I Chronicles 6
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 (vs. 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.
1 “The
sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath,
and Merari.” This
verse gives the
three branches of Levi,and is in
agreement with the enumeration of them in
Genesis 46:11 and Exodus 6:16, viz. Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. We have
not
the third parallel passage in the place of mention of the other tribes
(Numbers 1:47-54), but it is compensated for somewhat later (Ibid.
ch.3:14-20).
2 “And the
sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.”
The second son, Kohath, rather Kehath
(th;q], Hebrew, and so Septuagint
and
Vulgate), is at once singled out, in order to get at the priest line. He was
one
of
the travelers with Jacob into
of
Joseph, lived thirty years after his death, and attained the age of one hundred
and
thirty-three years, after a residence in
years in all. The Kohathites are
expressly mentioned in their sacred duties in the
time of David (ch.15:5-8), and in the time of Hezekiah (II Chronicles
29:12-14). The four sons of Kohath are next instanced, in order to get another
step nearer the clear beginning of the priest line. This is done in the
person of the
oldest brother, Amram, who became father of Aaron and Moses
and Miriam.
3 “And
the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The
sons also of Aaron; Nadab,
and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.” Once more,
Aaron is singled out, and Eleazar, the
third of his four sons, fixes the exact
channel of descent required.
4 “Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua,” Eleazar. From this
name inclusive follow the twenty-two, which terminate with Jehozadak,
who
indeed never attained himself 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 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
Nadab and Abihu, died without issue (Leviticus
10:1; Numbers 3:4, 32; 20:28;
ch. 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 (I Kings 2:26-27; Josephus, 8:1, § 3), to be
recovered again in the
Zadok of our v. 8 (ch. 24:3-4). Phinehas; a memorable man (Numbers
25:7-13; Joshua 22:10-33; Judges 20:28; Psalm
106:30-31; which compares
well with Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). Abishua; only mentioned in this
chapter and Ezra 7:1-5. Josephus (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 (5:11, § 5).
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,”
Of the five succeeding names, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah,
it
may be said that they reappear in the list of Ezra 7., but that little
or nothing
else is known of them. It is
possible 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.
8 “And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz,” 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
ch. 9:11 and Nehemiah 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 (II Chronicles 31:13). The recurrence of the two names
Ahitub and Zadok in vs. 11-12 is very
possibly the result of some
error; and it is in favor of such a supposition, in some form of
it, at all
events, that in that place, where, including Shallum
(or Meshullam), only
three steps are found, several more seem to be required — the
period one
of
some one hundred and eighty years, and filled in the list of
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 ch.
9:11 and Nehemiah 11:11, as above,
with their insertion of Meraioth — still other
names being absent which would
make up the requisite number of generations. Zadok. The earliest glimpse we get
of
him is in ch.12:28, where he is introduced as “a young man mighty of
valor,” who now casts in his lot with David at
II Samuel 15:24,29,35, we find him
and Abiathar the recognized priests.
In I Kings 1:7-8, we find him true
to David when Abiathar joined Adonijah
—
the
punishment of the latter and the reward of the former being recorded in
I Kings 2:27,35, 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
(1 Kings 8.) his name is entirely absent. The
last allusions to him are in I Kings 4:2,4;
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 v.10 should follow the Azariah
mentioned in the previous verse.
9 “And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan,” - Ahimaaz.
The first important notice of him is found in II Samuel
15:36, and the last
In Ibid. ch. 18:29. He is not to
be identified with Solomon’s” officer” in Naphtali
(I Kings 4:15). Azariah. As above said, it is almost
without a doubt after this
Azariah (Ibid. v.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
(II Chronicles 26:17, 20), who must have been nearly a
century later, and was
contemporary with Isaiah, Joel, and Amos. (In fact, Smith’s A Dictionary of
the Bible has twenty-four [24] different Azariah’s
mentioned in the Bible – CY –
2012)
10 “And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is
that executed the priest’s
office in the temple that Solomon built in
Azariah, his
son, nothing can be found with any certainty. It is presumable
that they were priests in the reigns of Abijah and
Asa.
11 “And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub,” - Amariah.
High priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles
19:11; see Smith’s ‘Bible
Dictionary,’ sub voce, 2). A step ascertainable as this helps to keep the line and
chronology steady amid surrounding obscurity.
12 “And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum,” - (See above on v. 8.)
13 “And Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah,” Shallum, called
in
I Chronicles 9:11 and Nehemiah 11:11 Meshullam.
There are at fewest fifteen persons
of
this name. The present is named as ancestor of Ezra (Ezra 7:2). Hillkiah. There are
seven persons of this name. The present was the celebrated one
of them all; and from
three chief circumstances:
(II Kings 22:8);
(Ibid. ch.14-20; 23:4-27);
year of Josiah’s reign (II Chronicles 35:1-19).
14
“And Azariah begat Seraiah,
and Seraiah begat Jehozadak,”
Azariah.
The third occurrence of this name in this
list. This person is found again in Ezra 7:l,
but
is wanting in Nehemiah 11:11. Seraiah; found
also in Ibid., in a
list which omits
the
preceding Azariah, and in Ezra 7:1. The end of his
high priesthood and
of
himself is recorded with that of Zephaniah (II Kings 25:18, 23), and
(not the Seraiah,
“the quiet prince,” of Jeremiah 51:59-64) he is also
spoken of in Ibid. ch.52:24-27. He was high priest in the time of
Zedekiah.
15 “And Jehozadak went into captivity, when the LORD carried away
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 v. 4). Where this name occurs in Haggai
1:1,12,14; 2:2,4; and Zechariah 6:11, it is the same in
the Hebrew as here, though
Anglicized in
the Authorized Version as Josedech. Where it
occurs in Ezra 3:2,8;
5:2; 10:18 and Nehemiah 12:26, the shorter form of Jozadak
is found in the
Hebrew as in the Authorized Version.
A Witness in a Man’s Name (vs. 14-15)
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
noted as remarkable that the heads of both
the priestly and the royal stock carried
to
same elements, and assertive of the ‘justice of God,’
which their sufferings showed
forth so signally.”
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-rael. 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 (Isaiah 7:14), Shear-jashub (Ibid. v. 3), and Maher-shalal-hash-baz
(Ibid. ch.
8:1-3). 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.”
(Revelation 2:17; 3;12) 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.” (Romans 12:1)
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.” 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
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 RIGH!” (Genesis 18:25)
If, however, the suffering of
the good troubles us, we may find rest in an appeal to the great case —
OUR LORD
SUFFERED! He was not merely “smitten of
God and
afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4). There
was Divine righteousness in the affliction.
He was
man’s Sin-bearer, and judged for others. Here is a firm foundational
truth (from
the foundation of the world, CHRIST STOOD AS A
LAMB
SLAIN (Revelation
13:8), then, which no earthly
appearances or strange
human experiences can shake. Proclaim it once again, and proclaim it ever
— “JEHOVAH IS RIGHTEOUS.”
A Look at Two High Priests (vs. 10,15)
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
of
popes from those of
from those of
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 splendor 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 favor shown to the sacrificing and repentant
nation.
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
office. Where the nation was, it became its religious head to be
also.
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
(Hebrews 4:14-15),
they are thus able to “rejoice
with those who do rejoice, and weep with
those
who weep” (Romans 12:15). 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.
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.” These verses
have a reenumeration of the three
sons of Levi, and differ from the enumeration of v.1, in being
followed by the
sons of each of these three, and afterwards by the line of
descendants from
each, instead of by the sons of only one, Kohath,
and his descendant in
only one stem, the high priest stem, and with only one object. All these
names agree with Exodus 6:17-19 and Numbers 3:17-20 (compare
also
Numbers 3:21-36 with 26:57-60), with the trifling
exceptions already alluded to,
in
the Hebrew spelling of Gershom and the Authorized
Version spelling of Shimei
and
the Authorized Version Mahali of Exodus 6:19. The
latter half of v. 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.”
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.”
These two 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 (vs. 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 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 v. 42 is omitted from v. 20, and the Libni of v. 20 from v. 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 v. 42, it is very remarkable that we find a Zimmah,
also
father of a Joah, in II Chronicles 29:12; also in this same passage we
find three other reproductions of a similar kind — father and son-of
what
have first been found in this sixth chapter, viz. “Mahath, son of Amasai”
(v. 35); “Joel, son of Azariah” (v. 36); “Kishi, son of Abdi” (v. 44).
It
seems as though the individual descendant was quoted in these
instances by
the
name of the ancestor at a certain point.
These next seven verses (22-28) give descendants, probably
twenty-one in
number, from Levi, through his second son, Kohath,
to Joel, eldest son of
Samuel and (v. 33) father of Heman. The
descendants of Kohath through
his
eldest son, Amram, have been given from vs. 3-15. But
the descendants
now
to he spoken of are through another son, here called Amminadab,
a
name not appearing among the four of v. 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 vs. 37-38
and Numbers 16:1, Korah is said
to
be the son of Izhar. Without the occurrence of this
clue, we should have
been at a loss to tell who Amminadab was, as we
are now at a loss to explain
the
unexplained substitution of this new name. The Vatican Septuagint has
Amminadab, while the Alexandrine has altered to Izhar,
probably deeming the
other name a mere error.
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,”
Korah
(compare Numbers 16:27, 32-33, with
26:9-11). From Exodus 6:24 we
also learn that the three next in lineal succession to Korah,
were Assir, Elkanah,
and
Ebiasaph, or Abiasaph;
though Elkanah and Assir
are omitted from v. 37,
in
the ascending line.
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.” Tahath.
From this name onwards to the end of v. 28 we
must have recourse to the reversed list of vs. 33 -37, in order to make out
our
way. Even then we shall scarcely have a chain of all the links; 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
=Azariah;
Shaul = Joel; Elkanah, Amasai, Ahimoth = Mahath; Elkanah
Zophai = Zuph; Nahath = Toah, Tohu, (I Samuel 1:1), Eliab
=Eliel,
Elihu (Ibid); Jeroham, Elkanah, Samuel
= Shemuel; Joel (I Samuel 8:2),
which distinctly gives Joel as firstborn son, and
supplies the explanation of
the
Vashni here by expressly
mentioning Abiah as “his second” son).
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.” In v.19 the
two
sons of Merari, viz. Mahli
and Mushi, are given.
Here one of them, Mahli, is
repeated, with six descendants, of no one of whom have we any other
information.
From comparison of Numbers 3:20 and 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 vs. 44-47.
Lessons from Lists; or, a Sermon in Names
(vs. 1-30)
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:
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 behavior. 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
(vs. 3, 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” (Matthew
11:23) in
guilt and condemnation.
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 (Matthew 13:24-30). 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.
Ø
What a reason for
watchfulness and prayer!
Ø
What opportunity
for usefulness!
Ø
·
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:
Ø
That not only our
NAMES BUT OUR ACTIONS are written
in some IMPERISHABLE RECORD in GOD’S
UNERASIBLE
HANDWRITING!
Ø
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.
In the early verses of this section (vs. 31-48) 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, I Samuel 4:11;
5.,
6.), and especially in its prolonged twenty years’ sojourn at Kirjath-jearim
(Ibid. ch. 7:1-2; II Samuel
6:1-19; ch.13:3-14; 15:1-3; 17:5). It
now
had
rest, though its place of rest was only within “curtains” (II Samuel 7:2;
I Chronicles 17:1), i.e. in a special separate tent
prepared for it by David, which
tent
was probably the suggestion, and as it were the nucleus, of the coming
grand temple itself — the house of God. The event was naturally
one of
great joy and thanksgiving, of which David himself was the chief
leader
(II Samuel 6:17-21; I Chronicles 16:1-3); but it appears
also that it
furnished the occasion of appointing fixed choir conductors, leaders
of the
service of song” (I Chronicles 16:4-7, 37, 41-42; 25:1-7).
31 “And
these are they whom David set over the service of song in the
house of the LORD, after that the ark had rest.”
The Service of Song (v.31)
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
“the service of song in the house of the Lord” occupied an important position in
the
religious observances of
outburst of joy, the fervor and rapture of love, the pathos of
sorrow, find
their form and utterance in song.
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.
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”
(Mark 14:26), and Paul and Silas
sang praises at midnight in the jail of
God’s praises in their social assemblies.
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
praises to God, sing praises: sing
praises unto the King, sing praises” (Psalm 47), this the admonition
of the psalmist; and the apostle thus directs us: “Is any merry? let
him
sing psalms.” (James 5:13)
PSALMODY OF LABOR, 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 (II Samuel 24:24).
God will have our best; and when we have
offered this, of His own have we given Him. (ch.
29:14)
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
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.
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 honor, and glory, and power,
be unto Him that sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb for
ever and ever.” (Revelation 5:13); “A great multitude, which no
man could number... stood.., and cried with a loud voice,
saying,
Salvation to our
God, which sitteth upon the throne, and unto
the Lamb…..Amen:
Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and
thanksgiving, and honor, and power,
and might, be unto our
God for ever and ever ” (Revelation 7:10,12). 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:
Ø
A source of joy to
each participant.
Ø
A service to
fellow-worshippers.
Ø
An acceptable offering
to the Saviour.
32 “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
their order.”
Instances full of illustration of this ministering…
with singing
and waiting on their
office are found in II
Chronicles 5:12; 29:26-31; 35:15-16.
Waiting on Their Office (v. 32)
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
HIS MERCY ENDURETH FOR EVER!” (Psalm 107:1; 136:1-26)
It is recorded that, upon certain great occasions in Jewish
history, as, for example,
when Solomon dedicated the 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 (II Chronicles 5:12; 29:27-30; 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.
TO FILL, A SERVICE TO RENDER.
Ø
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” (Psalm
37:23). “My times
are in thy hand.” (Ibid. ch. 31:15)
Ø
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 neighbor!” It is your duty to which you must look, that
there may
be no lack of service through your failure.
UPON A PROPER SYSTEM AND IN AN
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
fulfill — we have to fulfill 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:
Ø
Diligence.
Ø
Method.
Ø
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.
LORD AND JUDGE.
Ø
The watchful eye of
God is always upon us.
Ø
By providential
appointment, careful fidelity makes its mark upon
our character.
Ø
“We must all of us
appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ” (II
Corinthians 5:10). “The fire
shall try every man’s
work, of what sort it is.” (I Corinthians 3:13)
A MODEL AND A MOTIVE IN OUR
LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Ø
Consider how Christ “waited upon his office.” He came to do the
will of God. (Psalm 40:7-8; John 4:34) “He took upon Him the
form of a servant.”
(Philippians 2:7). He was found
faithful. It
was only when He could say, “It is
finished!” (John 19:30) THAT
HE CONSENTED TO
DIE. “I lay down my life,
that I might
take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of
myself. I have power to
lay it down, and I have power to take
it again” (John
10:17-18). In life and in death it was His meat
and drink to do His Father’s will (John 4:34). Thus HE
LEFT
US AN EXAMPLE that we should
follow His steps. (I Peter 2:21)
Ø
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. (II Corinthians 5:14) 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.
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 endeavoring to serve their
Saviour,
and glorify their
God.
33 “And
these are they that waited with their children. Of the sons of
the Kohathites: Heman a singer, the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel,
34 The son
of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham,
the son of Eliel, the son of
Toah, 35 The son of Zuph,
the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath,
the son
of Amasai, 36 The son of Elkanah, the
son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the
son of Zephaniah, 37 The son
of Tahath, the son of Assir,
the son of
Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,
38 The son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the
son of Levi, the son 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
v. 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 center,
with Asaph on the right and Ethan on the left (vs. 39, 44). Heman is the
twenty-first according to this list (vs. 33-38) after Levi, but
the genealogy is
indistinct (see above, vs. 22-28) between Shemuel
(Samuel) and Assir. Heman
comes fourteenth after Levi. This Heman
is to be distinguished from Heman the
“son of Zerah” (ch. 2:6), and with but little
doubt, therefore, from Heman
the
Ezrahite (Zerahite) of
Psalm 88. 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.
39 “And
his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, even Asaph the
son of Berachiah,
the son of Shimea,
40 The son of Michael, the son of
Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,
41 The son of Ethni, the son of Zerah, the
son of Adaiah, 42 The son
of Ethan, the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimei,
43
The son of Jahath, the son of Gershom,
the son of Levi.” 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 (v. 44) stands thirteenth. If the line of Heman (as given in vs. 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 vs. 20-21. From II Chronicles 29:30 it seems plain that
Asaph was
himself a composer of psalms, and not simply either the musician
or rehearser
of
those of David.
44 “And
their brethren the sons of Merari stood on the left
hand: Ethan
the son of Kishi,
the son of Abdi, the son of Malluch, 45 The son
of
Hashabiah, the son of Amaziah,
the son of Hilkiah, 46
The son of Amzi,
the son of Bani, the
son of Shamer,
47 The son of Mahli,
the son of Mushi,
the son of Merari,
the son of Levi.” Ethan. This passage and
ch.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 II Chronicles 35:15
the
title of “king’s seer” (hzO,j) is added to the name Jeduthun,
which is
variously spelt (ˆWtyir]y
ˆWtWdty ˆWtduy]). This arrangement of chief
singers, one from each of the three branches of Levi’s family,
lasted
unbroken to Josiah’s reign (Ibid.); and the representatives of Jeduthun, at all
events, are mentioned in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah
11:17-18). Kishi.
The most frequent form of this name is Kish (vyqi,
equivalent to the Vulgate
Cis), if, indeed, the form of this verse and that of ch. 15:17, Kushaiah
(Why;v;Wq), are not
merely the fruit of a corrupt text.
48 “Their
brethren also the Levites were appointed unto all manner of
service of the tabernacle of the house of
God.” The all
manner of service,
from that of the three “leaders of song” on their “cymbals of
brass” (ch.15:19)
down through the other Levitical grades, is
fully illustrated in many places
(Ibid. vs.18-24; 16:37-42; 23:2-32;
25:1-8; 26:1-26).
The Honorableness of Lesser Service (v. 48)
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. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of
these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matthew 25:40). 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” (Mark 9:41). 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.
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.
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:
Ø
loyalty to God and the right; and
Ø service to others.
Paul argues that the “lesser
services” (I Corinthians 12:23) have the honorable
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.”
These next five verses allude to the more special functions
of “Aaron and his
sons,” as they are here called, i.e., his lineal
descendants (vs. 4-15; Ezra 7:2-5),
whose names, stopping at Ahimaaz, the
eleventh generation, are the same with
those of vs. 3-8. The manifest inference is that the present enumeration,
stopping
with the name of one contemporary with David (II Samuel 15:27), was borrowed
from tables of the date of David, and not of the date of the Captivity (v.
15).
49 “But
Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar of the burnt offering,” -
(Leviticus 1:3-17) - “and on the altar of incense,” – (Exodus
25:6; 30:1-9,
34-38; Leviticus 16:12) - “and were appointed for all the work of
the place most holy,” – (Leviticus
16:12,14-15,17,20) -“and to make
an
atonement for
“according to all that Moses the servant of God had
commanded.”
The Constant Work of Atonement (v. 49)
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 (Numbers 25:1-13), which,
because it vindicates the
Divine honor, 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-ment, 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!
(Hebrews
9:25) 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. (But not so with Christ’s atonement – “Christ
was ONCE
OFFERED to bear the sins of many” (Ibid.
vs. 22-28). The
reason
appears to be this: every fresh act of willfulness and sin imperiled
the
standing of the individual and
the nation as within the Divine covenant, and
brought down upon them all the penalties of the broken
covenant —
penalties 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:
fully argued by Paul in the earlier chapters of the Epistle to
the Romans.
Beyond and besides other effects
of human sin, this must be fully
recognized — it sets us all out of our true standing with God, out of
the
covenant-relation which is conditioned by our obedience and faithfulness.
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. (I Peter 1:19-20)
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
50 “And
these are the sons of Aaron; Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son,
Abishua his son, 51
Bukki his son, Uzzi his
son, Zerahiah his son,
52 Meraioth his son, Amariah his
son, Ahitub his son, 53
Zadok his son,
Ahimaaz his son.” Eleazar.
The third son of Aaron (by Elisheba, daughter of
Amminadab, and descended from
descendants are given here, inasmuch as he was appointed chief of the
Levites (Numbers 3:32); ministered as a priest with his
brother Ithamar,
even before the death of Aaron; and succeeded him as high priest
(Ibid. ch.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
I Samuel 2:30.
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 (vs. 54-61), then taking
those of the Gershomite (v. 62) and Merarite lines (vs. 63-65) in order; and again
in
the same order disposing of the members not priestly (vs. 66-70; 71-76; 77-81)
of
the same three branches.
54 “Now
these are their dwelling places throughout their castles in their
coasts,” -
μt;wOryfi
means the settlements of whatever
people in question,
surrounded and protected by whatever fence or defense customary - “of the
sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites: for theirs was the lot.”
For theirs was the lot is more intelligible with the addition of the word “first,”
supplied in Joshua 21:10, i.e. theirs was the first lot. The
whole drift of the
present passage, with the remainder of the chapter, is made
entirely plain by
Numbers 35:1-8 and Joshua 21:1- 10. But the omission and the alteration of
individual names of places occasion some delay.
55 “And
they gave them
thereof round about it. 56 But the fields of the city, and the villages
thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh. 57 And to the sons
of Aaron they gave the cities of
and Libnah with her
suburbs, and Jattir, and Eshtemoa,
with their suburbs,
58 And Hilen with her suburbs, Debir
with her suburbs, 59 And Ashan
with her suburbs, and Bethshemesh
with her suburbs: 60 And out of the
tribe of Benjamin; Geba
with her suburbs, and Alemeth with her suburbs,
and Anathoth with
her suburbs. All their cities throughout their families
were thirteen cities.” Our v. 55 is
given somewhat more fully in Joshua 21:11;
our
v. 56 is identical with Ibid. v.12; and our vs. 57-60 correspond substantially
with Ibid. vs.13-19, but from this latter source we are glad to supply the
two names
Juttah and
of
v. 60.
61
“And unto the sons of Kohath, which were left
of the family of that
tribe, were cities given out of the half tribe,
namely, out of the half
tribe of Manasseh, by lot, ten cities.”
Also in Joshua, our Hilen, Ashan, and Alemeth appear as
Almon respectively,
although in regard to the intermediate name of these
three the places cannot be accepted as identical, for they are
mentioned
side by side in Joshua 19:7 and in ch. 4:32, but
we must admit an error involved.
V. 56 (see Joshua 14:14; 21:12). V. 61 seems to be an
anticipation of vs. 66-70,
with which verses, if we incorporate it, we shall obtain substantially the
same results
as
are found in Joshua 21:5, 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 ver. 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 (v.
61),
the residue (Authorized Version, v. 66), the remnant (v. 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 Kohathite
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.
62 “And to
the sons of Gershom throughout their families out of
the
tribe of Issachar, and out of the tribe of
Asher, and out of the tribe
of Naphtali, and out of the tribe of Manasseh
in
cities.” 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 vs. 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.
The distribution of cities to the third branch of Levi’s
family, that of Merari, now
follows. They are selected,
four from each of the tribes of Reuben, Gad,
Zebulun (Joshua 21:7, 34-40).
63 “Unto
the sons of Merari were given by lot, throughout
their
families, out of the tribe of Reuben, and out of
the tribe of Gad,
and out of the tribe of Zebulun,
twelve cities. 64
And the children
of
65 And
they gave by lot out of the tribe of the children of
out of the tribe of the children of Simeon,
and out of the tribe of the
children of Benjamin, these cities, which are
called by their names.
66 And the
residue of the families of the sons of Kohath had
cities of
their coasts out of the tribe of Ephraim. 67 And they
gave unto them,
of the cities of refuge, Shechem
in
they gave also
suburbs, and Bethhoron
with her suburbs, 69 And Aijalon with her
suburbs, and Gathrimmon
with her suburbs: 70 And out of
the half
tribe of Manasseh; Aner
with her suburbs, and Bileam with her suburbs,
for the family of the remnant of the sons
of Kohath.”
71 “Unto
the sons of Gershom were given out of the family of
the half tribe
of Manasseh, Golan in
suburbs:” Golan was one of the three cities of refuge east of the
(Joshua 20:8), the other two being Bezer,
of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in
connected with Og King of
13:12). It is called Beeshterah
in Joshua 21:27.
72 “And
out of the tribe of Issachar; Kedesh with her
suburbs, Daberath
with her suburbs,” Kedesh. There were three places of this name.
the same with Kadesh-barnea (Ibid. 15:3).
ch.12:22; it is called Kishon in Ibid. ch.21:28.
in the tribe of Naphtali (Ibid. ch.
19:37; 20:7; 21:32; Judges 4:6-10).
Daberath (Authorized Version, Dabaroh, Joshua
21:28); mentioned as on the
boundary of Zebulun in Ibid. ch.19:12.
73 “And Ramoth with her suburbs, and Anem
with her suburbs:”
Ramoth; called
in Joshua 21:28-29, Jarmuth; a place of which nothing
else is
known, but possibly one with Remeth
(Ibid. ch.19:21). Anem; probably the
En-gannim of
Ibid. vs. 21, 29, and perhaps a contraction of the name.
74 “And
out of the tribe of Asher; Mashal with her suburbs,
and Abdon
with her suburbs, 75 And Hukok with her
suburbs, and Rehob with her
suburbs: 76 And out of
the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in
suburbs, and Hammon with
her suburbs, and Kirjathaim with her suburbs.”
Mashal, Hukok, Hammon, Kirjathaim, are found
as Mishal, Helkath,
Hammoth-dor, Kartan, in Joshua
21:30-32; 19:35.
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 Joshua 21:34, “Unto the families of the
children of Merari, the rest of the Levites.” To our list here, Jokneam and
Kartah (Ibid.) need to be supplied, and Rimmon
and Tabor here appear
(Ibid. v.35), there as Dimnah
and Nahalai - “were given out of the tribe
of Zebulun, Rimmon with her suburbs, Tabor with her suburbs:”
78 “And on
the other side Jordan by
were given them out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the wilderness with
her suburbs, and Jahzah
with her suburbs,” Bezer. The full description of the
place is “Bezer in the wilderness, in the land of the Mishor” (Deuteronomy 4:43),
and
“Bezer in the wilderness,
in the Mishor,” i.e.
“the plain,” or as some, “the
downs” (Joshua
20:8). This, as mentioned above, was one of the three cities of
refuge east of the
79 “Kedemoth also with her suburbs, and Mephaath
with her suburbs:” –
The two names of this verse, with the two of the preceding,
i.e. all the four names
of
the cities of Reuben, are absent from their proper place in the list in Joshua
21,
in
the Hebrew Textus Receptus
and the Vulgate, though found in Ibid. ch.13:18.
80 And out
of the tribe of Gad; Ramoth in
and Mahanaim with
her suburbs, 81
And Heshbon with her suburbs,
and Jazer with her
suburbs.”
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.