With this chapter commences the second section of the history of David's kingship, viz. the account of the preparations, dispositions, and arrangements which he made in the last years of his reign for the establishment of his kingdom in the future under his successors (see above, p. 169 ff.). All these preparations and dispositions had reference to the firm establishment of the public worship of the Lord, in which Israel, as the people and congregation of Jahve, miMit show its faithfulness to the covenant, so as to become partakers of the divine protection, and the blessing which was promised. To build the temple — this desire the Lord had not indeed granted the fulfilment of to David, but He had given him the promise that his son should carry out that work. The grey-haired king accordingly made preparations, after the site of the house of God which should be built had been pointed out to him, such as would facilitate the execution of the work by his successor. Of these preparations our chapter treats, and in it we have an account how David provided the necessary labour and materials for the building of the temple (vers. 2-5), committed the execution of the work in a solemn wav to his son Solomon (vers. 6-16), and called upon the chiefs of the people to give him their support in the work (vers. 17-19).
Vers. 2-5. Workmen and materials for the building of the temple. — Ver 2. In order to procure the necessary workmen, David commanded that the strangers in the land of Israel should be gathered together, and, as we learn from 2 Chron. ii. 16, also numbered. O^jn, the strangers, are the descendants of the Canaanites whom the Israelites had not destroyed when they took possession of the land, but had reduced to bondage (2 Chron. viii. 7-9; 1 Kings ix. 20-22). This number wras so considerable, that Solomon was able to employ 150,000 of them as labourers and stone-cutters (1 Kings v. 29; 2 Chron. ii. 16 f.). These strangers David appointed to be stone-cutters, to hew squared stones, H*tt '•pax (see on 1 Kings v. 31). — Ver. 3. Iron and brass he prepared in abundance: the iron for the nails of the doors, i.e. for the foldingdoors of the gates, i.e. partly for the pivots (Zapfen) on which the folding-doors turned, partly to strengthen the boards of which doors were made; as also for the nVteflD, literally, things to connect, i.e. properly iron cramps. — Ver. 4. The Tyrians sent him cedar trees or beams in abundance, probably in exchange for grain, wine, and fruit of various sorts, which the Phoenicians obtained from the Israelites; cf. Movers, Phonizier, iii. 1, S. 88 ff. Sidonians and Tyrians are named to denote the Phoenicians generally, as in Ezra iii. 7. When Solomon began to build the temple, he made a regular treaty with Hiram king of Tyre about the delivery of the necessary cedar wood, 1 Kings v. 15 ff. — Ver. 5 gives in substance the reason of what precedes, although it is connected with it only by i consec. Because his son Solomon was still in tender youth, and the building to be executed was an exceedingly great work, David determined to make considerable preparation before his death. ^1"JJ TJO, puer et tener, repeated in xxix. 1, indicates a very early age. Solomon could not then be quite twenty years old, as he was born only after the Syro- Ammonite war (see on 2 Sam. xii. 24), and calls himself at the commencement of his reign still |bjj IV* (1 Kings iii. 7). The word ">V^ may of itself denote not merely a boy, but also a grown youth; but here it is limited to the boyish age by the addition of TJJ. Berth, wrongly compares Ex. xxxiii. 11, where T|tt denotes not a boy, but a lad, i.e. sl servant. In the succeeding clause mrr? rto? is to be taken relatively: and the house which is to be built to the Lord is to be made great exceedingly («vVD?3 see on xiv. 2), for a name and glory for all lands, i.e. that it might be to the Lord for whom it should be built for an honour and glory in all lands, r? N3 n^N, I will ( = therefore will I) prepare for him (Solomon), soil, whatever I can prepare to forward this great work.
Vers. 6-16. Solomon commissioned to build the temple. — Ver. 6. Before his death (ver. 5) David called his son Solomon, in order to commit to him the building of the temple, and to press it strongly upon him, vers. 7-10. With this design, he informs him that it had been his intention to build a temple to the Lord, but the Lord had not permitted him to carry out this resolve, but had committed it to his son. The Keri *J3 (ver. 7) is, notwithstanding the general worthlessness of the corrections in the Keri, probably to be preferred here to the Keth. fo3, for foa might have easily arisen by the copyist's eye having wandered to T\"6y^h iJ3, ver. 6. David's addressing him as ^ is very fitting, nay, even necessary, and not contrary to the following NJN. "OS? DV, it was with my heart, i.e. I had intended, occurs indeed very often in the Chronicle, e.g. xxviii. 2, 2 Chron. i. 11, vi. 7 f., ix. 1, xxiv. 4, xxix. 10, but is also found in other books where the sense demands it, e.g. Josh. xiv. 7, 1 Kings viii. 17 f., x. 2. In r? ^j There came to me the word of Jahve (ver. 8), it is implied that the divine word was given to him as a command. The reason which David gives why the Lord did not allow him to build the temple is not stated in chap. xvii. (2 Sam. vii.), to which David here refers; instead of the reason, only the promise is there communicated, that the Lord would first build him a house, and enduringly establish his throne. This promise does not exclude the reason stated here and in chap, xxviii. 3, but rather implies it. As the temple was only to be built when God had enduringly established the throne of David, David could not execute this work, for he still had to conduct wars — wars, too, of the Lord — for the establishment of his kingdom, as Solomon also states it in his embassy to Hiram. Wars and bloodshed, however, are unavoidable and necessary in this earth for the establishment of the kingdom of God in opposition to its enemies, but are not consonant with its nature, as it was to receive a visible embodiment and expression in the temple. For the kingdom of God is in its essence a kingdom of peace; and battle, or war, or struggle, are only means for the restoration of peace, the reconciliation of mankind with God after the conquest of sin and all that is hostile to God in this world. See on 2 Sam. vii. 11. David, therefore, the man of war, is not to build the temple, but (ver. 9 f.) his son; and to him the Lord will give peace from all his enemies, so that he shall be nrvo?p Bfyt, a man of rest, and shall rightly bear the name Shelomo (Solomon), i.e. Friederich (rich in peace, Eng. Frederick), for God would give to Israel in his days, i.e. in his reign, peace and rest (^i?.^). The participle njti after n^n has the signification of the future, shall be born; cf. 1 Kings xiii. 2. npwp fc^K, not a man who procures peace (Jer. li. 59), but one who enjoys peace, as the following V "'fiirpjrn shows. As to the name nu?W, see on 2 Sam. xii. 24. Into ver. 10 David compresses the promise contained in chap. xvii. 12 and 13. — Ver. 11. After David had so committed to his son Solomon the building of the temple, a task reserved and destined for him by the divine counsel, he wishes him, in ver. 11, the help of the Lord to carry out the work, ^n??™, ut prospere agas et felici successu utaris (J. M. Mich.), cf. Josh. i. 8. 'V "En °f* a command from on high; cf. vV, ver. 8. Above all, however, he wishes (ver. 12) him right understanding and insight from God (n^??^, so connected in 2 Chron. ii. 11 also), and that God may establish him over Israel, i.e. furnish him with might and wisdom to rule over the people Israel; cf. 2 Sam. vii. 11. "rtO^pj, " to observe" = and mayest thou observe the law of Jahve; not thou must keep (Berth.), for Ttofcvl is to be regarded as a continuation of the verb, finit.; cf. Ew. § 351, c, S. 840. — Ver. 13. The condition of obtaining the result is the faithful observing of the commands of the Lord. The speech is filled with reminiscences of the law, cf. Deut. vii. 11, xi. 32; and for the exhortation to be strong and of good courage, cf. Deut. xxxi. 6, Josh i. 7, 9, etc.
In conclusion (vers. 14-16), David mentions what materials he has prepared for the building of the temple. *?J?) not, in my poverty (LXX., Vulg., Luth.), but, by my painful labour (magna molestia et labore, Lavat.); cf. Gen. xxxl. 42, and the corresponding "nte-^St, chap. xxix. 2. Gold 100,000 talents, and silver 1,000,000 talents. As the talent was 3000 shekels, and the silver shekel coined by the Maccabees, according to the Mosaic weight, was worth about 2s. 6d., the talent of silver would be about £375, and 1,000,000 talents £375,000,000. If we suppose the relative value of the gold and silver to be as 10 to 1, 100,000 talents of gold will be about the same amount, or even more, viz. about £450,000,000, i.e. if we take the gold shekel at thirty shillings, according to Thenius' calculation. Such sums as eight hundred or eight hundred and twenty-five millions of pounds are incredible. The statements, indeed, are not founded upon exact calculation or weighing, but, as the round numbers show, only upon a general valuation of those masses of the precious metals, which we must not think of as bars of silver and gold, or as coined money; for they were in great part vessels of gold and silver, partly booty captured in war, partly tribute derived from the subject peoples. Making all these allowances, however, the sums mentioned are incredibly great, since we must suppose that even a valuation in round numbers will have more or less correspondence to the actual weight, and a subtraction of some thousands of talents from the sums mentioned would make no very considerable diminution. On the other hand, it is a much more important circumstance that the above estimate of the value in our money of these talents of silver rests upon a presumption, the correctness of which is open to well-founded doubts. For in that calculation the weight of the Mosaic or holy shekel is taken as the standard, and it is presumed that the talents weighed 3000 Mosaic shekels. But we find in 2 Sam. xiv. 26 mention made in David's time of another shekel, " according to the king's weight," whence we may with certainty conclude that in common life another shekel than the Mosaic or holy shekel was in use. This shekel according to the king's weight was in all probability only half as heavy as the shekel of the sanctuary, i.e. was equal in weight to a Mosaic beka or half-shekel. This is proved by a comparison of 1 Kings x. 17 with 2 Chron. ix. 16, for here three golden minse are reckoned equal to 300 shekels, — a mina containing 100 shekels, while it contained only 50 holy or Mosaic shekels. With this view, too, the statements of the Rabbins agree, e.g. K. Mosis Maimonidis constitutiones de Siclis, quas — illustravit Joa. Esgers., Lugd. Bat. 1718, p. 19, according to which the hpw ^r&B> or rwittn hpw, i.e. the common or civil shekel, is the half of the l^lpn hpw* That this is the true relation, is confirmed by the fact that, according to Ex. xxxviii. 26, in the time of Moses there existed silver coins weighing ten gera (half a holy shekel) called beka, while the name beka is found only in the Pentateuch, and disappears at a later time, probably because it was mainly such silver coins of ten gera which were in circulation, and to them the name shekel, which denotes no definite weight, was transferred. Now, if the amounts stated in our verse are reckoned in such common shekels (as in 2 Chron. ix. 16), the mass of gold and silver collected by David for the building of the temple would only be worth half the amount above calculated, i.e. about £375,000,000 or £400,000,000. But even this sum seems enormously large, for it is five times the annual expenditure of the greatest European states in our day.1 Yet the calculation of the income or expenditure of modern states is no proper standard for judging of the correctness or probability of the statements here made, for we cannot estimate the accumulation of gold and silver in the states and chief cities of Asia in antiquity by the budgets of the modern European nations. In the capitals of the Asiatic kingdoms of antiquity, enormous quantities of the precious metals were accumulated. Not to mention the accounts of Ktesias, Diodor. Sic, and others, which sound so fabulous to us now, as to the immense booty in gold and silver vessels which was accumulated in Nineveh and Babylon (see the table in Movers, die Phonizier, ii. 3, S. 40 ff.), according to Varro, in Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxii. 15, Cyrus obtained by the conquest of Asia a booty of 34,000 pounds of gold, besides that which was wrought into vessels and ornaments, and 500,000 talents of silver; and in this statement, as Movers rightly remarks, it does not seem
1 According to Otto Hiibner, Statistical Table of all Lands of the Earth, 18th edition, Frankf. a. M. 1869, the yearly expenditure of Great Britain and Ireland (exclusive of the extra-European possessions) amounts to a little over £70,000,000; of the French Empire, to £85,000,000; of Russia, to about £78,000,000; of Austria and Hungary, to £48,500,000.
probable that there is any exaggeration. In Susa, Alexander plundered the royal treasury of 40,000, according to other accounts 50,000 talents, or, as it is more accurately stated, 40,000 talents of uncoined gold and silver, and 9000 talents in coined claries. These he caused to be brought to Ecbatana, where he accumulated in all 180,000 talents. In Persepolis he captured a booty of 120,000 talents, and in Pasargada 6000 talents (see Mov. loc. cit. S. 43). Now David, it is true, had not conquered Asia, but only the tribes and kingdoms bordering on Canaan, including the kingdom of Syria, and made them tributary, and had consecrated all the gold and silver taken as booty from the conquered peoples, from the Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, Amalekites, and Hadadezer the king of Zobah (2 Sam. viii. 11 f.), to o alive. Now, in consequence of the ancient connection between Syria and the rich commercial countries of the neighbourhood, great treasures of silver and gold had very early flowed in thither. According to 2 Sam. viii. 7, the servants (i.e. generals) of King Hadadezer had golden shields, which David captured; and the ambassadors of King Toi of Hamath brought him vessels of silver, gold, and copper, to purchase his friendship.1 The other peoples whom David overcame are not to be regarded as poor in the precious metals. For the Israelites under Moses had captured so large a booty in gold rings, bracelets, and other ornaments from the nomadic Midianites, that the commanders of the army alone were able to give 16,750 shekels (i.e. over 5^- talents of gold, according to the Mosaic weight) to the sanctuary as a consecrating offering (Num. xxxi. 48 if.). We cannot therefore regard the sums mentioned in our verse either as incredible or very much exaggerated,2 nor hold
1 Apropos of the riches of Syria even in later times, Movers reminds us, S. 45, of the rich temple treasures — of the statue of Jupiter in Antioch, which was of pure gold and fifteen yards high, and of the golden statues in the temple at Hierapolis — and adds: " Even Antiochus the Great had immense treasures in his possession. The private soldiers in his army had their halfboots studded with gold nails, and their cooking uteusils were of silver." See the proofs, loc. cit.
2 As Berth, for example does, expressing himself as follows: " In our verse, 100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver, — a sum with which the debts of the European nations might almost be paid! It is absolutely inadmissible to take these at their literal value, and to consider them as a repetition, though perhaps a somewhat exaggerated one, of actual historical statements. They can have been originally nothing else than the freest periphrasis for much, an extraordinary quantity, such as may even yet be heard from the mouths of those who have not reflected on the value and importance of num- the round sums which correspond to the rhetorical character of the passage with certainty to be mistakes.1 Brass and iron were not weighed for abundance; cf. ver. 3. Beams of timber also, and stones — that is, stones hewed and squared — David had prepared; and to this store Solomon was to add. That he did so is narrated in 2 Chron. chap. ii. — Ver. 15. David then turns to the workmen, the carpenters and stone-cutters, whom he had appointed (ver. 2) for the building. B'ttShj properly hewers, in ver. 2 limited to stone-hewers, is here, with the addition }2K ^n r'VJ, used of the workers in stone and wood, stonemasons and carpenters. '2 DdTrTSD, all manner of understanding persons in each work, in contradistinction to rDN7D '•Kfy, includes the idea of thorough mastery and skill in the kind of labour. These workmen, whom David had levied for the building of the temple, are mentioned by Solomon, 2 Chron. ii. 6 f. — In ver. 16 all the metals, as being the main thing, are again grouped together, in order that the exhortation to proceed with the erection of the bers, and consequently launch out into thousands and hundreds of thousands, in an extremely unprejudiced way." On thi3 we remark: (1) The assertion that with the sums named in our verse the debts of the European nations could be paid, is an enormous exaggeration. According to 0. Hiibner's tables, the national debt of Great Britain and Ireland alone amounts to £809,000,000, that of France to £564,000,000, that of Russia to £400,000,000, that of Austria to £354,000,000, and that of the kingdom of Italy to £288,000,000; David's treasures, consequently, if the weight be taken in sacred shekels, would only have sufficed to pay the national debt of Great Britain and Ireland. (2) The hypothesis that the chronicler, without reflecting on the value and importance of numbers, has launched out into thousands and hundreds of thousands, presupposes such a measure of intellectual poverty as is irreconcilable with evidences of intellect and careful planning such as are everywhere else observable in his writing.
1 As proof of the incorrectness of the above numbers, it cannot be adduced " that, according to 1 Kings x. 14, Solomon's yearly revenue amounted to GGG talents of gold, i.e. to about £3,000,000 in gold; that the queen of Sheba presented Solomon with 120 talents of gold, 1 Kings x. 10, 2 Chron. ix. 9; and King Hiram also gave him a similar amount, 1 Kings ix. 14; all of which sums the context shows are to be considered extraordinarily great" (Berth.). For the 66G talents of gold are not the entire annual income of Solomon, but, according to the distinct statement of the Biblical historian, are only the annual income in gold, exclusive of the receipts from the customs, and the tributes of the subject kings and tribes, which were probably more valuable. The 120 talents of the queen of Sheba are certainly a very large present, but Solomon would give in return not inconsiderable presents also. But the quantities of silver and gold which David had collected for the building of the temple had not been saved out of his yearly income, but had been in great building may be introduced. The? before each word serves to bring the thing once more into prominence; cf. Ew. § 310, a. u As for the gold, it cannot be numbered." u Arise and be doing! and Jahve be with thee" (vers. 17-19).
Vers. 17-19. Exhortation to the princes of Israel to assist in the building of the temple. — David supports his exhortation by calling to remembrance the proofs of his favour which the Lord had showed His people. The speech in ver. 18 is introduced without "ibN?, because it is clear from the preceding TVn w\ that the words are spoken by David: " The Lord has given you peace round about; for He has given the inhabitants of the land into my hands, and the land is subdued before Jahve and before His people." The subdued land is Canaan: the inhabitants of the land are, however, not the Israelites over whom the Lord had set David as king, for the words Hja jflj cannot apply to them, cf. xiv. 10 f., Josh. ii. 24; it is the Canaanites still left in the land in the time of David, and other enemies, who, like the Philistines, possessed part captured as booty in war, and laid up out of the tribute of the subject peoples. A question which would more readily occur than this is, Whether such enormous sums were actually necessary for the temple? But the materials necessary to enable us to arrive at even a proximate estimate of this building are entirely wanting. The building of a stone temple from 60 to 70 yards long, 20 yards broad, and 30 yards high, would certainly not have cost so much, notwithstanding that, as we read in 2 Chron. iii. 8 f., 650 talents of gold were required to gild the inner walls of the Holy Place, and at the same rate 2000 talents must have been required to gild the inside of the Sanctuary, which was three times as large; and notwithstanding the great number of massive gold vessels, e.g. the ten golden candlesticks, for which alone, even if they were no larger and heavier than the candlesticks in the tabernacle, ten talents of gold must have been required. But there belonged to the temple many subordinate buildings, which are not further described; as also the colossal foundation structures and the walls enclosing the temple area, the building of which must have swallowed up millions, since Solomon sent 70,000 porters and 80,000 stone-hewers to Lebanon to procure the necessary materials. Consul Rosen has recently indeed attempted to show, in das Haram von Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz des Moria, Gotha (1866), that there is reason to suppose that the temple area was enlarged to the size it is known to have had, and surrounded by a wall only by Herod; but he has been refuted by Himpel in the Tubinger iheol. Quartalschr. 1867, S. 515 f., who advances very weighty reasons against his hypothesis. Finally, we must have regard to the statement in 1 Kings vii. 51 and 2 Chron. v. 1, that Solomon, after the building was finished, deposited the consecrated silver and gold collected by his father David among the temple treasures. Whence we learn that the treasures collected by David were not intended merely for the building of the House of God.
parts of the land, and had been subdued by David. On H.Nfi nwtt9 cf. Josh, xviii. 1, Num. xxxii. 22, 29. This safety which the Lord had granted them binds them in duty to seek Him with all their heart, and to build the sanctuary, that the ark and the sacred vessels may be brought into it. The? in n?2Lp is not a sign of the accusative (Berth.), for IW|J is not construed with accus. loci, but generally with?tf, for which, however, so early as Josh. iv. 5,? is used, or it is construed with the ace. and n locale _ fUVan, Gen. xix. 10, xliii. 47.
CHAP. XXIII -XXVI. — ENUMERATION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE LEVITES ACCORDING TO THEIR DIVISIONS AND EMPLOYMENTS.
These four chapters give a connected view of the condition of the Levites towards the end, i.e. in the fortieth year, of David's reign (cf. xxiii. 1 and xxvi. 31), and of the sections into which they were divided according to their various services. This review begins with a statement of the total number belonging to the tribe of Levi according to the census then undertaken, and their divisions according to the duties devolving upon (xxiii. 2-5); which is followed by an enumeration of the heads of the f athers'- houses into which the four families of Levites had branched out (xxiii. 6-23), together with a short review of their duties (xxiii. 24-32). Thereafter we have: 1. In chap, xxiv., a catalogue of the Aaronites, i.e. of the priests, who were divided into twenty-four classes, corresponding to the sons of Eleazar and Ithamar, and were appointed to perform the service in succession, according as it was determined by lot, special mention being made of the heads of these twenty- four classes; and a catalogue of the heads of the fathers'-houses of the other descendants of Levi, in an order of succession, which was likewise settled by lot (xxiv. 20-31).^ Then, 2. In chap. xxv. we have a catalogue of the twenty-four orders of Levitic musicians, in an order fixed by lot. And, 3. In chap, xxvi. the classes of doorkeepers (vers. 1-19), the administrators of the treasures of the sanctuary (vers. 20-28), and the officials who performed the external services (vers. 29-32).
Chap, xxiii. Number, duties, and fathers'-houses of the Levites. — This clear account of the state and the order of service of the tribe of Levi is introduced by the words, ver. 1, "David was old, and life weary; then he made his son Solomon king over Israel." }£{, generally an adjective, is here third pers.perf. of the verb, as in Gen.
xviii. 12, as JHb> also is, to which CBJ is subordinated in the accusative. Generally elsewhere D*DJ yiw is used, cf. Gen. xxxv. 29, Job xlii. 17, and also V2& alone, with the same signification, Gen. xxv. 8. These words are indeed, as Berth, correctly remarks, not a mere passing remark which is taken up again at a later stage, say chap. xxix. 28, but an independent statement complete in itself, with which here the enumeration of the arrangements which David made in the last period of his life begins. But notwithstanding that, it serves here only as an introduction to the arrangements which follow, and is not to be taken to mean that David undertook the numbering of the Levites and the arrangement of their service only after he had given over the government to his son Solomon, but signified that the arrangement of this matter immediately preceded Solomon's elevation to the throne, or was contemporaneous with it. Our verse therefore does not contain, in its few words, a " summary of the contents of the narrative 1 Kings chap, i.," as Berth, thinks, for in 1 Kings i. we have an account of the actual anointing of Solomon and his accession to the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempt to usurp it. By that indeed Solomon certainly was made king; but the chronicler, in accordance with the plan of his book, has withdrawn his attention from this event, connected as it was with David's domestic relations, and has used T?*?1? in its more general signification, to denote not merely the actual elevation to the throne, but also his nomination as king. Here the nomination of Solomon to be king, which preceded the anointing narrated in 1 Kings i., that taking place at a time when David had already become bed-rid through old age, is spoken of. This was the first step towards the transfer of the kingdom to Solomon; and David's ordering of the Levitical service, and of the other branches of public administration, so as to give over a well-ordered kingdom to his successor, were also steps in the same process. Of the various branches of the public administration, our historian notices in detail only the Levites and their service, compressing everything else into the account of the army arrangements and the chief public officials, chap, xxvii. Vers. 2-5. Numbering of the Levites, and partition of their duties. — Ver. 2. For this purpose David collected "all the princes of Israel, and the priests and Levites." The princes of Israel, because the numbering of the Levites and the determination of their duties was a matter of national importance, 'i The meaning is, that David, in a solemn assembly of the princes, i.e. of the representatives of the lay tribes, and of the priests and Levites, fixed the arrangements of which an account is to be given" (Berth.). — Ver. 3. The Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upwards. This statement agrees with that in Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, 39 ff., where Moses caused those from thirty to fifty years of age to be numbered, and appointed them for service about the tabernacle during the journey through the wilderness. But Moses himself, at a later time, determined that their period of service should be from twenty-five to fifty; Num. viii. 23-26. It is consequently not probable that David confined the numbering to those of thirty and upwards. But besides that, we have a distinct statement in ver. 24 that they were numbered from twenty years of age, the change being grounded by David upon the nature of their service; and that this wras the proper age is confirmed by 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 and Ezra iii. 8, according to which the Levites under Hezekiah, and afterwards, had to take part in the service from their twentieth year. We must therefore regard D*KW in ver. 3 as having crept into the text through the error of copyists, who were thinking of the Mosaic census in Num. iv., and must read WWV instead of it. The various attempts of commentators to get rid of the discrepancy between ver. 3 and ver. 24 are mere makeshifts; and the hypothesis that David took two censuses is as little supported by the text, as that other, that our chapter contains divergent accounts drawn from two different sources; see on ver. 24. The number amounted to 38,000, according to their heads in men. Ev"!^p serves for a nearer definition of Bri^???, and explains that only men were numbered, women not being included. — Vers. 4 and 5 contain words of David, as we learn from ftfv Wfe^J T&X (ver. 5, end), so that we must supply Ttn 10*fr before ver. 4. ' %», of these (38,000) 24,000 shall be 'l31 n^?, to superintend the business, i.e. to conduct and carry on the business (the work) of the house of Jahve. This business is in vers. 28-32 more nearly defined, and embraces all the business that was to be carried on about the sanctuary, except the specifically priestly functions, the keeping of the doors, and the performance of the sacred music. For these two latter offices special sections were appointed, 4000 for the porters' service, and the same number for the sacred music (ver. 5). Besides these, 5000 men were appointed Shoterim and judges. u The instruments which I have made to sing praise" are the stringed instruments which David had introduced into the service to
Vers. 6-23. The fathers -houses of the Levites, — Ver. 6. "And David divided them into courses according to the sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohatli, and Merari:" see on v. 27. The form Dprpv which recurs in xxiv. 3 with the same pointing, is in more accurate mss. in that place pointed Djppnj}. There are also found in mss. and editions Dppn^ and the rare form of the Kal Dpprw (for DJorM); cf. J. H. Mich. Notes crit. This last pronunciation is attested for, xxiv. 3, by D. Kimchi, who expressly remarks that the regular form Eppn*1 corresponds to it; cf. Norzi on this passage. Gesen. (in Thes. p. 483) and Ew. (§ 83, c) regard Dppn*} as a variety of the Piel (DEW}), to which, however, Berth, rightly remarks that it would be worth a thought only if the punctuation DB?jJ3 were confirmed by good mss., which is not the case, though we find the Piel in the Chronicle in xv. 3, and then with the signification to distribute. Berth, therefore holds — and certainly this is the more correct opinion — that the form DgprWj attested by Kimchi for xxiv. 3, was the original reading in our verse also, and considers it a rare form of the impf. Kal derived from Dp?l?3 (cf. xxiv. 4, 5), by Kamets coming into the pretonic syllable, after the analogy of D^BfiB* for D5BnE^ 2 Kings x. 14, and by the passing of an a (Pathach) into £ (Seghol) before the Kamets, according to well-known euphonic rules, rtppno is a second accusative: " in divisions." The tribe of Levi had been divided from ancient times into the three great families of Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites, corresponding to the three sons of Levi; cf. v. 27-vi. 15, xxviii. 32. — From ver. 7 onwards we have an enumeration of the fathers' -houses into which these three families were divided: vers. 7-11, the fathers'- houses of the Gershonites; vers. 12-20, those of the Kohathites; and vers. 21-23, those of the Merarites. Berth., on the other hand, thinks that in these verses only the fathers' -houses of those Levites who performed the service of the house of Jahve, i.e. the 24,000 in ver. 4, and not the divisions of all the Levites, are enumerated. But this opinion is incorrect, and certainly is not proved to be true by the circumstance that the singers, porters, and the scribes and judges, are only spoken of afterwards; nor by the remark that, in great part, the names here enumerated appear again in the sections chap. xxiv. 20-31 and xxvi. 20-28, while in the enumeration of the twenty-four classes of musicians
(xxv. 1-31), of the doorkeepers (xxvi. 1-19), and of the scribes and judges (xxvi. 29-32), quite other names are met with. The recurrence of many of the names here enumerated in the sections chap. xxiv. 20-31 and xxvi. 20-28 is easily explained by the fact that these sections treat of the divisions of the Levites, according to the service they performed, and of course many heads of fathers' -houses must again be named. The occurrence of quite other names in the lists of musicians and doorkeepers, again, is simply the result of the fact that only single branches of fathers' -houses, not whole fathers' -houses, were appointed musicians and doorkeepers. Finally, Bertheau's statement, that in the catalogue of the scribes and judges quite other names occur than those in our verses, is based upon an oversight; cf. xxvi. 31 with xxiii. 19.
Vers. 7-11. The fathers' -houses of the Gerskonites. — According to the natural development of the people of Israel, the twelve sons of Jacob founded the twelve tribes of Israel; his grandsons, or the sons of the twelve patriarchs, founded the families (fiiriQ^p); and their sons, i.e. the great-grandsons of Jacob, founded the fathers'-houses (riUipvn). But this natural division or ramification of the people into tribes, families, and fathers'-houses (groups of related households), was not consistently carried out. Even the formation of the tribes suffered a modification, when the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born before Jacob's arrival in Egypt, were adopted by him as his sons, and so made founders of tribes (Gen. xlviii. 5). The formation of the families and fathers'-houses was also interfered with, partly by the descendants of many grandsons or great-grandsons of Jacob not being numerous enough to form independent families and fathers'-houses, and partly by individual fathers'-houses (or groups of related households) having so much decreased that they could no longer form independent groups, and so were attached to other fathers'-houses, or by families which had originally formed a 3fcrJV3 becoming so numerous as to be divided into several fathers'-houses. In the tribe of Levi there came into operation this special cause, that Aaron and his sons were chosen to be priests, and so his family was raised above the other Levites. From these causes, in the use of the words nn3E;» and
3KTP3 many fluctuations occur; cf. my bill. Archdol. ii. § 140. Among the Levites, the fathers'-houses were founded not by the grandsons, but by the great-grandsons of the patriarch. — Ver. 7.
" Of the Gershonites, Laadan and Shimei," i.e. these were heads of groups of related families, since, according to ver. 9, their sons and descendants formed six fathers'-houses. The sons of Gershon, from whom all branches of the family of Gershon come, are called in vi. 2, as in Ex. vi. 17 and Num. xiii. 18, Libni and Shimei; while in our verse, on the contrary, we find only the second name Shimei, whose sons are enumerated in vers. 10, 11; and instead of Libni we have the name Laadan, which recurs in xxvi. 21. Laadan seemingly cannot be regarded as a surname of Libni; for not only are the sons of Shimei named along with the sons of Laadan in vers. 8 and 9 as heads of the fathers'- houses of Laadan, without any hint being given of the genealogical connection of this Shimei with Laadan, but mainly because of W~u? in ver. 7. In the case of Kohath and Merari, the enumeration of the fathers'-houses descended from them is introduced by the mention of their sons, nnp "02 and 'hid ^2 (vers. 12, 21), while in the case of Gershon it is not so; — in his case, instead of f1£h:i m, we find the Gentilic designation *$Vhpmy to point out that Laadan and Shimei are not named as being sons of Gershon, but as founders of the two chief lines of Gershonites, of which only the second was named after Gershon's son Shimei, while the second derived their name from Laadan, whose family was divided in David's time into two branches, the sons of Laadan and the sons of Shimei, the latter a descendant of Libni, not elsewhere mentioned. That the Shimei of ver. 9 is not the same person as Shimei the son of Gershon mentioned in ver. 7, is manifest from the fact that the sons of the latter are enumerated only in ver. 10. Each of these two lines numbered at that time three fathers'-houses, the heads of which are named in vers. 8 and 9. Pfcon in ver. 8 belongs to /KTP: u the sons of Laadan were: the head (also the first; cf. vers. 11, 16) Jehiel, Zetham, and Joel, three." — Ver. 9. The sons of Shimei: Shelomoth or Shelomith (both forms are found in xxvi. 35 of another Shelomith), Haziel, and Haran, three. These (three and three) are the heads of the fathers'-houses of Laadan. — In vers. 10 and 11 there follow the fathers'-houses of the Shimei mentioned in ver. 7 along with Laadan: they are likewise three, derived from the four sons of Shimei, Jahath, Zina, Jeush, and Beriah; for the last two, as they had not many sons, were included in one father's-house, one ^p^a, i.e. one official class (xxiv. 3; 2 Chron. xvii. 14). The Gershonites at that time, therefore, numbered nine fathers'-houses — six named after Laadan, and three after Shimei.
Vers. 12-20. The fathers -houses of the Kohathites. — The four sons of Kohath who are named in ver. 12, as in v. 28, vi. 3, and Ex. vi. 18, founded the four families of Kohath, Num. iii. 27. From Amram came Aaron and Moses; see on Ex. vi. 20. Of these, Aaron with his sons was set apart " to sanctify him to be a most holy one; he and his sons for ever to offer incense before Jahve, to serve Him, and to bless in His name for ever." Svfajfi}? P BH.P signifies neither, ut ministraret in sancto sanctorum (Vulg., Syr.), nor, ut res Sanctis simas, sacrificia, vasa sacra etc. consecrarent (Cler.). Against this interpretation we adduce not only the objection advanced by Hgstb. Christol. iii. p. 119, trans., that the office assigned by it to the Levites is far too subordinate to be mentioned here in the first place, but also the circumstance that the suffix in V^pn, after the analogy of f^W?, must denote the object of the sanctifying; and this view is confirmed by the subject, who offers incense and blesses, not being expressed with Wi?n? and T}/??« The Vulgate translation cannot be accepted, for &T"[PT Bhfe cannot be the ablative, and the most holy place in the temple is always called tfBhjjJ] ^1? with the article. DWp KHp, without the article, is only used of the most holy things, e.g. of the vessels connected with the worship, the sacrificial gifts, and other things which no lay person might touch or appropriate. See on Ex. xxx. 10, Lev. ii. 3, and Dan. ix. 24. Here it is committed to Aaron, who, by being chosen for the priest's service and anointed to the office, was made a most holy person, to discharge along with his sons all the priestly functions in the sanctuary. Specimens of such functions are then adduced: '* ^p? "Vppn, the offering of the sacrifice of incense upon the altar of the inner sanctuary, as in 2 Chron. ii. 3, 5, Ex. xxx. 7 f.; frn$, " to serve Him," Jahve,— a general expression, including all the other services in the sanctuary, which were reserved for the priests; and to^3 ^P.??, to bless in His name, i.e. to pronounce the blessing in the name of the Lord over the people, according to the command in Num. vi. 23, cf. xvi. 2, Deut. xxi. 5; not "to bless His name" (Ges., Berth.). To call upon or praise the name of God is S&W tfJSj Ps. xcvi. 2, c. 4; and the assertion that D'^3 Ifja is a somewhat later phrase formed on the model of E^n N")P, for " to call upon God" (Ges. in Lex. sub voce Spa), is quite groundless. Our phrase occurs as early as in Deut. x. 8 and xxi. 5; in the latter passage in connection with irw? of the priests; in the former, of the tribe of Levi, but so used that it can refer only to the priests, not to the Levites also. — Ver. 14. u But as to Moses the man of God" (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 1), " his sons were called after the tribe of Levi," i.e. were reckoned in the ranks of the Levites, not of the priests. On?V *Oi??, cf. Gen. xlviii. 6, Ezra ii. 61, Neh. vii. 63. — Vers. 15-17. Each of his two sons Gershon and Eliezer (see Ex. ii. 22 and xviii. 3 f.) founded a f ather's-house; Gershon through his son Shebuel (/^Q&p, in xxiv. 20?KJ^), Eliezer through Rehabiah. The plurals 'J ^3, tf ^3 are used, although in both cases only one son, he who wTas head (^Nin) of the father' s-house, is mentioned, either because they had other sons, or those named had in their turn sons, who together formed a father's-house. From the remark in ver. 17, that Eliezer had no other sons than Rehabiah, while Rehabiah had very many, we may conclude that Gershon had other sons besides Shebuel, who are not mentioned because their descendants were numbered with Shebuel's father's-house. — Yer. 18. Only one son of Jizhar, the brother of Amram, is mentioned, Shelomith as head, after whom the Jizharite father's-house is named. — Ver. 19. Amram's next brother Hebron had four sons, and the youngest brother Uzziel two, wTho founded fathers'-houses; so that, besides the priests, nine Levitical fathers'-houses are descended from Kohath, and their chiefs who served in the sanctuary are enumerated in chap. xxiv. 20-25.
Vers. 21-23. Hie father £ -houses of the Merarites. — Ver. 21 f. As in vi. 4, Ex. vi. 19, and Num. hi. 33, two sons of Merari are mentioned — Mahli and Mushi — who founded the two families of Merari which existed in the time of Moses. Mahli had two sons, Eleazar and Kish; the first of whom, however, left behind him at his death only daughters, who were married to the sons of Kish (Br^n^ i.e. their cousins), according to the law as to daughters who were heiresses (Num. xxxvi. 6-9). The descendants of Mahli, therefore, were comprehended in the one father'shouse of Kish, whose head at that time (xxiv. 29) was Jerahmeel. — Ver. 23. Of the sons of Mushi, three founded fathers'- houses; so that the Merarites formed only four fathers'-houses in all. If we compare the enumeration of the Merarites in chap, xxiv. 26-30, we find there in ver. 30 Eleazar and Kish called sons of Mahli, with the remark that Eleazar had no sons. In ver. 26, however, of the same passage we read, "sons of Merari
(were) Mahli and Mushi, sons of Jaaziah his son;" and ver. 27, " sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son; and Shoham, and Zaccur, and Ibri." From this Bertheau concludes that Merari had really three sons, and that the name of the third has been dropped out of chap, xxiii.; but in this he is incorrect, for vers. 2Q and 27 of the 24th chapter are at once, from their whole character, recognisable as arbitrary interpolations. Not only is it strange that in ^PW iJ3 should follow the before-mentioned sons of Merari in this unconnected way (Vav being omitted before 'JB)> but the form of the expression also is peculiar. If VWJJ! be a third son of Merari, or the founder of a third family of Merarites, coordinate with the families of Mahli and Mushi, as we must conclude from the additional word fa3, we should expect, after the preceding, simply the name with the conjunction, i.e. *«WJ2J« The VfJHC ^ is all the more surprising that the names of the sons of Jaaziah follow in ver. 27, and there the name of the first son onfe> is introduced by the Vav copulative. This misled the older commentators, so that they took fo? for a proper name. The repetition of TJ? *3?j too, at the beginning of the second verse is strange, and without parallel in the preceding enumeration of the fathers'-houses founded by Amram's sons (xxiv. 20-25). We must, then, as the result of all this, since the Pentateuch knows only two descendants of Merari who founded families of fathers'-houses,1 regard the additions in xxiv. 26, 27 as later glosses, although we are not in a position to explain the origin or the meaning of the interpolation. This inability arises from the fact that, of the names Jaaziah, Shoham, Zaccur, and Ibri, only Zaccur again occurs among the Asaphites (xxv. 2), and elsewhere of other persons, while the
1 Bertheau, on the contrary, proceeding on the hypothesis that we may presume the list of Merari's descendants which is given in our verses to have been originally in perfect agreement with that in xxii. 2G-31, would emend our text according to chap. xxiv. 26, 27, for it cannot be doubted that in our passage also Jaaziah and his three sons were named. But since elsewhere only the two sons Mahli and Mushi occur, one can easily see why the third son Jaaziah came to be omitted from our passage, while we cannot conceive any motive which would account for the later and arbitrary interpolation of the names in xxiv. 26 f. This argumentation is weak to a degree, since it quite overlooks the main difficulty connected with this hypothesis. Had we no further accounts of the descendants of Merari than those in the two passages of the Chronicle (chap, xxiii. 11 f. and xxiv. 26-29), it would bo natural to suppose that in xxiii. 21 ff. the additional names which we lind in others are nowhere else to be met with. The three families of Levi numbered therefore 9 + 9 + 4 = 22 fathers'-houses, exclusive of the priests.
Vers. 24-32. Concluding remarks. — Ver. 24. "These (the just enumerated) are the sons of Levi according to their fathers'- houses, according to those who were counted (Num. i. 21 f.; Ex. xxx. 14) in the enumeration by name (Num. i. 18, iii. 43), by the head, performing the work for the service of the house of Jahve, from the men of twenty years and upwards." nvy nDRTtsn is not singular, but plural, as in 2 Chron. xxiv. 12, xxxiv. 10, 13, Ex. iii. 9, Neh. ii. 16, cf. 2 Chron. xi. 1. It occurs along with *t$J, with a similar meaning and in a like position, 2 Chron. xxiv. 13, xxxiv. 17, Neh. xi. 12, xiii. 10. It is only another way of writing *&$, and the same form is found here and there in other words; cf. Ew. § 16, b. The statement that the Levites were numbered from twenty years old and upwards is accounted for in ver. 25 thus: David said, The Lord has given His people rest, and He dwells in Jerusalem; and the Levites also have no longer to bear the dwelling (tabernacle) with all its vessels. From this, of course, it results that they had not any longer to do such heavy work as during the march through the wilderness, and so might enter upon their service even at the age of twenty. In ver. 27 a still further reason is given: u For bv the last words of David was this, (viz.) the numbering of the sons of Levi from twenty years old and upwards." There is a difference of opinion as to how D'onnxn TH TO are to be understood. Bertheau translates, with Kimchi, " in the later histories of David are the number = the numbered," and adduces in support of his translation chap. xxix. 29, whence it is clear that by u the later chap. xxiv. had been dropped out. But in the genealogical lists in the Pentateuch also (Ex. vi. 19 and Num. iii. 33), only two sons of Merari are named; and according to them, the Merarites, when Moses' census of the Levites was taken, formed only two families. Had Merari had yet a third son besides the two — Mahli and Mushi, who alone were known in the time of Moses — who left descendants, forming three fathers'-houses in David's time, the omission of this third son in the family register in the Pentateuch would be quite incomprehensible. Or are we to suppose that in Ex. vi. 19 also the name Jaaziah had been dropped out, and that in consequence of that the family descended from him has been omitted from Num. iii. 33? Supported by the Pentateuch, the text of our verses is presumably entire, and this presumption of its integrity is confirmed by the character ef the additions in xxiv. 26, 27, as above exhibited.
histories of David" a part of a historical work is meant. Bat the passage quoted does not prove this. In the formula nw DtflPlKrn D'W&nn... (xxix. 29; 2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, xvi. 11, etc.), which recurs at the end of each king's reign, ^JM denotes not histories, in the sense of a history, but res gestce, which are recorded in the writings named. In accordance with this, therefore, TH 'Hl'n cannot denote writings of David, but only words or things ( = deeds); but the Levites who were numbered could not be in the acts of David. We must rather translate according to 2 Chron. xxix. 30 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. In the latter passage DsJi"inxri TH niT are the last words (utterances) of David, and in the former TH ^ITO, " by the words of David," i.e. according to the commands or directions of David. In this way, Cler. and Mich., with the Vulg. juxta prcecepta, have already correctly translated the words: " according to the last commands of David." nftn is nowhere found in the signification sunt as the mere copula of the subject and verb, but is everywhere an independent predicate, and is here to be taken, according to later linguistic usage, as neutr. sing, (cf. Ew. § 318, b): " According to the last commands of David, this," i.e. this was done, viz. the numbering of the Levites from twenty years and upwards. From this statement, from twenty years and upwards, which is so often repeated, and for which the reasons are so given, it cannot be doubtful that the statement in ver. 3, a from thirty years and upwards," is incorrect, and that, as has been already remarked on ver. 3, BTO has crept into the text by an error of the copyist, who was thinking of the Mosaic census.1 In vers. 28-32 we have, in the enumeration of the duties which the Levites had to perform, another ground for the employment
1 The explanation adopted from Kimchi by the older Christian commentators, e.g. by J. H. Mich., is an untenable makeshift. It is to this effect: that David first numbered the Levites from thirty years old and upwards, according to the law (Num. iv. 3, xxiii. 30), but that afterwards, when he saw that those of twenty years of age were in a position to perform the duties, lightened as they were by its being no longer necessary for the Levites to bear the sanctuary from place to place, he included all from twenty years of age in a second census, taken towards the end of his life; cf. ver. 27. Against this Bertheau has already rightly remarked that the census of the Levites gave the number at 38,000 (ver. 3), and these 38,000 and no others were installed; it is nowhere said that this number was not sufficient, or that the arrangements based upon this number (vers. 4, 5) had no continued existence. He is, however, incorrect in his further remark, that the historian clearly enough is of those from twenty years old and upwards in actual service. — Ver. 28. Their appointed place or post was at the hand of the sons of Aaron, i.e. they were ready to the priest's hand, to aid him in carrying on the service of the house of God. " Over the courts and the cells (of the courts; cf. ix. 26), and the purifying of every holy thing," i.e. of the temple rooms and the temple vessels. On? before t£Hp"?3, used for mediate connection after the stat. const., cf. Ew. § 289, b. rnhjJ H^JOI, and for the performance of the service of the house of God. Before rtb^D,?V is to be supplied from the preceding. The individual services connected with the worship are specialized in vers. 29-31, and introduced by the preposition?. For the bread of the pile, i.e. the shew-bread (see on Lev. xxiv. 8 f.), viz. to prepare it; for the laying of the bread upon the table was the priest's business. For fine meal (p<p, see on Lev. ii. 1) for the meat-offering and unleavened cakes (TODH ^i?"!, see on Lev. ii. 4), and for the pans, i.e. that which was baked in pans (see on Lev. ii. 5), and for that which was roasted (rD3")D? see on Lev. vi. 14), and for all measures of capacity and measures of length which were kept by the Levites, because meal, oil, and wine were offered along with the sacrifices in certain fixed quantities (cf. e.g. Ex. xxix. 40, xxx. 24), and the Levites had probably to watch over the weights and measures in general (Lev. xix. 35). — Ver. 30. " On each morning and evening to praise the Lord with song and instruments." These words refer to the duties of the singers and musicians, whose classes and orders are enumerated in chap. xxv. The referring of them to the Levites who assisted the priests in the sacrificial worship (Berth.) needs no serious refutation, for desirous of calling attention to the fact that here a statement is made which is different from the former, for of this there is no trace; the contrary, indeed, is manifest. Since n^tf (ver. 24) refers back to the just enumerated fathers'-houses of the Levites, and ver. 24 consequently forms the subscription to the preceding register, the historian thereby informs us plainly enough that he does not communicate here a statement different from the former, but only concludes that which he has formerly communicated. "We cannot very well see how, from the fact that he here for the first time adduces the motive which determined David to cause the Levites from twenty years old and upwards to be numbered and employed in the service, it follows that he derived this statement of David's motive from a source different from that account which he has hitherto made use of. Nor would it be more manifest if ver. 27 contained — as it does not contain — a reference to the source from which he derived this statement.
?^ri7i nrrin is the standing phrase for the sacred temple music; and we can hardly believe that the Levites sang psalms or played on harps or lutes while the beasts for sacrifices were slaughtered and skinned, or the meat-offerings baked, or such duties performed. — Ver. 31. "And for all the bringing of offerings to Jahve on the sabbaths, the new moons, and the feasts, in the number according to the law concerning them (i.e. according to the regulations that existed for this matter), continually before Jahve." It was the duty of the Levites to procure the necessary number of beasts for sacrifice, to see to their suitableness, to slaughter and skin them, etc. TDfl refers to nfcy, the burnt-offerings for Jahve, which are *WMJj because they must always be offered anew on the appointed days. — Ver. 32. In conclusion, the whole duties of the Levites are summed up in three clauses: they were to keep the charge of the tabernacle, the charge of the sacred things, i.e. of all the sacred things of the worship, and the charge of the sons of Aaron, i.e. of all that the priests committed to them to be done; cf. Num. xviii. 3 ff., where these functions are more exactly fixed.
Chap. xxiv. The division of the priests and Levites into classes. — Vers. 1-19. The twenty-four classes of priests. After the c statement as to the fathers'-houses of the Levites (chap, xxiii.), we have next the arrangements of the priests for the performance of the service in the sanctuary; the priestly families descended from Aaron's sons Eleazar and Ithamar being divided into twenty-four classes, the order of whose service was settled by lot. — Ver. la contains the superscription, " As for the sons of Aaron, their divisions (were these)." To make the division clear, we have an introductory notice of Aaron's descendants, to the effect that of his four sons, the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, died before their father, leaving no sons, so that only Eleazar and Ithamar became priests (^l!?1!)? i>e. entered upon the priesthood. The four sons of Aaron, ver. 1, as in v. 29, Ex. vi. 23. — Ver. 2; cf. Lev. x. 1 f., Num. iii. 4. These priestly families David caused (ver. 3) to be divided, along with the two high priests (see on xviii. 16), " according to their service." »*np3, office, official class, as in xxiii. 11. — Ver. 4. As the sons of Eleazar proved to be more numerous in respect of the heads of the men than the sons of Ithamar, they (David, Zadok, and Ahimelech) divided them thus: " For the sons of Eleazar, heads of fathers'-houses, sixteen; and for the sons of Ithamar, (heads)
of fathers'-houses, eight.'' &~\2-\n 'gOT? means neither in respect to the number of the men by the head (cf. xxiii. 3), nor with respect to the chiefs of the men, divided according to their f athers'-houses (Berth.). The supplying of the words, " divided according to their fathers'-houses," is perfectly arbitrary. The expression D^^i? *8^J is rather to be explained by the fact that, according to the natural articulations of the people, the fathers'- houses, i.e. the groups of related families comprehended under the name rri2K~JV3? divided themselves further into individual households, whose heads were called &V"!?2J as is clear from Josh, vii. 16-18, because each household had in the man, "i?an, its natural head. D'naan ^'&o are therefore the heads, not of the fathers'- houses, but of the individual households, considered in their relation to the men as heads of households. Just as 3K"JT2 is a technical designation of the larger groups of households into which the great families fell, so "i^an is the technical expression for the individual households into which the fathers'-houses fell. — Ver. 5. They divided them by lot, nKsTDy n^K, these with these, Le. the one as the other (cf. xxv. 8), so that the classes of both wrere determined by lot, as both drew lots mutually. u For holy princes and princes of God wTere of the sons of Eleazar, and among the sons of Ithamar; " i.e., of both lines of priests holy princes had come, men who had held the highest priestly dignity. The high-priesthood, as is well known, went over entirely to Eleazar and his descendants, but had been held for a considerable period in the time of the judges by the descendants of Ithamar; see above, p. 113. In the settlement of the classes of priests for the service, therefore, neither of the lines was to have an advantage, but the order was to be determined by lot for both. vy TS*, cf. Isa. xliii. 28, = tfgjbn **)&, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, are the high priests and the heads of the priestly families, the highest officers among the priests, but can hardly be the same as the ap^iepeis of the gospel history; for the view that these ap^ie- /oet9 were the heads of the twenty-four classes of priests cannot be made good: cf. Wichelhaus, Comment, zur Leidensgesclu (Halle, 1855), S. 32 ff. &?%? *3& would seem to denote the same, and to be added as synonymous; but if there be a distinction between the two designations, we would take the princes of God to denote only the regular high priests, who could enter in before God into the most holy place. — Ver. 6. aHe set them down," viz. the classes, as the lot had determined them. Tl1"!?, of the tribe of Levi. 'h ^^ belongs to ntofcfH »#*0, heads of the fathers'-houses of the priests and of the Levites. The second hemistich of ver. 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, firiij, to layhold of, to draw forth (Num. xxxi. 30, 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. TpN rnxi, which is the only well-attested reading, only some few mss. containing the reading intf *lftX\ 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 Tnsj and TnK WK1. But even though this conception be readily suggested by the relation of the number sixteen to eight, yet we cannot see how the words tnK and tnx TntO 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 Itliamar's family had been drawn, when, of course, the remaining ei^ht 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 vers. 7-18 we have the names of the fathers'-houses in the order of succession which had been determined by the lot. K5, of the lot coming forth from the urn, as in Josh. xvi. 1, xix. 1. The names Jehoiarib and Jedaiah occur together also in ix. 10; and Jedaiah is met with, besides, in Ezra ii. 36 and Neb. vii. 39. The priest Mattathias, 1 Mace. ii. 1, came of the class Jehoiarib. Of the succeeding names, CT#fe> (ver. 8), *K3l£ (ver. 13), and fWf\ (ver. 15) do not elsewhere occur; others, such as nsn (ver. 13), ^C3 (ver. 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. ix. 10, 12. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to the eighth, Abiah (Luke i. 5). — Ver. 19. These are their official classes for their service (cf. ver. 3), Kta?, 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.1
Vers. 20-31. The classes of the Lcvites. — The superscription, "As to the other Levites" (ver. 20), when compared with the subscription, a And they also cast lots, like to their brethren the sons of Aaron" (ver. 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. D^Vnan are
1 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 2 Kings xi. 9 and 2 Chron. xxiii. 9, from Sabbath to Sabbath. Josephus bears witness to this division in Antt. vii. 14. 7: faef&em* ovto; 6 ptsptvftos oLy^i rijj ory.. yuipot;. Herzfeld, on the contrary (Geschichte des Volts Israel von dcr Zcrsturung des ersten Tempels, Bd. i. S. 3S1 ff.), following de Wette and Gramb., 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.
the Levitefl still remaining after the enumeration of the priests. We might certainly regard the expression as including all the L wtes icept the Aaronites (or priests); but the statement of the subscription that they cast lots like the sons of Aaron, and the circumstance that in chap. xxv. the twenty-four orders of singers and musician?, in chap. xxvi. 1-19 the class of the doorkeepers, and in xxvi. 20-32 the overseers of the treasures, and the scribes and ji; 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 chap, xxiii. 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 xxiii. 6-23 recur here in vers. 20-29, and that we find a considerable number of the names which are contained in chap, xxiii. 0-23 to be omitted from them. In vers. 20-25. for example, we find only names of Kohathites, and in vers. 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 onlv be warrantable if it were otherwise demonstrated, or demonable, 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 xxvi. 20 ff., 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 chap. xxvi. 20-32, are everywhere imperfect. David had appointed 6000 men to be
CJir S. 2 70 ff.. for the historical character of the arrangements attributed to David, and described in our chapters; but the remarks of Oehler in H R.:■.':.. 3 18* f. may also be compared. An unimpeachable witness for the pne-exilic origin of the division of the priests into twenty-four orders he vision of Ezekiel (chap. viii. 16-18), where the twenty-rive 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. xii. 1-7 and 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 pa^ s scribes and judges: those mentioned in chap. xxvi. 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 (vers. 20, 21); then the Izharites, Hebron ites, and Uzzielites (vers. 22-25), and the main branches of the Merarites (vers. 26-30). — Ver. 206 is to be taken thus: Of the sons of Amram, i.e. of the Kohathite Amram, from whom Moses descended (xxiii. 13), that is, of the chief Shubael, descended from Moses' son Gershon (xxiii. 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. — Ver. 21. Of the father's-house Rehabiah, connected with Eliezer the second son of Moses (xxiii. 16); of the sons of this Rehabiah, Isshiah was the head. — Ver. 22. Of the Izharites, namely of the father'shouse Shelomoth (xxiii. 18), his sons were under the head Jahath. The heads of the class formed by David mentioned in vers. 20-22, Jehdeiah, Isshiah, and Jahath, are not met with in chap, xxiii., — a clear proof that chap, xxiii. treats of the fathers' - houses; our section, on the contrary, of the official classes of the Levites. — Ver. 23 treats of the Hebronites, as is clear from xxiii. 19; but here the text is imperfect. Instead of enumerating the names of the chiefs of the classes into which David divided the four fathers'-houses into which Hebron's descendants fell for the temple service, we find only the four names of the heads of the fathers'-houses repeated, just as in xxiii. 19, — introduced, too, by V.? as sons of... Bertheau would therefore interpolate the name |V"i3n after VjlM (according to xxiii. 19). This interpolation is probably correct, but is not quite beyond doubt, for possibly only the *J3 of the four sons of Hebron named could be mentioned as being busied about the service of the sanctuary according to their divisions. In any case, the names of the heads of the classes formed by the Hebronites are wanting; but it is impossible to ascertain whether they have been dropped out only by a later copyist, or were not contained in the authority made use of by our historian, for even the LXX. had our text. — Vers. 26-28. The classes of the Merarites. As to Jaaziah and his sons, see the remarks on xxiii. 31. As Mahli's son
Eleazar had no sons, only Jerahmeel from his second son Kish, as head of the class formed by Mahli's sons, is named. Of Mushi's sons only the names of the four fathers' -houses into which they fell are mentioned, the chiefs of the classes not being noticed. The heads mentioned in our section are fifteen in all; and supposing that in the cases of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and of the Merarite branch of the Mushites, where the heads of the classes are not named, each father's-house formed only one class, we wrould have only fifteen classes. It is, however, quite conceivable that many of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and Mushites were so numerous as to form more than one class; and so out of the Levite families mentioned in vers. 20-29 twentyfour classes could be formed. The subscription, that they cast the lot like their brethren, makes this probable; and the analogy of the division of the musicians into twenty-four classes (chap, xxv.) turns the probability that the Levites who were appointed to perform service for the priests, were divided into the same number of classes, into a certainty, although we have no express statement to that effect, and in the whole Old Testament no information as to the order of succession of the Levites is anywhere to be found. — Ver. 31. 'W Wl *?&?, as in ver. 6. In the,■ last clause rii3K is used for rrinjpvzi, as rri^K '•K^n stands frequently fpr nnxTTa *B>fcO in these catalogues. £>K"in stands in apposition to rri3N"JV3? the father's-house; the head even as his younger brother, i.e. he who was the head of the father's-house as etc., i.e. the oldest among the brethren as his younger brethren. The Vulgate gives the meaning correctly: tarn majores quam minores; omnes soi^s cequaliter dividebat.
Chap. xxv. The twenty-four classes of musicians. — Ver. 1. tt David and the princes of the host separated for the service the sons of Asaph," etc. *«?- nfc> are not princes of the Levite host; for although the service of the Levites is called N3¥ N3¥ in Num.
iv. 23, yet the princes of the Levites are nowhere called fcOSfn **)}&. This expression rather denotes either the leaders of the army or the chiefs of Israel, as the host of Jahve, Ex. xii. 17, 41, etc. Here it is used in the last signification, as synonymous with princes of Israel (xxiii. 2); in xxiv. 6 we have simply the princes, along with whom the heads of the fathers'-houses of the priests and the Levites are mentioned, ^liy? ^?fy separate for the service; cf. Num. xvi. 9. The? in *)DK ^^ is nota ace. Since Asaph was, according to vi. 24-28, a descendant of Gershon, Ileman, according to vi. 18-23, a descendant of Kohath, and Jeduthun (= Ethan) a descendant of Merari (vi. 29-32), all the chief families of Levi had representatives among the singers. The Kethibh DWajn is an orthographical error for BH*aan (Keri), partic, Niplu, corresponding to the singular K23n? vers. 2 and 3. K33? prophetare7 is here used in its wider signification of the singing and playing to the praise of God performed in the power of the Divine Spirit. In reference to the instruments of these chief musicians, cf. xv. 16. The suffix in Di&DD refers to the following noun, which is subordinated to the word "iSDD as genitive; cf. the similar construction?¥JJ faPB3j his, the sluggard's, soul, Prov. xiii. 4, and Evv. § 309, e. " Their number (the number) of the workmen for the service, i.e. of those who performed the work of the service, was (as follows)." — Ver. 2. With ^DX *jlp the enumeration begins: u Of Asaph's sons were, or to Asaph's, sons belonged, Zacchur," etc. Four are here named, but the number is not stated, while it is given in the case of the sons of Jeduthun and Heman, vers. 3 and 5. T'W, at the hand, alternates with ^yT? (vers. 3 and 6), and ^DX T?y does not of itself express a different relationship to Asaph than that expressed by "^tan ^?V with reference to the king. It signifies only u under (according to) the direction of;" and in ver. 6 the king, Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman are co-ordinated, inasmuch as the musical part of the worship was arranged by David and the three chief musicians in common, although only the latter were concerned in its performance. In ver. 3 }Vl¥ly is placed at the beginning, because the choir of singers led by him bore his name; and so also in the case of Heman, ver. 4. " As to Jeduthun, were sons of Jeduthun." The word sons in these catalogues denotes not merely actual sons, but those intellectually sons, i.e. scholars taught by the master. This is clear from the fact that the twenty-four classes, each of which numbered twelve men, consist of sons and brothers of the leaders. The names given as those of the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman, in vers. 2—5, do not represent the whole number of the scholars of these masters, but only the presidents of the twenty-four classes of Levites who were engaged under their leadership in performing the sacred music. Only five sons of Jeduthun are named in our text, while according to the number given there should be six. A comparison of the names in vers. 9-31 shows that in ver. 3 the name TOtf (ver. 17) has been dropped out. "^333 belongs to |WP: under the direction of their father
Jeduthun (the master), upon the kinnor (see on xv. 16), who was inspired to sing praise, i.e. who played inspiredly to bring praise and honour to the Lord; cf. xvi. 4, xxiii. 30, etc. — Ver. 4 f. Fourteen sons of Heman are enumerated. "*tg MjlDDh is one name, cf. 31, although 1$ is without doubt to be supplied also after wB- Probably also rti&Otno is to be supplied in thought after the names, ^w, I made full, and "Mjtfl, increased.1 Heman is called in ver. 5 the seer of the king in the words of God, because he, along with his gift of song, was endowed also with the prophetic gift, and as seer made known to the king revelations of God. In 2 Chron. xxxv. 15 the same thing is predicated also of Jeduthun, and in the same sense the prophet Gad is called in xxi. 9 David's seer. pp. B^Or ^ie Masoretes have connected with the preceding, by placing Athnach under the \~\p, and the phrase has been wholly misunderstood by the Rabbins and Christian commentators. Berth., e.g., connects it with Dw$?n *Jl*l3j and translates, " to sound loud upon horns, according to the divine command," referring to 2 Chron. xxix. 15, where, however, both meaning and accentuation forbid us to connect niPT1 *T3r{3 with what follows. This interpretation of the words is thoroughly wrong, not only because the Levites under Heman's direction did not blow horns, the horn not being one of the instruments played by the Levites in connection with the worship, but also because on linguistic grounds it is objectionable. Hi? EHR never has the signification to blow the horn; for to elevate the horn signifies everywhere to heighten the power of any one, or unfold, show power; cf. 1 Sam. ii. 10; Lam. ii. 17; Ps. cxlviii. 14, Ixxxix. 18, xcii. 11, etc. That is the meaning of the phrase here, and the words are to be connected, according to their sense, with what follows: " to elevate the horn," i.e. to give power, God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters; i.e. to make Heman's race
1 On these names Ewald says, ausf. Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache, § 274, S. 672, der 7 Ausg.: " It is thought that the utterance of a great prophet is to be found cut up into names of near relatives, when the words,
' I have given great and lofty help,
I have to fulness spoken oracles,' which manifestly form a verse, and may have been the commencement of a famed ancient oracle, are found transferred to the live musical sons of Heman, mighty for the praise of God, God gave him so many sons and daughters. — Ver. 6 is the subscription to the enumeration, vers. 2-5. n.?N"73 are not the fourteen sons of Heman, but all the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. All these were under the direction of their fathers for son 2 in the house of Jahve, with cymbals... for the service in the house of God under the direction of the king, etc. SW2X is used distributively of each father of the sons named. Bertheau supplies after OTOK the name Heman, and thereby the first half of the verse contradicts the second, which he correctly understands to refer to the twentyfour persons enumerated. — In ver. 7 the total number is given. Their number (the number) of the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman (i.e. of the twenty-four [4+6 + 14] mentioned by name), with their brethren, was 288 (24x12); whence we learn that each of those named had eleven B^K, all of them W* ^^P, learned, practised in song for Jahve. In P^BJTva the sons and the brothers are both included, in order to give the total number. rop, having understanding, knowledge of a thing, denotes here those who by education and practice were skilled in song — the accomplished musicians. Their number was 288, and these were divided into twenty-four choirs (classes). David had, according to xxiii. 5, appointed 4000 Levites for the performance of the music. Of these, 288 were D^afc skilled in song; the others were scholars (D^Tppn), as ver. 8 shows, where r?? and T&pn are the two categories into which the musicians are divided. — Ver. 8. They cast lots, n^tt^p mpTi^ fcXr/povs ej>7)jiep[cov (LXX.), by which the HTOtSto, the waiting upon the service, was fixed, that is, the order of their succession in the official service. ri^Vp is variously translated. As no name follows, R. Shel. and Kimchi would repeat the preceding rn»pto: one class as the other; and this is supported by xxvi. 16 and Neh. xii. 24, and by the fact that in xvii. 5, after |2^pp, the words J3^p?K have been dropped out. But according to the accentuation TT^W belongs to rrirjia, and so the proposed completion is at once disposed of. Besides this, however, the thought "class like class" does not appear quite suitable, as the classes were only formed by the lots, and so were not in existence so as to be able to cast lots. We therefore, with Ewald, § 360, a, and Berth., hold the clause bSltt |b$B to be the nected with a clause: u in the manner of, as the small, so the great," i.e. the small and the great, the older as the younger.
This is further defined by " the skilled as the scholars." From these words it is manifest that not merely the 288 cast lots, for these were HP"'5? (ver. 7), but also the other 3712 Levites appointed for the service of the singers; whence it further follows that only the 288 who were divided by lot into twenty-four classes, each numbering twelve persons, were thoroughly skilled in singing and playing, and the scholars were so distributed to them that each class received an equal number of them, whom they had to educate and train0 These, then, were probably trained up for and employed in the temple music according to their progress in their education, so that the icprj/iepla which had at any time charge of the service consisted not only of the twelve skilled musicians, but also of a number of scholars who assisted in singing and playing under their direction.
Vers. 9-31. The order of succession was so determined by lot, that the four sons of Asaph (ver. 3) received the first, third, fifth, and seventh places; the six sons of Jeduthun, the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth; and finally, the four sons of Heman (first mentioned in ver. 4), the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth places; while the remaining places, 15-24, fell to the other sons of Heman. From this we learn that the lots of the sons of the three chief musicians were not placed in separate urns, and one lot drawn from each alternately; but that, on the contrary, all the lots were placed in one urn, and in drawing the lots of Asaph and Jeduthun came out so, that after the fourteenth drawing only sons of Heman remained.1 As to the details in ver. 9, after Joseph we miss the statement, " he and his sons and his brothers, twelve;" which, with the exception of the Win, used only of the second lot, and omitted for the sake of brevity in all the other cases, is repeated with all the 23 numbers, and so can have been dropped here only by an error. The words ^9?- f]DV? are to be understood thus: The first lot drawn was for
1 Bertheau, S. 218, draws quite another conclusion from the above-mentioned order in which the lots were drawn. He supposes " that two series, each of seven, were first included in the lot: to the one series belonged the four sons of Asaph and the three sons of Heman, Mattaniah, Uzzicl or Azarel, and Shebuel or Shubael; to the other, the six sons of Jeduthun and Bukkiah the son of Heman. A lot was drawn from each series alternately, commencing with the first, so that the four sons of Asaph and the three sons of Heman obtained the places 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13; while to the six sons of Jeduthun, and the son of Heman added to them, fell the places 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 1 1. The still remaining ten sons of Heman were then finally drawn for, and re-
Asaph, viz. for his son Joseph. In the succeeding verses the names are enumerated, sometimes with and sometimes without?. Some of the names diverge somewhat in form. Izri, ver. 11, stands for Zeri, ver. 3; Jesharelah, ver. 14, for Asarelah, ver. 2; Azarel, ver. 18, for Uzziel, ver. 4 (like the king's names Uzziah and Azariah, iii. 12, and 2 Chron. xxvi. 1); Shubael, ver. 20, for Shebuel, ver. 4 (cf. xxiii. 16 with xxiv. 20); Jeremoth, ver. 22, for Jerimoth, ver. 4; Eliyathah, ver. 27, for Eliathah, ver. 4. Besides these, the fuller forms Nethanyahu (ver. 12), Hashabyahu (ver. 3), Hananyahu (ver. 23), are used instead of the shorter Nethaniah, etc. (vers. 2, 19, 4). Of the 24 names which are here enumerated, besides those of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman, only Mattithiah recurs (xv. 18, 21) in the description of the solemnities connected with the bringing in of the ark; " but we are not justified in seeking there the names of our twenty-four classes" (Berth.).
Chap. xxvi. The classes of the doorkeepers, the steivards of the treasures of the sanctuary, and the officers for the external business. — Vers. 1-19. The classes of the doorkeepers. Ver. 1. The superscription runs shortly thus: "As to (?) the divisions of the doorkeepers." The enumeration begins with ^rn.ijp: to the Korahites (belongs) Meshelemiah (in ver. 14, Shelemiah). Instead of WT? *)DK we should read, according to ix. 19, *I9£*5 "OSTp, for the Korahites are descended from Kohath (Ex. vi. 21, xviii. 16), but Asaph is a descendant of Gershon (vi. 24 f.). — In vers. 2, 3, seven sons of Meshelemiah are enumerated; the first-born Zechariah is mentioned also in ix. 21, and was entrusted, according to ver. 14, with the guarding of the north side. — Vers. 4-8. Obededom' s family. Obed-edom has been already mentioned in chap, xvi. 38 and xv. 24 as doorkeeper; see the commentary on the passage. From our passage we learn that Obed-edom belonged to the Kohathite family of the Korahites. According to ver. 19, the doorkeepers were Korahites and Merarites. The Merarites, ceived the places from the 15th to the 24th." This very artificial hypothesis explains, indeed, the order of the lots, but we cannot think it probable, because (1) for the supposed dividing of the lots to be drawn into divisions of 10 and 14 no reason can be assigned; (2) by any such division the sons of Heman would have been placed at a disadvantage from the beginning as compared with the sons of Asaph and Jeduthun, since not only Asaph's four sons, but also all Jeduthun's six sons, would have been placed in the first rank, while only four sons of Heman accompany them, Heman's ten remaining sons having had the last place assigned them.
however, are only treated of from ver. 10 and onwards. D'lK *Djfa (ver. 4) corresponds to ^rpppcwi (ver. 2), and is consequently thereby brought under B*IT1|W (ver. 1). Here, vers. 4, 5, eight sons with whom God had blessed him (cf. xiii. 14), and in 6 and 7 his grandchildren, are enumerated. The verb TO3 is used in the singular, with a subject following in the plural, as frequently (cf. Ew. § 316, a). The grandchildren of Obed-edom by his firstborn son Shemaiah are characterized as DWDJSHj the dominions, i.e. the lords (rulers) of the house of their fathers Qufo®, the abstract dominion, for the concrete 7&D; cf. Ew. § 160, b), because they were W ^fell, valiant heroes, and so qualified for the office of doorkeepers. In the enumeration in ver. 7, the omission of the 1 cop. with VHK Ut/M is strange; probably we must supply \ before both words, and take them thus: And Elzabad and his brethren, valiant men, (viz.) Elihu and Semachiah. For the conjecture that the names of the WK are not given (Berth.) is not a very probable one. — Ver. 8. The whole number of doorkeepers of Obed-edom's family, his sons and brethren, was sixtytwo; able men with strength for the service. The singular B*N?5j after the preceding plural, is most simply explained by taking it to be in apposition to the?b at the beginning of the verse, < by repeating 73 mentally before t^K — In ver. 9 the number of Meshelemiah's sons and brothers is brought in in a supplementary way. — Vers. 10, 11. The Merarites. Hosah' s sons and brothers, npin has been already mentioned (xvi. 38) along with Obed-edom as doorkeeper. Hosah made Shimri head of the Merarites, who served as doorkeepers, because there was no firstborn, i.e. because his first-born son had died without leaving any descendant, so that none of the families descended from Hosah had the natural claim to the birthright. All the sons and brothers of Hosah were thirteen. Meshelemiah had eighteen (cf. ver. 9), and Obed-edom sixty-two (ver. 8); and all taken together they make ninety-three, whom we are (according to ver. 12 f.) to regard as the heads of the 4000 doorkeepers. In ix. 22 the number of the doorkeepers appointed by David is stated to be 212, but that number most probably refers to a different time (see on ix. 22). Bertheau further remarks: " According to xvi. 38, sixty-eight are reckoned to Obed-edom and Hosah, in our passage seventy-five; and the small difference between the numbers is explained by the fact that in the first passage only the doorkeepers before the ark are referred to." Against this we have already shown, in our remarks on xvi. 38, that the number there mentioned cannot be held with certainty to refer to the doorkeepers. — Vers. 12-19. The division of the doorkeepers according to their posts of service. Ver. 12. a To these classes of doorkeepers, viz. to the heads of the men, (were committed) the watches, in common with their brethren, to serve in the house of Jahve." By rrippnD n?K? it is placed beyond doubt that the above-mentioned names and numbers give us the classes of the doorkeepers. By the apposition B^JS- "^"J?? tne meaning of which is discussed in the commentary on xxiv. 4, 't$1 fti|"vn?p is so defined as to show that properly the heads of the households are meant, only these having been enumerated in the preceding section, and not the classes. — Ver. 13. The distribution of the stations by lot followed (cf. xxv. 8), the small as the great; i.e. the younger as the older cast lots, according to their fathers'- houses, " for door and door," i.e. for each door of the four sides of the temple, which was built so that its sides corresponded to the points of the compass. — Ver. 14. The lot towards the east, i.e. for the guarding of the east side, fell to Shelemiah (cf. vers. 1, 2); while that towards the north fell to his first-born Zechariah. Before ^n^T,? is to be repeated. To him the title?3b>n yv^ is given, for reasons unknown to us. 'U v^sn, (for him) they threw lots. — Ver. 15. To Obed-edom (fell the lot) towards the south, and to his sons it fell (to guard) the house Asuppim. As to D^pKrrJVa, called for brevity tf'SDK jn ver# i7? {%e% house of collections or provisions (cf. Neh. xii. 25), we can say nothing further than that it was a building used for the storing of the temple goods, situated in the neighbourhood of the southern door of the temple in the external court, and that it probably had two entrances, since in ver. 19 it is stated that two guardstations were assigned to it. — Ver. 16. The word DWp is unintelligible, and probably has come into the text merely by a repetition of the two last syllables of the preceding word, since the name CSP (vii. 12) has no connection with this passage. To Hosah fell the lot towards the west, by the door Shallecheth on the ascending highway, r6tyn r6p£n is the way which led from the lower city up to the more lofty temple site. Instead of the door on this highway, in ver. 18, in the statement as to the distribution of the guard-stations, Parbar is named, and the highway distinguished from it, four doorkeepers being appointed for the '^pD; and two for IfiB. ^f!?, probably identical with B^ra, 2 Kings xxiii. 11, a word of uncertain meaning, was the name of an out-building on the western side, the back of the outer court of the temple by the door Shallecheth, which contained cells for the laying up of temple goods and furniture. fl3?^, Bottcher translates, Proben, S. 347, "refuse-door;" see on 2 Kings xxiii. 11. Nothing more definite can be said of it, unless we hold, with Thenius on 2 Kings xxiii. 11, that Ezekiel's temple is in all its details a copy of the Solomonic temple, and use it, in an unjustifiable way, as a source of information as to the prseexilic temple. "ttpBto ntpvb *\nwn (as in Neh. xii. 24), guard with (over against?) guard, or one guard as the other (cf. on fl^i^, ver. 12 and xxv. 8), Bertheau connects with Hosah, according to the Masoretic punctuation, and explains it thus: u Because it was Hosah's duty to set guards before the western gate of the temple, and also before the gate Shallecheth, which lay over against it." Clericus, on the contrary, refers the words to all the guard-stations: cum ad omnes januas essent custodier, sibi ex adverse- respondebant. This reference, according to which the words belong to what follows, and introduce the statement as to the number of guards at the individual posts which follows in ver. 17 ff., seems to deserve the preference. So much is certain in any case, that there is no ground in the text for distinguishing the gate Shallecheth from the western gate of the temple, for the two gates are not distinguished either in ver. 16 or in ver. 18. — Ver. 17 f. Settlement of the number of guard-stations at the various sides and places. Towards morning (on the east side) were six of the Levites (six kept guard); towards the north by day (i.e. daily, on each day), four; towards the south daily, four; and at the storehouse two and two, consequently four also; at Parbar towards the west, four on the highway and two at Parbar, i.e. six. In all, therefore, there were twenty-four guard-stations to be occupied daily; but more than twenty-four persons were required, because, even supposing that one man at a time was sufficient for each post, one man could not stand the whole day at it: he must have been relieved from time to time. Probably, however, there were always more than one person on guard at each post. It further suggests itself that the number twenty-four may be in some way connected with the divisions or classes of doorkeepers; but there is only a deceptive appearance of a connection. The division of the priests and musicians each into twenty-four classes respectively is no sufficient analogy in the case, for these classes had to perform the service in succession each for a week at a time, while the twenty-four doorkeepers' stations had to be all occupied simultaneously every day. — In vers. 2—11, then, twentyeight heads in all are enumerated by name (Meshelemiah with seven sons, Obed-edom with eight sons and six grandsons, and Hosah with four sons); but the total number in all the three families of doorkeepers is stated at ninety- three, and neither the one nor the other of these numbers bears any relation to twentyfour. Finally, the posts are so distributed that Meshelemiah wTith his eighteen sons and brothers kept guard on the east and north sides with six posts; Obed-edom with his sixty-two sons and brothers on the south side with four and 2X2, that is, eight posts; and Hosah with his thirteen sons and brothers on the western side w7ith four and two, that is, six; so that even here no symmetrical distribution of the service can be discovered. — Yer. 19. Subscription, in which it is again stated that the classes of doorkeepers were taken from among the Korahites and Merarites.
Vers. 20-28. The stewards of the treasures of the sanctuary. — Ver. 20 appears to contain the superscription of the succeeding section. For here the treasures of the house of God and the treasures of the consecrated things are grouped together, while in vers. 22 and 26 they are separated, and placed under the oversight of two Levite families: the treasures of the house of Jahve under the sons of the Gershonite Laadan (vers. 21, 22); the treasures of the consecrated things under the charge of the Amramites. But with this the wTords nsna D*l?n cannot be made to harmonize. According to the Masoretic accentuation, E*vp alone would be the superscription; but D*l?n alone gives no suitable sense, for the Levites have been treated of already from chap xxiii. onwards. Moreover, it appears somewhat strange that there is no further characterization of n>nx for the name is a very common one, but has not before occurred in our chapter, whence we would expect a statement of his descent and his family, such as wre find in the case of the succeeding chief overseers. All these things tend to throw doubt upon the correctness of the Masoretic reading, while the LXX., on the contrary, in teal olAevLTai aSe\(pol avrcov iirl rcov OrjcravpojV) «.t.\., give a perfectly suitable superscription, which involves the reading B^riK instead of njnN. This reading we, with J. D. Mich, and Berth., hold to be the original. On nn>nx D^n cf. vi. 29, 2 Chron. xxix. 34.—
Vers. 21 and 22 go together: "The sons of Laadan, (namely) the sons of the Gershonite family which belong to Laadan, (namely) the heads of the fathers'-houses of Laadan of the Gershonite family: Jehieli, (namely) the sons of Jehieli, Zetham and his brother Joel (see xxiii. 7), were over the treasures of the house of Jahve." The meaning is this: " Over the treasures of the house of Jahve were Zetham and Joel, the heads of the father' shouse of Jehieli, which belonged to the Laadan branch of the Gershonites." Light is thrown upon these words, so obscure through their brevity, by chap, xxiii. 7, 8, according to which the sons of Jehiel, or the Jehielites, are descended from Laadan, the older branch of the Gershonites. This descent is briefly but fully stated in the three clauses of the 21st verse, each of which contains a more definite characterization of the father's-house Jehieli, whose two heads Zetham and Joel were entrusted with the oversight of the treasures of the house of God. — Vers. 23 and 24 also go together: " As to the Amramites, Jisharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites (the four chief branches of the Kohathite family of Levites, chap, xxiii. 15—20), Shebuel the son of Gershon, the son of Moses, was prince over the treasures " (i before Shebuel introduces the apodosis, cf. Ew. § 348, a, and = Germ. " so t war"). — Ver. 25. "And his (Shebuel's) brethren of Eliezer were Rehabiah his (Eliezer's) son, and Jeshaiah his son,... and Shelomoth his son." These descendants of Eliezer were called brethren of Shebuel, because they were descended through Eliezer from Moses, as Shebuel was through his father Gershon. — Ver. 26. This Shelomoth (a descendant of Eliezer, and so to be distinguished both from the Jisharite Shelomith (xxiii. 18 and xxiv. 22), and the Gershonite of the same name (xxiii. 9)), and his brethren were over the treasures of the consecrated things which David the king had consecrated, and the heads of the fathers'-houses, etc. Instead of *)fe7 we must read ^y'\ according to xxix. 6. The princes over the thousands and hundreds are the war captains, and the ^XK *lfe> are the commanders-in-chief, e.g. Abner, Joab, xxvii. 34, 2 Sam. viii. 1G, 1 Chron. xviii. 15. — The 27th verse is an explanatory parenthesis: "from the wars and from the booty," i.e. from the booty taken in war had they consecrated. pjn?, to make strong, i.e. to preserve in strength and good condition the house of Jahve. pjn elsewhere of the renovation of old buildings, 2 Kings xii. 8 ff., Neli. hi. 2 ff., here in a somewhat general signification. — In ver. 28 the enumeration of those who had consecrated, thus interrupted, is resumed, but in the form of a new sentence, which concludes with a predicate of its own. In K^lpnn the article represents "JEW, as in xxix. 17, 2 Chron. xxix. 36, and elsewhere; cf. Ew. § 331, b. With B^pBH?b, all who had consecrated, the enumeration is concluded, and the predicate, " was at the hand of Shelomith and his brethren," is then brought in. T"?^ laid upon the hand, i.e. entrusted to them for preservation; Germ, unter der Hand (under the hand).
If we glance back at the statements as to the stewards of the treasures (vers. 20-28), we find that the treasures of the house of Jahve were under the oversight of the Jehielites Zetham and Joel, with their brethren, a branch of the Gershonites (ver. 22); anu the treasures of the consecrated things under the oversight of the Kohathite Shelomith, who was of the family of Moses' second son Eliezer, with his brethren (ver. 28). But in what relation does the statement in ver. 24, that Shebuel, the descendant of Moses through Gershon, was nmxrrSy TJ3, stand to this? Bertheau thinks " that three kinds of treasures are distinguished, the guarding of which was committed to different officials: (1) The sons of Jehieli, Zetham and Joel, had the oversight of the treasures of the house of God, which, as we may conclude from xxix. 8, had been collected by voluntary gifts: (2) Shebuel was prince over the treasures, perhaps over the sums which resulted from regular assessment for the temple (Ex. xxx. 11-16), from redemption-money, e.g. for the first-born (Num. xviii. 16 ff.), or for vows (Lev. xxvii.); consequently over a part of the sums which are designated in 2 Kings xii. 5 by the name DWpn pjdd: (3) Shelomith and his brothers had the oversight of all the nrttix DWpn, i.e. of the consecrated gifts which are called in 2 Kings xii. 19 DWp, and distinguished from the DWp t)DD in ver. 5." But this view has no support in the text. Both in the superscription (ver. 20) and in the enumeration (vers. 22, 26) only two kinds of treasures — treasures of the house of God (of Jahve), and treasures of the DNtthp — are mentioned. Neither b}T the facts nor by the language used are we justified in supposing that there was a third kind of treasures, viz. the sums resulting from the regular assessment for the holy place. For it is thoroughly arbitrary to confine the treasures of the house of God to the voluntary contributions and the consecrated gifts given from the war-booty; and it is still more arbitrary to limit the treasures over which Shebuel was prince to the sums flowing into the temple treasures from the regular assessment; for the reference to 2 Kings xii. 19 and 5 is no proof of this, because, though two kinds of DWp are there distinguished, yet both are further defined. The quite general expression nftyfcn, the treasures, can naturally be referred only to the two different kinds of treasures distinguished in ver. 22. This reference is also demanded by the words TJ3...?fctt3B> (ver. 24). Heads of fathers'-houses, with their brethren (Dl^nN), are mentioned as guardians of the two kinds of treasures spoken of in ver. 20; while here, on the contrary, we have Shebuel alone, without assistants. Further, the other guardians are not called "VM, as Shebuel is. The word TJ3 denotes not an overseer or steward, but only princes of kingdoms (kings), princes of tribes (xii. 27, xiii. 1, xxvii. 16; 2 Chron. xxxii. 21), ministers of the palace and the temple, and commanders-in-chief (2 Chron. xi. 11, xxviii. 7), and is consequently used in our section neither of Zetham and Joel, nor of Shelomoth. The calling of Shebuel TM consequently shows that he was the chief guardian of the sacred treasures, under whose oversight the guardians of the two different kinds of treasures wTere placed. This is stated in vers. 23, 24; and the statement would not have been misunderstood if it had been placed at the beginning or the end of the enumeration; and its position in the middle between the Gershonites and the Kohathites is explained by the fact that this prince was, according to xxiii. 16, the head of the four Levite families descended from Kohath.