1Ch 24:15-25 | KD | STEP | “He set them down,” viz., the classes, as the lot had determined them. מן־הלּוי, of the tribe of Levi. ול לכּהנים belongs to האבות ראשׁי, heads of the fathers'-houses of the priests and of the Levites. The second hemistich of gives a more detailed account of the drawing of the lots: “One father's-house was drawn for Eleazar, and drawn for Ithamar.” The last words are obscure. אחוּז, to lay hold of, to draw forth (Num 31:30, Num 31:47), here used of drawing lots, signifies plucked forth or drawn from the urn. The father's-house was plucked forth from the urn, the lot bearing its name being drawn. זאז ואהז, which is the only well-attested reading, only some few MSS containing the reading אהז ואחד, is very difficult. Although this various reading is a mere conjecture, yet Gesen. ( Thes. p. 68), with Cappell and Grotius, prefers it. The repetition of the same word expresses sometimes totality, multitude, sometimes a distributive division; and here can only be taken in this last signification: one father's-house drawn for Eleazar, and then always drawn (or always one drawn) for Ithamar. So much at least is clear, that the lots of the two priestly families were not placed in one urn, but were kept apart in different urns, so that the lots might be drawn alternately for Eleazar and Ithamar. Had the lot for Eleazar been first drawn, and thereafter that for Ithamar, since Eleazar’s family was the more numerous, they would have had an advantage over the Ithamarites. But it was not to be allowed that one family should have an advantage over the other, and the lots were consequently drawn alternately, one for the one, and another for the other. But as the Eleazarites were divided into sixteen fathers'-houses, and the Ithamarites into eight, Bertheau thinks that it was settled, in order to bring about an equality in the numbers sixteen and eight, in so far as the drawing of the lots was concerned, that each house of Ithamar should represent two lots, or, which is the same thing, that after every two houses of Eleazarites one house of Ithamarites should follow, and that the order of succession of the single houses was fixed according to this arrangement. To this or some similar conception of the manner of settling the order of succession we are brought, he says, by the relation of the number eight to sixteen, and by the words אהז and אהז ואהז. But even though this conception be readily suggested by the relation of the number sixteen to eight, yet we cannot see how the words אהז and אהז ואהז indicate it. These words would much rather suggest that a lot for Eleazar alternated with the drawing of one for Ithamar, until the eight heads of Ithamar’s family had been drawn, when, of course, the remaining eight lots of Eleazar must be drawn one after the other. We cannot, however, come to any certain judgment on the matter, for the words are so obscure as to be unintelligible even to the old translators. In we have the names of the fathers'-houses in the order of succession which had been determined by the lot. יצא, of the lot coming forth from the urn, as in ; Jos 19:1. The names Jehoiarib and Jedaiah occur together also in ; and Jedaiah is met with, besides, in Ezr 2:36 and Neh 7:39. The priest Mattathias, 1 Macc. 2:1, came of the class of Jehoiarib. Of the succeeding names, שׂערים ( ), ישׁבאב ( ), and הפּצּץ ( ) do not elsewhere occur; others, such as חפּה ( ), גּמוּל ( ), do not recur among the names of priests. The sixteenth class, Immer, on the contrary, and the twenty-first, Jachin, are often mentioned; cf. , 1Ch 9:12. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to the eighth, Abiah ( ).

‏ 1 Chronicles 24:15-25

1Ch 24:6-18 “He set them down,” viz., the classes, as the lot had determined them. מן־הלּוי, of the tribe of Levi. ול לכּהנים belongs to האבות ראשׁי, heads of the fathers'-houses of the priests and of the Levites. The second hemistich of 1Ch 24:6 gives a more detailed account of the drawing of the lots: “One father's-house was drawn for Eleazar, and drawn for Ithamar.” The last words are obscure. אחוּז, to lay hold of, to draw forth (Num 31:30, Num 31:47), here used of drawing lots, signifies plucked forth or drawn from the urn. The father's-house was plucked forth from the urn, the lot bearing its name being drawn. זאז ואהז, which is the only well-attested reading, only some few MSS containing the reading אהז ואחד, is very difficult. Although this various reading is a mere conjecture, yet Gesen. (Thes. p. 68), with Cappell and Grotius, prefers it. The repetition of the same word expresses sometimes totality, multitude, sometimes a distributive division; and here can only be taken in this last signification: one father's-house drawn for Eleazar, and then always drawn (or always one drawn) for Ithamar. So much at least is clear, that the lots of the two priestly families were not placed in one urn, but were kept apart in different urns, so that the lots might be drawn alternately for Eleazar and Ithamar. Had the lot for Eleazar been first drawn, and thereafter that for Ithamar, since Eleazar’s family was the more numerous, they would have had an advantage over the Ithamarites. But it was not to be allowed that one family should have an advantage over the other, and the lots were consequently drawn alternately, one for the one, and another for the other. But as the Eleazarites were divided into sixteen fathers'-houses, and the Ithamarites into eight, Bertheau thinks that it was settled, in order to bring about an equality in the numbers sixteen and eight, in so far as the drawing of the lots was concerned, that each house of Ithamar should represent two lots, or, which is the same thing, that after every two houses of Eleazarites one house of Ithamarites should follow, and that the order of succession of the single houses was fixed according to this arrangement. To this or some similar conception of the manner of settling the order of succession we are brought, he says, by the relation of the number eight to sixteen, and by the words אהז and אהז ואהז. But even though this conception be readily suggested by the relation of the number sixteen to eight, yet we cannot see how the words אהז and אהז ואהז indicate it. These words would much rather suggest that a lot for Eleazar alternated with the drawing of one for Ithamar, until the eight heads of Ithamar’s family had been drawn, when, of course, the remaining eight lots of Eleazar must be drawn one after the other. We cannot, however, come to any certain judgment on the matter, for the words are so obscure as to be unintelligible even to the old translators. In 1Ch 24:7-18 we have the names of the fathers'-houses in the order of succession which had been determined by the lot. יצא, of the lot coming forth from the urn, as in Jos 16:1; Jos 19:1. The names Jehoiarib and Jedaiah occur together also in 1Ch 9:10; and Jedaiah is met with, besides, in Ezr 2:36 and Neh 7:39. The priest Mattathias, 1 Macc. 2:1, came of the class of Jehoiarib. Of the succeeding names, שׂערים (1Ch 24:8), ישׁבאב (1Ch 24:13), and הפּצּץ (1Ch 24:15) do not elsewhere occur; others, such as חפּה (1Ch 24:13), גּמוּל (1Ch 24:17), do not recur among the names of priests. The sixteenth class, Immer, on the contrary, and the twenty-first, Jachin, are often mentioned; cf. 1Ch 9:10, 1Ch 9:12. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to the eighth, Abiah (Luk 1:5). 1Ch 24:19

These are their official classes for their service (cf. 1Ch 24:3), לבוא, so that they came (according to the arrangement thus determined) into the house of Jahve, according to their law, through Aaron their father (ancestor), i.e., according to the lawful arrangement which was made by Aaron for their official service, as Jahve the God of Israel had commanded. This last clause refers to the fact that the priestly service in all its parts was prescribed by Jahve in the law. ^{▼▼Of these twenty-four classes, each one had to perform the service during a week in order, and, as may be gathered with certainty from 2Ki 11:9 and 2Ch 23:9, from Sabbath to Sabbath. Josephus bears witness to this division in Antt. vii. 14. 7: διέμεινεν οὗτος ὁ μερισμὸς ἄχρι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας. Herzfeld, on the contrary (Geschichte des Volks Israel von der Zerstörung des ersten Tempels, Bd. i. S. 381ff.), following de Wette and Bramb., has declared the reference of this organization of the priests to David to be an invention of the chronicler, and maintains that the twenty-four classes of priests were formed only after the exile, from the twenty-two families of priests who returned out of exile with Zerubbabel. But this baseless hypothesis is sufficiently refuted by the evidence adduced by Movers, die bibl. Chron. S. 279ff., for the historical character of the arrangements attributed to David, and described in our chapters; but the remarks of Oehler in Herzog’s Realenc. xii. S. 185f. may also be compared. An unimpeachable witness for the prae-exilic origin of the division of the priests into twenty-four orders is the vision of Ezekiel (Eze 8:16-18), where the twenty-five men who worship the sun in the priests’ court represent the twenty-four classes of priests, with the high priest at their head. In Neh 12:1-7 and Neh 12:12-21 also unimpeachable evidence for the Davidic origin of the division of the priests into twenty-four classes is to be found, as we shall show in treating of these passages.} 1Ch 24:20-31 The classes of the Levites. - The superscription, “As to the other Levites” (1Ch 24:20), when compared with the subscription, “And they also cast lots, like to their brethren the sons of Aaron” (1Ch 24:31), leads us to expect a catalogue of these classes of Levites, which performed the service in the house of God at the hand of, i.e., as assistants to, the priests. הנּותרים are the Levites still remaining after the enumeration of the priests. We might certainly regard the expression as including all the Levites except the Aaronites (or priests); but the statement of the subscription that they cast lots like the sons of Aaron, and the circumstance that in 1 Chron 25 the twenty-four orders of singers and musicians, in 1 Chron 26:1-19 the class of the doorkeepers, and in 1Ch 26:20-32 the overseers of the treasures, and the scribes and judges, are specially enumerated, prove that our passage treats only of the classes of the Levites who were employed about the worship. Bertheau has overlooked these circumstances, and, misled by false ideas as to the catalogue in 1 Chron 23:6-23, has moreover drawn the false conclusion that the catalogue in our verses is imperfect, from the circumstance that a part of the names of the fathers'-houses named in 23:6-23 recur here in 1Ch 23:20-29, and that we find a considerable number of the names which are contained in 1 Chron 23:6-23 to be omitted from them. In 1Ch 23:20-25, for example, we find only names of Kohathithes, and in 1Ch 23:26-29 of Merarites, and no Gershonites. But it by no means follows from that, that the classes of the Gershonites have been dropped out, or even omitted by the author of the Chronicle as an unnecessary repetition. This conclusion would only be warrantable if it were otherwise demonstrated, or demonstrable, that the Levites who were at the hand of the priests in carrying on the worship had been taken from all the three Levite families, and that consequently Gershonites also must have been included. But no such thing can be proved. Several fathers'-houses of the Gershonites were, according to 1Ch 26:20., entrusted with the oversight of the treasures of the sanctuary. We have indeed no further accounts as to the employment of the other Gershonites; but the statements about the management of the treasures, and the scribes and judges, in 1Ch 26:20-32, are everywhere imperfect. David had appointed 6000 men to be scribes and judges: those mentioned in 1Ch 26:29-32 amounted to only 1700 and 2700, consequently only 4400 persons in all; so that it is quite possible the remaining 1600 were taken from among the Gershonites. Thus, therefore, from the fact that the Gershonites are omitted from our section, we cannot conclude that our catalogue is mutilated. In it all the chief branches of the Kohathites are named, viz., the two lines descended from Moses’ sons (1Ch 24:20, 1Ch 24:21); then the Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites (1Ch 24:23-25), and the main branches of the Merarites (1Ch 24:26-30). 1Ch 24:20 is to be taken thus: Of the sons of Amram, i.e., of the Kohathite Amram, from whom Moses descended (1Ch 23:13), that is, of the chief Shubael, descended from Moses’ son Gershon (1Ch 23:16), his son Jehdeiah, who as head and representative of the class made up of his sons, and perhaps also of his brothers, is alone mentioned.