty-four that
are recorded
in
this chapter as “coming forth” in the shape of a “lot,” be identified as
belonging to families descended from Ithamar,
the question might be
solved. Ahimelech the
son of Abiathar; read, as above, v. 3,
ch.18:16, etc.,
Abiathar the son of Abimelech.
7 “Now the
first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah,”
Jehoiarib.
Written thus only here and in ch.9:10; elsewhere always Joiarib.
He then is the head of the first of the twenty-four courses
of priests in David’s time,
and
according to his plan. (For the evidence of the return of some of this family
from the Exile, see Nehemiah 11:10, though the text of this clause is very
suspicious;
and
Ibid. ch.12:6,19. Jedaiah. (For the return of some of the descendants
of
this family, see Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 7:39; 12:6-7,19,21).
8 “The
third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim,”
- Harim (for the mention of
his
descendants, see Ezra 2:39; 10:21; Nehemiah 7:42; 10:5; 12:4 (where the name
appears as Rehum), 15).
The sons of Harim mentioned in Ezra 2:32; 10:31;
Nehemiah 7:35; 10:27, were not a
priest-family. Seorim. This name does
not
occur again.
9 “The
fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin,”
- Malchijah. An earlier priest
of
this same name is mentioned in ch.9:12, who is again mentioned in Nehemiah
11:12;
Jeremiah 21:1; 38:1. The name in our present verse is
probably the same (but used to
mark a family and not the individual) as that found in Nehemiah 10:3 (see
also Ibid. ch.
12:42). The Malchijah of
Nehemiah 3:11 and Ezra 10:25 is the name of an Israelitish
layman. Mijamin. In like manner,
this as a family name reappears in Nehemiah 10:7;
12:5 (in the form Miamin),
17, 41 (in the form Miniamin); see also II
Chronicles 31:15,
where the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Peshito
Syriac read Benjamin. The name as
of
a layman also appears in Ezra 10:25.
10 “The
seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah,”
– Hakkoz - The first half of
this word is the definite article, as may be seen in Nehemiah 3:4, 21 and Ezra
2:61,
where the name is found, as in the cases above, for the priest-family. Abijah (see
again Nehemiah 10:7; Luke 1:5). To this course, therefore, Zaharias, father
of John the Baptist, belonged.
11
“The ninth to Jeshuah, the tenth to Shecaniah,” - Jeshuah. In Ezra 2:36
and
Nehemiah 7:39 certain “children of Jedaiah,” who returned
from
are
mentioned as belonging to the “house
of Jeshua,” and distinguished presumably
thereby from children of another Jedaiah. This accords with the
fact that in
Nehemiah 12:6-7, and again in vs.19, 21, two families of
the name Jedaiah are
given in the priest-lists. We may, therefore, conclude that families
descended from
the
Jeshuah of our present verse were among those who
returned from captivity
(Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 7:39). Shecaniah (see Nehemiah 12:3, where spelt
Shechaniah). Of those similarly
named in Ezra 8:3, 5, the former may possibly
have been descendants of this Shecaniah,
the latter not so.
12
“The eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim,” - Eliashib. Not the
progenitor of the Eliashib of Nehemiah 3:1,20-21;
for see Ibid.ch.12:10,22-23,
for
the pedigree of the latter. Jakim, This name does not reappear.
13 “The thirteenth
to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab,”-
Huppah… Jeshebeab. The former of
these names is not found again among
priest-names, and the latter not at all.
14 “The
fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer,” -
Bilgah… Immer.
The former name reappears, not for the same person,
in Nehemiah 12:5, 18;
and,
under a slightly altered form, Bilgai, in Nehemiah 10:8. The latter is the name
of
a family known already (ch.9:12), and which became much better known
(Ezra 2:37; 10:20; Nehemiah 3:29; 7:40; 11:13; Jeremiah
20:1). The notices
parallel to one another (Ezra 2:59; Nehemiah 7:61) are interesting,
but obscure.
They probably speak of a place called Immer, but even this is not quite clear.
15 “The
seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Aphses,”-Hezir… Aphses.
The former name, as that of a layman, is found again in
Nehemiah 10:20. Of the
latter, spelt in the Hebrew Hapizez,
nothing more is known.
16 “The
nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezekel,” -
Pethahiah… Jehezekel. The former
name reappears as one of
those who separated themselves from the alliances they had
contracted in
the
land of their captivity (Ezra 10:23; Nehemiah 9:5). The latter is
in
its characters (laqez]j;y;) the same with
those of Ezekiel, though here
Anglicized as Jehezekel!
17 “The
one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to
Gamul,”
Jachin… Gamul. The latter of
these names is not found again in any connection
with a priest-family. Of the former we read as well in ch.9:10 as in
Nehemiah
11:10, and probably he is the Achim
of Matthew 1:14.
18 “The
three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and
twentieth to
Maaziah.” - Delaiah… Maaziah. The spelling
of the former of these
names, as it appears here and in Jeremiah 36:12, 25, differs by
the
addition of a shurek (W) from the name, spelt the same in the English
Version, found in ch.3:24; Nehemiah 6:10; 7:62; Ezra 2:60.
The latter
name recurs in Nehemiah 10:8, though without a final shurek.
19 “These were
the orderings of them in their service to come into the
house of the LORD, according to their manner,
under Aaron their
father, as the LORD God of
been thus given of the twenty-four classes or courses of the priests. Each course
served a week from the seventh day to the seventh (II Kings 11:9; II Chronicles
23:8). An interesting allusion to
this order of courses is tacitly made in Ezekiel
8:16-18, where the twenty-fifth idolater may be supposed to be the
high priest.
Some have, on very insufficient grounds, supposed that this
“ordering” of
courses was not really the institution of David, but attributed to
him after
the
Exile for the sake of the authority of his name. In Nehemiah 12:1-7,
moreover, the names do not appear as even twenty-four, but
twenty-two
— deficient by two! — a thing most easily to be accounted for. In addition
to
the direct scriptural witness on this subject, Josephus’s (‘
testimony confirms the account of our present chapter.
The Will of the Lord (v.19)
“As the Lord God of Israel had commanded
him.” These words may be
said to constitute the key-note of the whole Law (Exodus 39:42;
Leviticus 27:34; Numbers 36:13; Deuteronomy 34:9). Just as
Israel should pay heed
to this commandment of Jehovah, so it
would
flourish and rejoice; in proportion as it should depart from these
commandments, so it would fail and be distressed. Everything hung on a
loyal obedience to the Divine will. There were three forms of
obedience
then, and there is the same number now. We look at both.
RENDER.
Ø
Minute conformity
to positive precept. Everything, to
the smallest
particular, was to be “AFTER THE
PATTERN” (Exodus 25:9,40;
Numbers 8:4). In the
celebration of the sacrifices, the priests were
to be studious to follow the exact directions given in the
“commandment of the Lord,” and any deviation, though but
slight and apparently immaterial in itself, would vitiate
everything that was to be done.
Ø
Application of
broad principles. It was hopeless to
anticipate
every possible breach of such laws as, “Thou shall not defraud
thy
neighbor;” “Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself”
(Leviticus 19:13,18). An interpretation
and application of such
commandments as these must have been left largely to
the individual conscience.
Ø
Inquiry of the
Lord to know His will, and so to do it. This
was
the case, like that recorded in this chapter, whenever the
mind of
God was taken by means of
the lot (vs. 5- 6). A direct appeal
was then made to him for his direction, and, THUS GAINED,
IT WAS FOLLOWED!
SUMMONING US. They correspond to the preceding, yet differ
in some respects from them.
Ø
Christ has left
us but few positive enactments. We
seldom
meet with any minute prescriptions regulating behavior in
the New Testament. Days, forms, and methods of devotion
and service are left to our conscience and judgment. But there
are some interdictions and requirements which still exist, and
which bind us to the obedience of conformity to statute.
Ø
Christ requires
of us that we make constant application of
the broad principles
He has taught us. He has said to us,
“Love me: Follow
me: Care for my friends and little ones:
Walk in love, in
humility, in purity: Do good and communicate,”
etc.;
and He leaves it to those who bear His Name to apply and
illustrate these His general commandments, in all the details of
their individual, family, Church, national life. The man or the
Church that does not
try to find out THE WILL OF CHRIST
FROM HIS LIFE AND
HIS WORDS, and to do that
will
when thus discovered, is “NOT WORTHY OF HIM” and is
no true friend of His (John
15:14).
Ø
Christ desires us
to be continually seeking His will from His
own Divine Spirit. He has promised to come to us, to dwell
with us and within us, to instruct and inspire us by the
communications of the Spirit of God.
We are thus to learn
His will, and,
when thus directed, are to do what is right and
pleasing in His sight. So
far is the life of Christian obedience
from being one that is merely formal and mechanical. In Christ
Jesus the statutes are few;
the application of heavenly principles
is our daily duty; the
inquiry of the Lord to know what He would
have us do is our high privilege and our abiding obligation.
(Note
WWJD – WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?- a part of
modern culture! – CY – 2012)
Ancient Divine Rules Preserved in Modern Adjustments
(v. 19)
David found it necessary to make alterations and
adaptations when he reconstituted
the worship for the new tabernacle and the anticipated temple,
but in all his
adaptations he anxiously preserved the Mosaic principles and the
Mosaic order;
thereby giving an
important example of the spirit and the manner in which
modern adjustments of permanent principles should be made. We must accept
the fact of the changeableness of human life, thought,
and forms of relationship
and society. Age differs from age. A succeeding age will
often strive to realize
a contrast with the age preceding; it will
prefer what it disliked, and put in the
front what it had set in the background. We must take care
that the changes are
set under wise limitations, and the first of these is the fair
and adequate
representation, in the new scenes, of the old and permanent social, or
moral, or
religious principles. Some persons love change
for change’s sake;
and such persons often
put the best things in peril, and prevent the noblest
schemes for human
well-being from gaining an adequate trial.
Others resist
change as if it were wholly wrong and injurious; and such
persons help to
keep the yokes pressing on men’s necks long after it is
manifest how the
neck has become galled and painful. And many persons fail to
take
“change” at the hopeful time,
and so they lose all the finest opportunities
that life brings. These
diversities of relation to necessary change may be
illustrated in relation to human customs, to political history, to
ecclesiastical order, and to Church doctrine. We are instructed not to
“meddle with those who are given
to change;” but we have a very proper
admiration for such a man as the Apostle Paul, who, with far-seeing
wisdom, discerned how Judaism was passing into the broader
spiritual
Christianity, and put himself forward as a leader in the
change. Another
fact requires attention. All forms for the expression of principles
tend to
exhaust their capacity for expressing truth. Like vessels, or
pipes, that get
encrusted with use, they have to be taken away, and replaced by
other and
larger forms. All we have to
care for, from the most conservative
standpoint, is that THE OLD LIFE SHALL FLOW INTO AND THROUGH
THE NEW FORMS, AND THAT THE NEW FORM SHALL BE FULLY
ADEQUATE TO CONVEY THE GREAT FLOW OF THE OLD LIFE!
We may even plead that, in view of the ever-varying wants
of men, we should
be
ready to adopt new forms and modes in the religious life and service.
Illustration may be
taken from the attitude advisable towards such schemes
as
that of the Salvation Army, or modern mission halls and revivals. David
lived in one of the so-called “periods of transition,” and it is very interesting
to
mark how he led the change that was demanded, but CAREFULLY
TONED IT WITH DUE REFERENCE TO THE RULES AND ORDER
WHICH HAD BEEN DIVINELY GIVEN! (Has this idea been lost on
the Progressive Movement in America? We just came through an election
that concerned itself about health care to the point of providing condoms for
promiscuous women; entitlements for people who will not work, {historically,
it can be documented that democracies fall when the public realizes that
it can vote itself money out of the public treasury!} Two states, Washington
and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana - I recommend a close
scrutiny of
II Peter 2 and Jude 1 – to see that though the citizens of
a country may not
have resolve to clean up their act, GOD DOES HAVE
THAT RESOLVE
AND HE WILL JUDGE! Also consider that David served his generation
[Acts
13:36] and we may rightfully ask, WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR
OUR GENERATION? – “Rejoice O young man, in thy youth; and let
thy heart
cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of
thine heart, and in the sight of thine
eyes: BUT KNOW THOU, THAT
FOR ALL THESE THINGS GOD WILL BRING THEE INTO
JUDGMENT – Ecclesiastes 11:9 - CY – 2012). We may be sure that
God
will watch
jealously over His truth; and
will have, in every age, godly men
who will “earnestly contend
for the faith once delivered to the saints.”
(I Kings 19:18; Jude 1:3)
The Distribution
of the Other Levites (vs. 20-31)
20 “And
the rest of the sons of Levi were these: Of the sons of Amram;
Shubael: of the sons of Shubael; Jehdeiah.” The rest of the sons of Levi
designated here are explained sufficiently clearly by v. 30. They were
those who
were not of the sons of Aaron, not priests, but whose “office
was to wait on
the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord” (ch.23:28),
for
certain specified
work, some of which was of the more menial character.
These, of course, do not exhaust the whole of the non-priestly
Levites; for we
Read distinctly in the following two chapters of other
detachments of the non-priestly
Levites, whose office was as singers, door-keepers, and treasure-keepers.
And this consideration may of itself possibly be a
sufficient account of the absence
of
any of the family of Gershonites in the list of the
present chapter, though they do
appear to view for other work in ch.
26:21, etc. Amram… Shubael. The latter
of
these two names marks the line of Moses, in his eider son, Gershon,
whose
son
was Shebuel (ch. 23:15-16),
as the former is the name of the father of
Moses, and eldest son of Kohath.
21 “Concerning
Rehabiah: of the sons of Rehabiah,
the first was
Isshiah.” Rehabiah. This name marks the line of Moses, in the person
of
his younger son, Eliezer, father of Rehabiah. And the practical result of
these two verses is to give us the two “chiefs,” or heads, or
representatives,
Jehdeiah (v.20) and Isshiah, both Amramites.
22 “Of the
Izharites; Shelomoth: of
the sons of Shelomoth; Jahath.”
Jahath. Here follows in order after the Amramites,
Jahath, a descendant
from Izhar, Kohath’s second
son (ch.23:12, 18), through Shelomoth (otherwise
Shelemith).
This Jahath furnishes for us the third name of this
series of “other
sons of Levi.” From the absence
of these three names from the list of
ch.23:6-23, which list is occupied with fathers’ houses,
this list is occupied with
the
official classes of the Levites who were to be engaged in the way
already stated.
23 “And
the sons of
Jahaziel the third, Jekameam
the fourth.” This verse is manifestly imperfect.
What is necessary to fill up the evident gaps is to be found,
however, in ch.23:19;
Also the pointed allusion to the time of David, in ch.26:31, is deserving of
special
notice. The four names of this verse, then, are descendants
of Kohath’s third son,
24 “Of the
sons of Uzziel; Michah: of
the sons of Michah; Shamir.
25 The
brother of Michah was Isshiah:
of the sons of Isshiah;
Zechariah.”
These verses give us Shamir and Zechariah,
descendants
of
Uzziel, Kohath’s fourth son (ch.23:12), the former
through Michah
(Ibid. v.20), and the latter through Michah’s
brother, Isshiah (Ibid.), called here
“sons of Uzziel,” but presumably not intended for immediate sons (Exodus
6:22).
In all these fourteen heads were drawn from the four sons
of Kohath.
26 “The
sons of Merari were Mahli
and Mushi: the sons of Jaaziah;
Beno. 27 The sons of Merari by Jaaziah; Beno, and Shoham, and Zaccur,
and Ibri. 28 Of Mahli came Eleazar,
who had no sons. 29 Concerning
the son of
Merari. For the
oft-repeated Mahli and Mushi, they
belonged to the time of Moses
(Exodus 6:19; Numbers 3:33). The elder of these, Mahli,
as already seen in
ch.
23:21-22, had two sons, Eleazar and
the
daughters of Eleazar, who had no sons, and thus kept
only one house surviving,
the
head of which was (v. 29) Jerahmeel. This would seem to complete all that
needs to be said of the Mahli line.
Meantime, however, we are confronted by the
contents of the latter half of our v. 26 and v. 27. These purport
to give, amid some
confusion of expression, sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son (Beno). No
anterior authority, however, can be found for this Jaaziah.
Neither of him
nor
of any of the three names (omitting Beno,
which is evidently to be
translated “his son”) here linked on to his, is anything known. While
we
accept the text as it at present is, we have an additional branch
with three
families to add to the account of Merari
— the branch of Jaaziah, the
three families of Shoham, Zaccur, Ibri. Even so we have in v. 27 to
obliterate arbitrarily the conjunction van, prefixed to the
name Shoham.
Under these circumstances, Keil
impatiently rejects these clauses
altogether, as an interpolation, though one of which he can give no
account, and adds up, in consequence, the families of Levi
(exclusive of the
priests) to twenty-two instead of the unexplained twenty-five of
the present
text. On the other hand, Bertheau retains the
present reading, and accepts
Jaaziah as a third branch of the family of Merari.
If this were so, it is
surprising that nowhere else is room found for the slightest mention
of
Jaaziah, nor any other mention of these supposed descendants.
30
“The sons also of Mushi; Mahli,
and Eder, and Jerimoth. These
were the sons of the Levites after the house of
their fathers.”
The three sons of Mushi here
given agree with ch.23:23. It is to be observed
that, in the foregoing verses, we have no expressed sum of the families or
heads
to
which they add up. Hence Bertheau finds twenty-five in all, which he would
reduce to the twenty-four he wants by omitting, without any
adequate
justificacation, the Mahli of v. 30. Others,
omitting the three names of Shoham,
Zaccur, Ibri, bring the twenty-five to
twenty-two. Keil finds only fifteen “heads” or
“classes,” but surmises that the Hebronite and Mushite “fathers’
houses”
may
have been numerous enough to find more than one “class;” and
thereby to make up the twenty-four classes which he desires as
well for
symmetry’s sake as for the patent suggestions of v. 31.
31 “These
likewise cast lots over against their brethren the sons of
Aaron in the presence of David the king,
and Zadok, and
Ahimelech, and the chief of the fathers of the
priests and Levites,
even the principal fathers over against their
younger brethren.”
Over against… over against. This
translation of the Hebrew
(tM"[l]) is obscure and awkward. The meaning is “equally with,” or
“correspondingly with”
(ch.26:12,16). The root means “communion,” and the
word is found only in the constructive state.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com