Alternate Outline of Chapter 6:

I.     The Priestly Line of Kohath                                                  (I Chron. 6:1–15)

II.    The Three Lines of Descent                                                 (I Chron. 6:16–30)

       A.    Gershom                                                       (vv. 20–21)

       B.    Kohath                                                          (vv. 22–28)

       C.    Merari                                                            (vv. 29–30)

III.   The Three Lines of Ascent                                                (I Chron. 6:31–48)

       A.    Heman back to Kohath                               (vv. 33–38)

       B.    Asaph back to Gershom                               (vv. 39–43)

       C.    Ethan back to Merari                                     (vv. 44–48)

IV.   The Priestly Line of Aaron                                                    (I Chron. 6:49–60)

       A.    Aaron’s descendants                                  (vv. 50–53)

       B.    The cities given to Aaron’s descendants      (vv. 54–60)

V.    The Cities Given Over to the Other Sons of Levi          (I Chron. 6:61–81)

       A.    Gershom                                                       (vv. 66–70)

       B.    Kohath                                                       (vv.71–76)

       C.    Merari                                                         (vv. 77–81)

Outline of Chapter 6:

       v.      1           Introduction

       vv.    2–15      The line of the descendants of Kohath

       vv.   16–30      The basic genealogical lines of Levi

       vv.   31–48      The ancestors of Heman, Asaph and Ethan—those who headed the musicians guild

       vv.   49–53      The descendants of Aaron who made up the priests of Israel

       vv.   54–60      The cities given over to the descendants of Aaron

       vv.   61–65      A summary of the division of the Levitical cities

       vv.   66–70      The cities given over to the descendants of Kohath

       vv.   71–76      The cities given over to the descendants of Gershom

       vv.   77–81      The cities given over to the descendants of Merari

Charts

       v.      1           The Tribe of Levi

       v.      1           The Sons of Kohath

       v.      1           The Sons of Gershon

       v.      1           The Sons of Merari

       vv.    5–9        The Priestly Line

       vv.   11–14      The Kings, Prophets and Priests of Judah

       vv.   11–14      Priests Not Named in the Genealogies of 1Chronicles 6

       vv.   20–21      The Descendants of Gershom and the Ancestors of Asaph

       vv.   22–24      The Alternate View of the Sons of Kohath

       vv.   22–24      The Lines of Korah and the Ancestors of Heman

       vv.   22–24      The Line of Samuel the Prophet

       vv.   25–27      The Hebrew Comparison of the Names in the Line of Samuel

       v.     32           Hebrew Words for Dwelling Place

       v.     60           The Cities Given Over to the Descendants of Aaron

       v.     63           The Allotment of the Levites

       vv.   67–70      The Cities Given Over to the Descendants of Kohath

       vv.   71–76      The Cities Given Over to the Descendants of Gershom

       vv.   77–81      The Cities Given Over to the Descendants of Merari

I ntroduction: I must admit to putting off exegeting this chapter for some time. I spent over a month exegeting a couple of psalms first. I just kept thinking that this is one long chapter (81 verses!). However, its length might give us an idea as to how God looks at these things. This chapter spent on the tribe of Levi, at 81 verses, compares to that on the family of Judah (I Chron. 2:3–3:24—77 verses) and the tribe of Benjamin (from whence came King Saul; I Chron. 7:6–12 8:1–40—47 verses). And, only the lines of David and Levi are followed out all the way to the dispersion. In the other genealogies, we simply get the most prominent families and clans.

Furthermore, on the face of it, this line of Levi struck me as being the least interesting of the genealogies. I Chron. 6 is long and deals with the tribe of Levi. Unlike the tribe of Judah, from whom came the kings of Judah and our Savior, from Levi, there is promise, but they eventually fall into great degeneracy—however, it is religious degeneracy, which seems to me to be far less interesting than other types of degeneracy. What did surprise me is that many of those mentioned in this genealogy are found in other portions of Scripture. What further surprised me as that several of these were interesting men and that they were mentioned a lot. Being a theocracy, you cannot wholly separate the political from the religious Israel—they are inexorably linked. Therefore, the political intrigue which surrounded the life of David also bleeds into the lives of the priests—those who supported him and those who backed the wrong candidate. Therefore, I personally began to find the lives of these priests much more interesting that I had first anticipated. Furthermore, when I got to the end of this chapter, where a list of the cities transferred over to the Levites is given, I was able to clarify and sometimes even correct information which I had presented back in the second half of the book of Joshua.

Since completing this chapter (and several after it), I returned to exegeting narrative—specifically 1Samuel; and I have found myself going back to this chapter again and again as a reference book. It is this book which is sort of a road map. It is this book which straightens out many fine points and relationships. In fact, I cannot imagine exegeting 1Samuel apart from having already examined this chapter.

Now, early on in the examination of these genealogies, I made a presumption that we would not know the lines of those who were under slavery to Egypt, and I assumed that there would be holes in the lines of those who were deported. This is not necessarily the case with the line of Levi. In fact, the line of Aaron through Eleazar through Zadok appears to be the most complete line of all the genealogies. We should expect that, under slavery, most families would not keep a careful record of their genealogies—however, the operative word here is most. We might expect that a handful of families might have kept a careful genealogy—and they would need to have a reason to. The line of Aaron was, even prior to the establishment of nation Israel, designated as the line of the High Priests. Therefore, under any and all circumstances, that lineage would have been followed. What would be most logical, particularly given the curse that Jacob laid upon the tribe of Levi, is that a careful genealogy during the time of slavery, apart from the general divisions of the family would be lost; however, after the designation of the line of Aaron as the priestly line—at that point, we should expect a very carefully kept genealogical line. This is exactly what we find.

This chapter is more than just a genealogy. It would be helpful if you went back and looked at the Doctrine of the Levites in Deut. 27:14 and the Doctrines of the Priesthood and of the High Priest back in Ex. 30:21. In general, there has always been some sort of a priesthood who function is not quite as well-laid out as we would like to see in the Age of the Gentiles (this would be the epoch of time which preceded the Abraham becoming a Jew). Therefore, when God gave the Law to Israel, there appears to have been the function of a priesthood which was not completely defined to begin with. That is, the priesthood did not appear to be a new thing. Although the High Priest had clearly defined duties (entering into the Holy of Holies and sprinkling the blood upon the altar), the descent of the High Priest appears to be more implied than stated. It is fairly clear in Scripture that the priesthood would come from Aaron’s line. “Then you will bring Aaron, your brother, near to yourself, and his sons with him, from among the sons of Israel, and they will minister as priest to Me—Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.” (Ex. 28:1). “And they [the garments of the priesthood] will be on Aaron and on his descendants when they enter the Tent of Meeting, or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they do not incur iniquity and die. It will be a statute forever to him and to his descendants after him.” (Ex. 28:43). “You will appoint Aaron and his descendants that they may keep their priesthood; but the layman who comes near will be executed.” (Num. 3:10). Aaron was the first High Priest and his third son, Eleazar, after the deaths of his first two sons, was the second; his son, Phinehas, was eventually the third High Priest. However, we also find some priests who come from the line of Ithamar, who is the fourth son of Aaron. Therefore, we do not find a hard and fast rule either in Scripture by example or by direct statement as to how the High Priest was chosen. By the time of our Lord, the High Priest was, sadly, one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt, of the priests in general. Understanding this will eliminate some of the supposed problems in this chapter. We will, in two places, follow a very specific line of Aaron; many High Priests came from this line. However, it is important to realize that (1) Not necessarily all of those named were High Priests (I put them in as High Priests in one of the charts, as there is no statement of which I am aware where so-and-so is specifically noted as not being a High Priest; and, (2) although all High Priests came from the line of Aaron, they did not all come through the line of Eleazar, which is followed out in this chapter. Several important, well-substantiated High Priests came through the line of Ithamar, the youngest of Aaron’s sons. There are a handful of other priests whose exact line is unknown.

Before I forget, there are two common and very incorrect notions that most Christians have with respect to the tribe of Levi: (1) that there is such a thing as a Levitical priesthood; i.e., the Levites are equivalent to the priests in Israel; and, (2) the book of Leviticus deals with the Levitical priesthood. Only one branch of the Levites were priests, and, quite obviously, only a small portion of that branch. The priests came from the line of Aaron, principally through his son Eleazar, although several came through his son Ithamar as well. By the time Aaron came along, the Levites were 22,000 in number (Num. 3:43) and their duties are outlined in Num. 4–6, 8, 18 (the word Levite barely occurs in the book of Leviticus). These 22,000 and their descendants were to assist in the worship of Jesus Christ at the Tent of Worship, but they were not the priests. A linear line which began with Aaron and went through Eleazar was the source of the priests over Israel (as well as some of those in the line of Ithamar, Eleazar’s brother). Now, you, in ignorance, might find these viewpoints quaint; however, the man who compiled 1Chronicles will confirm this in I Chron. 6:48–49: And their relatives the Levites where appointed for all the service of the Tent of the House of God. But Aaron and his sons offered up in smoke upon the altar of burnt offering and upon the altar of incense, for the work of the most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses, the servant of God, had commanded. In other words, all of the Levites had responsibilities with respect to the Tent of God; however, only the sons of Aaron were associated with the actual priesthood, which were those men who offered up the animal sacrifices; and only specific men from Aaron’s line, the High Priests, could go into the Holy of Holies and offer up an atonement for Israel once a year .

There is a very specific purpose in this chapter—Levites had a particular place in Jewish society. They were involved with Tent (and Temple) worship. When the Israelites returned from captivity, it was important to distinguish the Levites, as they were supported by the public to participate in certain religious functions; and, for the reasons cited above, it was important to distinguish the priestly line of Eleazar from the Levites in general (compare the following: Ezra 2:40–41 Neh. 7:43–44 10:9–13, 28–29 11:15–19 12:23–47). In fact, even those who worked around the Temple—the Levites—were subject to an examination of their lineage. In this chapter, there are three men who are the heads of the music guild of Israel when the Temple was built, and their pedigrees are preserved in this chapter. This legitimized their function in the Temple.

This chapter can be broken down to two or three basic sections. In the first section (vv. 1–30, 54–60), we have genealogies of the sons of Levi. In section two (vv. 31–48), we have the ancestors of the musicians guild given (some may include this with the first section). Section three (vv. 54–81) tells what cities were given over to the Levites. These various sections can be subdivided, of course. In vv. 2–15, we have the line of Kohath, the line which included Aaron, and we follow out the linear progression of High Priests from Aaron’s son, Eleazar, through to the priest who was taken away in exile. Now, these were not the only High Priests; Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar, also was the ancestor of several High Priests. Furthermore, it appears as though there was at least one other major line of priests not covered in this chapter, as there are a handful of priests found in Scripture who are not named in this book (we will certainly discuss them). From vv. 16–30, we will follow the three basic lines of Levi—his sons Gershom, Kohath and Merari. In vv. 31–48, we have somewhat of a change of pace, at least in regards for being a genealogy. There are three heads to the musicians guild during the time of David and their lines are traced backwards to show their legitimacy as servants in the House of Jehovah (those who assisted the Aaronic priesthood were supposed to be Levites). At the end of this second, we examine again the descendants of Aaron (I don’t know what that is; my guess is that the author found two lists and copied down both lists).

In the second portion of this chapter, we have an unusual breakdown of topics. First, the cities given to Aaron’s descendants from Judah and Benjamin are named. Then, in vv. 61–65, we have a summary of this distribution (i.e., what tribes gave which cities to which of the three branches of Levi). Then the specifics are given—in vv. 66–70, we have which cities Ephraim and West Manasseh gave over to the line of Kohath. In vv. 71–76, Gershom is given specific cities from East Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and Naphtali. Finally, in the final four verses of this chapter, we have the list of the cities which Zebulun and Gad gave over to the descendants of Merari. The reason we do not find the names of Simeon and Dan will be explained when we get to that portion of this chapter.

There is another way to break this chapter down, and that by outline form. I normally do not do that with any given chapter; however, this chapter is 81 verses long, and it would help to have a general idea as to what will transpire. I do this, as it is a good idea to have a picture of the forest before we begin looking at the trees.

Introduction

This is actually a continuation of I Chron. 5 in the Hebrew; in the English, v. 16 marks the beginning of I Chron. 6:1 in the Hebrew. That ranks with some of the worst chapter and verse divisions in the Bible.

Levi was one of the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel). He was the third son born and the third son born to Leah, after Reuben and Simeon (he was born prior to Judah—Gen. 29:32–35). You may recall that these twelve brothers had a sister, Dinah, who was raped by a Hivite named Shechem. This was not a random act of violence, but he had done so because he was very attracted to her. Her brothers were extremely angered over this, and taken aback when Shechem asked for Dinah’s hand in marriage after the rape. The sons of Jacob hid their anger, but simply told Shechem and his father that they would all have to be circumcised in order to intermarry with the family of Jacob. They went along with this, and every male of that group of Hivites was circumcised. Apparently, Dinah was given over to them to show good faith. On the third day, while these men were still in serious pain, Simeon and Levi went into the city stealthily and killed every male, looted the city, and took Dinah back. Jacob was upset with his boys, as this put his small family at odds with all of the heathen in the land; his boys felt justified, as Shechem had raped their sister. This is all found in Gen. 34.

After this incident, Levi is then found in three lists: a simple list of the sons of Jacob (Gen. 35:23) and in the two lists of those who moved to Egypt with their father Jacob (Gen. 46:11 Ex. 1:2). When Jacob gave his blessings to his sons, he recalled this incident involving Simeon and Reuben and said that they would be scattered among the tribes of Judah and Israel. Jacob’s words were: “Simeon and Levi are brothers. Their swords are implements of violence. Let my soul not enter into their counsel and let not my glory be united with their assembly, because in anger, they executed a man and in their self-will, they hamstrung an ox. Cursed is their anger, for it is fierce; and cursed is their wrath, for it is implacable. I will disperse them in Jacob and I will scatter them in Israel.” (Gen. 49:5–7). What happened was, Simeon never really was given a piece of land of their own, but was, instead, given cities originally designated as Judahite cities. The Levites were scattered throughout northern and southern Israel, which is what the last portion of this particular chapter deals with.

As we examine the sons of Levi, let’s bear in mind the hypothesis that we have formed earlier. It is unlikely that we will have a specific recording of the descendants of Levi who were born while in slavery to Egypt and it is unlikely that we will know exactly who was born in captivity. The line should stop with the last known freeman under the sojourn of the Jews in Egypt; there should be an impenetrable barrier between those who are free and those who exit Egypt (only their parents and grandparents and maybe great grandparents should be known). We will find a similar situation, yet not as pronounced, when the Israelites are removed from the land and taken into slavery.

In v. 16 and following, Gershon is written Gershom. In this verse, in the eastern Massoretic text, it is Gershom as well. In the western Massoretic text, it is Gershon. In any case, this does not appear to be the error of a copyist, as the ending letters, in the Hebrew, are quite different. Because the slightly different names are found throughout Scripture, it appears as though they are variants of the same name. Gershon was one of the three sons born to Levi who moved to Egypt with Levi (Gen. 46:8, 11). We know nothing of Gershon personally from Scripture. There were two families (or clans) which came from Gershom, Libni (or Ladan) (I Chron. 23:7) and Shemei (Num. 3:18, 21). In general, the Gershonites were assigned to the northern territories of Issachar, Asher and Naphtali, as well as to the east in the half tribe of Manasseh that occupied Trans-Jordan area. Therefore, they occupied the northernmost land on both sides of the Jordan .

Like Gershon above, we know nothing about Kohath personally, apart from him being born prior to moving to Egypt and living until age 133 (Ex. 6:18). Kohath had four sons—actually, four descendants of note—Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel (Ex. 6:18 Num. 3:19, 27 I Chron. 6:2). Kohath would have been an ancestor to Moses, Aaron and Miriam through Amram (no less than a great grandfather and probably further back than that). Because of this, Kohath is the most famous of the branches of Levi and the most famous of the ancestors. Those who know even the littlest information about the Levites associate Kohath and the name Cohen with the priesthood.

There has been a lot of confusion about the priesthood and it is often called the Levitical priesthood. Ask any Christian and they will incorrectly tell you that the book of Leviticus is about the Levitical priesthood. The priesthood actually began with Aaron, who was a descendant of Levi through Kohath and Amram and those who were descendants of Aaron were properly the priests to Israel. They should have been called the Aaronic priesthood, although I am hard-pressed to find anyone else who so properly refers to them. God gave the other sons of Levi to Aaron and to Aaron’s descendants to help out with the priestly duties. The Kohathites were to camp on the south side of the Tent of Worship while it was in transit to the Land of Promise (Num. 3:29), and they were responsible for the care and transport of the ark, table, lampstand, altars and vessels of the sanctuary (Num. 3:31). Before any of these things could actually be handled, Aaron and his sons were to place a goatskin over them (Num. 4:5–15). They were placed in the southern and south-central portion of Israel in the lands of Judah, Simeon, Ephraim, Benjamin, Dan and half the tribe of Manasseh.

Merari, like his brothers, was born outside of Egypt and moved to Egypt with the family of Jacob. We know nothing of him personally. They were in charge of carrying the frames, bars, pillars, bases and accessories of the tabernacle (Num. 3:36–37 4:31–33 7:8 10:17 Joshua 21:7, 34, 40). From Merari came two families, Mahli and Mushi (Ex. 6:20).

In the chart below, it is important to realize that when two or more men are listed as sons of Barney, that does not mean that they are all sons of Barney—they are simply descendants of Barney and one may be the son of another or the grandson of a person not listed).

The Line of the Descendants of Kohath

The first thing that we must understand is that these four are not necessarily brothers, but they are the heads of families in Israel and all four were descended from Kohath. At the time of the exodus, there were 8600 Kohathites (Num. 3:27–28); this would indicate that these four are not necessarily the actual sons of Kohath, but descendants of his (at least, there is no way that Amram is the actual son of Kohath). On the other hand, they may not have been separated by that many generations. Levi lived to the age of 137 (Ex. 6:16), Kohath to 133 (ex. 6:18) and Amram to 137 (Ex. 6:20), which pretty much takes us almost all the way through the 400 years of Jewish slavery to Egypt. Therefore, there may have been fewer intervening generations than one would suspect (contrast this with the line of Judah and near descendants like Caleb—not the Caleb of the Pentateuch).

The first time that Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel are mentioned is in Ex. 6:18, 20. It first appears that Amram married his aunt Jochebed, who was his father’s sister, and she bore to him Aaron, Moses and Miriam (Ex. 6:20); however, in Num. 26:59, she is simply a Levite, a descendant of Levi. Therefore, there is no way that Amram could have been the actual son of Kohath. He was, at closest, a great grandson and was, more than likely, several more generations removed. What appears to be the case is that Amram and Uzziel are both late descendants of Kohath (see Lev. 10:4) and Izhar and Hebron are very early descendants of Kohath—perhaps even sons.

Little is known about Izhar, apart from being a descendant of Levi through Kohath (Ex. 6:18, 21 Num. 3:19). One of his descendants is quite well known, however. Korah was a descendant of Izhar and Korah will organize a rebellion against Moses which will result in the deaths of nearly 15,000 Israelites (Num. 16 I Chron. 6:38).

Hebron was a descendant of Kohath and he is mentioned pretty much in the same passages as Amram and Izhar (Ex. 6:18 Num. 3:19 I Chron. 6:2, 18 23:12). Nothing much is known about Hebron apart from his genealogies (see also I Chron. 23:19 24:23). His descendants, the Hebronites, are simply mentioned in two censuses (Num. 3:27 26:58).

Uzziel is not only found in the traditional genealogies, but he is also mentioned in Lev. 10:4 as the uncle of Aaron (which is why I would place him as a very late descendant of Kohath). His family was in charge of the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the screen and the vessels of the Tent of Meeting (Num. 3:31). Later, in the book of Chronicles, we will find that they were given several assignments under David.

The sons of Amram were an impressive family. Moses and Aaron both went to Pharaoh of Egypt and demanded that he let the Israelites go. The reason that Aaron was there was that Moses was unsure of himself and wanted Aaron to act as his mouthpiece. Moses led Israel out of Egypt. As we have seen, Aaron’s ability to lead was sorely lacking. When Moses went up Mount Sinai and left Aaron in charge, the first thing that the Israelites did was to construct a golden calf idol.

As you will recall, Miriam and Aaron both objected to a second wife which Moses took (it appears as though Miriam took the lead and Aaron fell into line behind her), and both died the sin unto death.

God did have a place for Aaron. Temporarily, he was the mouthpiece for Moses, until Moses could bear it no longer and took over. However, God made Aaron High Priest, and committed his sons to this office as well (some descendants, of course, would be merely priests). As we have studied in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, there is no reason to suppose that all of the Levites became candidates for the priesthood. Only Aaron’s descendants (who were obviously Levites) were given that privilege and the rest of the Levites were allowed to help with the Tent of Worship.

Aaron took his place in history based upon relationship to Moses, which is a picture of us. Moses is a picture of Christ, and Aaron is a picture of us who has a place in God’s plan based upon relationship to Moses (Christ). Apart from our relationship to God through Christ, we would have no standing. We could not represent ourselves as priests before God. We have nothing else to recommend us apart from our relationship through Christ. Aaron was the same way. Moses looked up to him as an older brother, so some degree; and leaned on him when it came to speaking to Pharaoh—however, the only reason that Aaron played a part—and, in fact, a big part—was due to his relationship to Moses. Aaron became High Priest and all of those who were his descendants became priests and High Priests as well. Because of his relationship to Moses, Aaron was with Moses on a couple of occasions when God spoke to Moses.

The priests concerned themselves with several areas of the ceremonial portions of the Law—actually, that which, in the Law, foretold of Christ. All of the animal sacrifices, the innocent dying for the guilty; the unblemished sacrifices making amends for the transgressions of the people—all of these things spoke of Christ. Then, when the High Priest, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, went into the Holy of Holies, deep inside the Tent, to the Ark of the Covenant, and sprinkled blood upon it, that again spoke of our Lord’s once for all sacrifice.

Aaron had a great character flaw, which we get to know as we examine his life in the Pentateuch. He went along with whatever—he did the expedient thing. When Moses was receiving the Law from Mount Sinai, Aaron went along with the manufacturing of the golden calf idol. In Num. 12, Moses married an Ethiopian woman, and Miriam thoroughly disapproved—and Aaron went along with that. During the second Meribah incident, when the people complained of no water, he and Moses were given very specific instructions as to how to produce water from the rock, Moses disobeyed God’s directions and Aaron went along with it. Moses was told that he would not lead the people into the land and Aaron was literally stripped of his office of High Priest, taken to a mountain and he died (Num. 20).

It is quite interesting what the JEPD theory did to Aaron. Aaron is mentioned 350 times in Scripture—300 in the Pentateuch. However, many of the proponents of that flawed theory claim that Aaron is simply a concoction of a fertile imagination. They claim that Aaron is missing from J (the author who used the name Jehovah a great deal); and that he is only incidental to E (the author who uses the name of Elohim the most often). Now, how do you have the mention of Aaron 300 times, and yet some theologian tells us that he does not appear at all in the J documents? Their explanation is that the phrase and Aaron was added by whoever wove these documents together. In the E documents, Aaron’s name occurs 21 times, and mostly in connection to rebellion against Moses (Ex. 32, the golden calf incident; and Num. 12, Moses’ marriage to the Ethiopian woman). The claim is that Aaron is mentioned primarily in the P documents, which are the documents written by a priest hundreds of years later (it is claimed the P documents are post-exilic). In order to make the Pentateuch fit their theory, the JEPD proponents delete and Aaron when it is convenient and fits their theory and leave it in when leaving his name in fits their theory. ZPEB: This handling of the text requires a remarkable disregard of consistency, to say the least, and is forthrightly rejected by conservative scholarship. Proponents of this theory simply change whatever they do not like in Scripture, so that it completely agrees with their theory. When you are first presented with this theory, it seems to be moderately convincing: “We have noticed that there are some passages in which the Tetragrammaton YHWH is found almost exclusively; and other passages where we find the name Elohim. When we separate these passages, we seem to find two different traditions which must have been later woven together.” The problem is, when other tests are put to these same groups of Scriptures, they fail. Therefore, “someone at one time added Aaron’s name dozens of times in order to hide the fact that these passages were woven together from separate traditions.” This reasoning begs the question. The considerable evidence against this theory is rationalized away; and the small amount of evidence which might support such a theory is made abnormally prominent (even though it is not consistent).

It appears pretty obvious to me: Aaron was the first High Priest, so we should expect to hear his name mentioned in connection with the function of the High Priest and with the function of the priests. As I have mentioned many times previously, this JEPD theory is a goofy theory which does nothing but detract from the inspiration of Scripture (which is what Satan designed it to do).

Aaron had married Elisheba, who was the sister of Nahshon, who may have been an ancestor of King David (Ex. 6:23 Ruth 4:20 I Chron. 2:10). He had several sons, who will be discussed in order.

Aaron’s first two sons were Nadab and Abihu (Ex. 6:23 Num. 3:2 26:60 I Chron. 24:1), who were next up to follow Aaron in his office as High Priest. Prior to this, they were priests to Jehovah. God had allowed Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders to ascend Mt. Sinai together and they all witnessed the manifestation of Jehovah God, and Moses went more near to receive more of the Law. They saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself (Ex. 24:10). All four of Aaron’s sons were called by God to be priests unto Him in Ex. 28:1 and they were all so consecrated in Lev. 8:1–36. As you will recall, God gave very explicit instructions as to how everything was to be done. God deals in details and gave extremely detailed instructions as to how and what was to be done. Nadab and Abihu disobeyed these instructions and apparently offered incense in their fire before God. The idea is that, God had said several times that the fire from the sacrifices would be a sweet aroma to Him; so they threw in some incense so that the smoke would smell sweet. This was not under God’s instructions—this was them adding human works to the sacrifices, confusing the idea of salvation. Anytime human works are added to salvation, this issue is confused and the person involved is not saved. When you add baptism, sincere and earnest repentance from your sins, a personal vow not to commit some or all of these sins ever again, etc. etc., you muck up the water of salvation. We are saved completely and 100% by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. There is nothing that we can add to this to make this a sweeter savor to God. We are accepted in the Beloved because of what He did on the cross, not because of some little work that we do on this earth. Therefore, Nadab and Abihu immediately died the sin unto death (Lev. 10:1–3). They had no children (Num. 3:4 I Chron. 24:2). This left Aaron’s next two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar (Num. 3:3–4).

Ithamar was the youngest of the four brothers, and he did not inherit the office of the High Priest as did his older brother Eleazar. However, Ithamar was an important leader in Israel. He oversaw the inventory of the items collected for the Tent of Glory (Ex. 38:21). The Gershonites had certain duties with respect to the Tent of Meeting. Ithamar had authority over them (Num. 4:27–28). The Merarites also had specific duties with respect to the Tent of Meeting, and Ithamar oversaw these duties as well (Num. 4:33 7:8).

Of Aaron’s four sons, Eleazar stands out the most in Scripture. While Aaron was High Priest, Eleazar supervised the tribe of Levi with respect to their responsibilities to the Tent of Worship (Num. 3:31–32). He also was in charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the continual grain offering and the anointing oil, as well as being responsible for the Tent of Worship and all that was in it (Num. 4:16). In the ordinance of the red heifer, Eleazar played a prominent part. He slaughtered the red heifer and sprinkled the blood in front of the Tent of Meeting seven times (Num. 19:1–10).

When his father was stripped of his priesthood, Eleazar was there. The priestly garments went directly off the back of Aaron onto the back of Eleazar. There is no gap in the protection and the watch of our High Priest over us, and there is no gap here. Aaron died on the mountain top and Moses and Eleazar returned to the people (Num. 20:25–28 Deut. 10:6). Eleazar remained the High Priest during most of the time of Joshua’s political leadership over the people of Israel. He assisted Joshua with the division of the land to the sons of Israel (Num. 34:17 Joshua 14:1 17:4). He and Joshua appeared to die about the same time. Around that time, Eleazar passed on the of office of the High Priesthood to his son, Phinehas (it appears as though Eleazar retired rather than died while in this office—Joshua 22:13 Judges 20:28). It appears as though the line of Ithamar somehow became the line of the High Priest (Eli was from the house of Ithamar rather than of Eleazar), and then it went back to Eleazar’s branch (this will be discussed in further detail near the end of this chapter). What appears to be the descent in the line of Ithamar is Eli ➔ Phinehas 2 ➔ Ahitub I ➔ Ahijah ➔ Ahimelech I (who may be equivalent to Ahijah) ➔ Abiathar ➔ Ahimelech II (see 1Sam. 14:3 22:20 2Sam. 8:17). Most of these men would have served as priests or High Priest from the end of the era of the judges to early on in the kingdom era.

Phinehas was the actual son of Eleazar and a force to be reckoned with early on. Near the end of Israel tenure in the desert wilderness, the Moabites became concerned of the Israelites camping so close to them. Balak called upon Balaam to curse Israel, in hopes that a curse would do them in. Although Balaam reluctantly agreed, he was unable to curse Israel (Num. 22–24). However, what did capture the hearts of the Israelites were the wild, Moabite women. There appeared to be some coalition of sorts, as the Midianite women were included in this seduction. Now, the problem was not the intermarriage, but the fact that the foreign women coaxed the Israelite men to worship their gods. One man boldly brought a Midianite woman into the camp of Israel and took her to his tent to have sexual relations with her. Phinehas followed the man and put a spear through the man and the woman, killing them both. Now, this is not something that we are today enjoined to do. Many of the religious groups that came to the United States originally were very confused as to what happened in the New and Old Testaments. However, this was valid for that day and time. The Israelites were in the midst of a plague put upon them by God for their relationships with the Moabite women and their gods. This checked the plague (24,000 died because of this plague). Phinehas then accompanied the army which went and took revenge upon the Midianites in Num. 31.

We don’t hear anything about Phinehas (or his father, Eleazar) in the crossing of the Jordan or the taking of the land. Eleazar participates in the distribution of the land; however, the next time we hear again of Phinehas is in Joshua 22 when the eastern tribes set up an altar east of the Jordan (see the exegesis of Joshua 22 to see the discussion of this), and this properly disturbs all of Israel. The land has been conquered and distributed; Joshua and Eleazar appear to have retired (or taken a low profile). Phinehas, a younger man, but not a young man, is the spiritual, and, apparently, somewhat of a political leader. He took ten men with him to discuss the erection by the eastern tribes of this altar. He finds their explanation satisfactory and reports this back to the sons of Israel.

One of the important aspects of that previous story is that this suggests that Phinehas may have been the author for (1) the end of the book of Joshua; (2) the first couple chapters of Judges; and/or (3) the last few chapters of Judges. No one is mentioned by name in the second two-thirds of Joshua 22 apart from Phinehas. He does not report this information back to Joshua directly (or, at least the text does not so suggest) but to the people of Israel. It is more reasonable to suppose that he recorded the contents of this chapter than Joshua. Joshua gives two messages in Joshua 23 and 24 (Joshua 23 appears to be his last message to the people); then his death, and the death of Eleazar are recorded at the end of Joshua 24. Given his age, we can reasonably suppose that Joshua did not record all of this, although he may have written his message out. It is more likely that Phinehas appended these things to the book bearing his name. Such a position does not detract from the inspiration of Scripture and is more logical. The last verse of the book of Joshua, which deals with the death of Eleazar, as well as mentioning Phinehas his son, gives even more credence to this theory.

Again, Phinehas is not mentioned for a long time—we don’t hear his name again until its final mention in Judges 20:28. The disjointed material found in the book of Judges (it would be reasonable to assume there were three or four different authors, the final author being an editor) would allow for Phinehas to have authored portions of this book. My thinking is that he may have recorded one or both of the final incidents in the book of the Judges. However, I do not believe that Phinehas recorded the first couple chapters of the book of the Judges. The vocabulary from the end of Joshua, particularly in Joshua 22, is rather complex; and the vocabulary of the beginning of the book of the Judges is rather simple by comparison. There is also a feeling of summary that runs through those first couple chapters—as if someone is looking back over this history and making some summary observations. Although Phinehas would have been qualified to do so, my feeling is that the history would have been too recent for him to make these observations, and that someone else, a few decades or centuries removed, made them (I see this person as the final editor of this book). The mention of Phinehas late in the book of Judges would allow for him to have authored those portions (as you recall, the last two sections of the book of Judges actually occurred very early in the history of the judges). And the fact that he is the only person of note mentioned in those final five chapters pretty much gives us the only name to choose from.

The son of Phinehas, Abishua, is mentioned only in genealogies (I Chron. 6:4–5, 50 Ezra 7:5).

When I first typed this verse, I thought to myself that this is simply going to be another long list of names of people who we will never know anything about, apart from running into some (or, all) of them in eternity. However, that is not the case with all of them.

What we first need is the concept of a time frame for these men. Phinehas was High Priest at the beginning of the period of the judges, which was nearly 400 years in length. These six men, from Abishua to Amariah, take us to the time of Eli; therefore, we are probably missing a few generations. The only way for them to have been the line of High Priests during the time of the judges is for each one of them to have occupied office for over 60 years. This is obviously unlikely; however, one of the postulates that we have made is that we would expect there to be specific periods of time where the names of men would be lost; during the period of Israel’s slavery to Egypt, we expected few family lines to be carefully preserved. During the period of the time of the judges, given the great degeneracy of Israel, we expect few lines to be preserved in their entirety.

Bukki’s primary claim to fame is that he had the most bitchin’ name for a priest in the history of Israel. Other than that, we find him only here and in Ezra 7. In fact, we might do well to simply compare the Ezra passage with this one, I Chron. 6:50–53 and the Greek version of this passage. After which, we will only deal with those names as are found outside of these three passages.

Now, prior to examining this chart, the first thing that would come to my mind is that, for whatever reason, some of the priests were named two or three times in this list. However, it simply appears as though several priests had the same names. In fact, for the first time in our examination of any chronology, we finally have 100% agreement in our passages. Not every passage follows out the priestly line as far as the others, nor are all those in the line included; however, it is remarkable that the Septuagint (composed approximately 200–100 b.c.) and the Massoretic text (ours go back to the 8^th or 9^th century a.d.). One of the things which we have noted with any genealogical line is that, often being the least interesting of the Scripture, it would remain unread for long periods of time; and, when finally unraveled to copy, would be in horrible condition, often barely readable. I know that you probably do not appreciate this, but there is nothing in ancient literature which shows this kind of agreement. However, this agreement will yield one minor problem with Hilkiah, which will be discussed below.

There are several notes that I would like to make as we cover this: (1) when a priest is mentioned in connection with a king, that does not mean that he was acting High Priest at the time (unless, of course, the passage calls him the Chief Priest or the High Priest); (2) Although this particular line appears to be the line of the High Priests, that does not mean that these were the only men who occupied that office—that is, there were other men of other lines who also occupied this office; (3) Like any other genealogical line, there are probably some gaps in this line. That all being said, I will try to place these various men into an historical context.

Uzzi is found listed only in this and the parallel passages. He is thought by some to be a contemporary of Eli’s, the priest who served during the time of Samuel the judge (this would have been the end of the times of the judges).

Meraioth, the meaning of whose name is unknown (it may be related to bitter) is mentioned several times in Scripture, but only in regards to being related to others in the priestly line and only in the passages listed above. In I Chron. 9:11 and Neh. 11:11, his name appears to be slightly out of place. Therefore, it is possible that there is another Meraioth buried somewhere in the line of Phinehas (this will be covered in more detail below).

Amariah 1 on this list is not the same as the Levite Amariah named in I Chron. 23:19 25:23; the lines are completely different. Amariah 2 is also only found in genealogies, but he is mentioned in I Esdras 8:2 and II Esdras 1:2, books of the Apocrypha.

Ahitub 1 and 2 will be mentioned below. There is another Ahitub, who is a priest, who is in the line of Aaron, but his line is through Ithamar and Eli (1Sam. 14:3 22:9, 11–12, 20).

Zadok 1 is called the son of Ahitub 1 in 2Sam. 8:17 and I Chron. 18:16, and is mentioned in connection with the early administration of King David. In two passages, we have ...and Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Meshullam, son of Zadok, son of Meraioth, son of Ahitub, the chief officer of the house of God (I Chron. 9:11 Neh. 11:11). According to all of the other genealogies, it should be ...Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Amariah, son of Meraioth. So, what’s the dealio? (1) It is possible that I Chron. 9:11 and Neh. 11:11 are both corrupt. However, it would not matter if I Chron. 9:11 was corrupt and Nehemiah copied from that, because that would contradict the Doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. Now, one passage could have become corrupt and some scribe changed the other to match. However, these passages are all in agreement with the Greek as well. (2) This could be a list of the ancestors of Zadok, without a consideration given for order (I am not aware of this occurring elsewhere in Scripture). (3) There could be another Meraioth, Meraioth 2, not mentioned in our passage, I Chron. 6 (or, any of the parallel passages). That I also find to be unsatisfactory because, why mention him in one place and not the other? And why mention him at all, when he is a virtual unknown? This, apart from its weaknesses, appears to be the best explanation. (4) The possible explanation given by ZPEB is also quite unsatisfactory: The best explanation of this phenomenon is to study the methods employed by the Scripture writers of genealogies whereby they selectively draw out names from a genealogy for their immediate contextual purposes and employ the word “son of” or “father of” to connect these links as is permissible in the range of meanings for these terms. What lends credence to this explanation is that the passages of I Chron. 9 and Neh. 11 are not genealogies per se, as there are so many gaps; but more of a listing of bare qualifications (which would reasonably include names from before and after the Temple). When we get to I Chron. 9, we’ll spend some more time on this, as it is a problem for that passage more than it is for this one.

Zadok 1 is probably the most well-known of the priests (okay, you haven’t heard of him, but he is mentioned in First, in 2Sam. 8:17, we read: And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, priests;... What we have are two High Priests, and the reason that they are both High Priests is that they come from different lines. Zadok comes from the line of Eleazar and Ahimelech comes from the line of Ithamar (this particular Ahimelech and this particular Abiathar are not mentioned in the genealogical lines of I Chron. 6). I have placed them in some of the tables to help orient you to the two lines.

Zadok appears to have begun under David as a young man (2Sam. 8:17 I Chron. 12:23–28). He and his son, Ahimaaz, were priests during the time of Absalom’s rebellion (2Sam. 15:36). When he originally followed David (along with Abiathar, a priest in the line of Eli and Ithamar), he brought along the Ark of God. David told him to return the Ark to Jerusalem (2Sam. 15:24–29). All the gathered information during Absalom’s rebellion was to be filtered through them, as David’s trusted servants, and passed along to David (Ahimaaz and Jonathan would gather information and pass it along to David—2Sam. 17:17–20). Once Absalom’s rebellion had been quashed, David was not accepted immediately by Judah. David then sent messengers to Zadok to gain the acceptance of the Judæan people (2Sam. 19:11–14). Zadok is also mentioned in connection with David in about a dozen other passages.

Zadok more or less shared his position as priest with Abiathar (the priest in the line of Ithamar) throughout the reign of David. However, when David was ready to pass away, Abiathar aligned himself with Adonijah, David’s fourth son born to him by Haggith (2Sam. 3:4 I Chron. 3:1–2), and, while David was deathly ill, yet still alive, Adonijah assumed the position of king of all Israel. For those loyal to David, this was a serious problem, as David had promised Bathsheba that his son by her, Solomon, would succeed him. Zadok was one of the men who proclaimed Solomon king, by David’s orders, while David was still alive (1Kings 1). After assuming his position as king, Solomon removed Abiathar as priest and reinstated Zadok (1Kings 2:27, 35). Sometime previous, there had been a prophecy laid down that, because of the disobedience of Eli’s son, that his line would be cut off forever (1Sam. 2:27–36). This removal of Abiathar was the fulfillment of that prophecy.

The JEPD’s have a theory about Zadok—that he was purely the invention of the priests who were descended from Aaron. They get their foothold in with a phoney, but intelligent-sounding theory, and then do as much damage as possible to the inspiration of Scripture and to those who really took a part in Israel’s history (what the JEPD’s did not like is the prediction of the end of the priestly line of Eli being fulfilled). Essentially, the basis of this part of the JEPD theory is that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy.

Speaking of theories, Barnes had trouble with Zadok 1 and his great, great grandson son, Azariah 2, both serving under Solomon. In I Chron. 4:4, we have Zadok 1 over all the priests, in somewhat of a supervisory position; perhaps as sort of a figurehead. His grandson, Azariah 1, was actually the High Priest at this time (I Chron. 4:2). It would not be unheard of for Zadok 1 to be 110 years old and his grandson, Azariah 1 could have been 70 and at the end of his service (Zadok’s son, and Azariah 1’s father, Ahimaaz, is only mentioned in connection with David). There was Azariah’s son, Johanan, who not mentioned apart from the genealogical line. Azariah 2, would (or, could) have been perhaps 40 when the Temple was completed. Barnes solution was that Azariah 1 was the High Priest at the Temple of Solomon. Although this is possible, it is less likely. It would have made little sense to misplace Azariah 1’s name like that.

The last we hear of Zadok is in the book of Ezekiel. Around Ezek. 40, Ezekiel records the future of the priesthood and the priests are called sons of Zadok (Ezek. 40:46 43:19 44:15 48:11). This clearly indicates the importance of Zadok.

Now, what might confuse you is the idea that it appears as though we have two High Priests under the reign of David. In fact, it appears as though we have this parallel priesthood for several decades. Furthermore, another confusing portion of Israel’s history is the location of the tent of God. You probably have no idea as to why there are two priesthoods and where exactly was the Tent of God. Let me explain: at the end of the time of the judges, the Philistines took from Israel the Ark of God (1Sam. 4), which Ark Israel brought into the battle for good luck. God cursed degenerate Israel and allowed the Philistines to not only be victorious, but to take the Ark as well. However, God also cursed the Philistines, and anywhere that they took the Ark, that city was placed under great divine judgement. The Philistines finally returned the Ark to Israel, and David later brought the Ark to Jerusalem where David constructed a separate tent for it on Zion. However, the Tent of God was actually located in Gibeon, which is where sacrifices were offered until the Temple was built. Therefore, there would need to be two sets of priests, as there were two places in Israel which required a priesthood. Zadok performed the duties of a High Priest in Gibeon (1Kings 3:4 I Chron. 16:39) and Abiathar antecedents originally acted as a priests in Jerusalem (actually, in Nob, which was just slightly northeast of Jerusalem). Nob was known as the city of priests (1Sam. 22:19). Saul, because of the kindness that showed to David, wiped out all of the priests in Nob, except for young Abiathar, who escaped to David (1Sam. 22). It is possible (although there is nothing to support this) that the Tent of God was moved to Gibeon because of this assault on the city of Nob (after killing the priests, Saul then assaulted the city itself). After this, Abiathar served directly under David, generally in Jerusalem. When Solomon built the Temple, which became the center of worship for Israel, and when he brought the Ark of God to the Temple, this roughly coincided in time with a return to a single line of priests (there was some intervening time between these events, which appears to be less than 20 years).

Please allow me to go off on a tangent and explain the purpose of this. We have the Tent of God which was void of the Ark of God in Gibeon as the central place where worship occurred. We have the Ark of God—the true essence of God—elsewhere. This is foreshadowing. Israel, at some point as a nation, would no longer be the true custodian of the purpose of God; they would not longer have the Presence of God. In the first century, they would be left with an empty tent of worship. The Ark of God—that is, God’s glory and essence, as well as purpose—would be with the Church. There was this great split. When the permanent Home of God is built—that is, Christ returns to rule over the earth (the Temple represents that), then these two, the Church and Israel, will be united; and both will have a part as true custodians of the Word and purpose of God.

The second Zadok in this line is found only in Chronicles. The first thing which would occur to those giving this a precursory glance is that perhaps the scribe made a mistake, since Zadok 2 has a father and a grandfather with the same names as Zadok 1’s father and grandfather. First of all, such an occurrence is not impossible or even completely out of the ordinary. Just as a person might give his son the same name, and his son give his own son the same name, it would not be out of the ordinary for a priest to be named after a well-known previous priest; for his son to be named after the son of the first priest, and onto the grandson. It may have been simply a symbolic gesture. Being that they are all descended from one another makes such a thing even more likely. The agreement between the Greek and the Hebrew further substantiates this view; the fact that the Ezra 7 passage would be thrown all out of whack if such a thing were true further supports this position. Furthermore, we need some generations in there to fill in the gap between the Temple and the dispersion. In fact, the only reason to doubt that there was a second Zadok (along with his father and grandfather) is that the names are the same. That simply isn’t reason enough to take that position. Apart from determining that Zadok 2 really existed, there is nothing else we know about him.

There are no fewer than a possible 27 different Azariah’s in Scripture. Several of these are identical; however, that still leaves us with at least twenty different Azariah’s. Azariah 1 on our list was a priest during the time of Solomon. In fact, he is the first-named of Solomon’s officials in 1Kings 4:2 (this was at the beginning of Solomon’s reign). He is called, in that passage, the son of Zadok; however, that means descendant of Zadok. In between was his father Ahimaaz (2Sam. 15:36). His grandson, Azariah 2, also served under Solomon, in Solomon’s Temple (2Chron. 6:10).

Abishua and Zerahiah are found only within these parallel passages (and some are mentioned in the genealogical lines found in I Esdras 1 & 8). It is supposed by Keil and Delitzsch that Zerahiah was not equal to the discharge of the duties of the office under the difficult circumstances of the time; and that Eli’s grandson, Ahitub, assumed the Eli’s High Priesthood .

There are two verbs that I would like to touch on in this verse. The second verb in this verse is the Piel perfect of kâhan (ן-הָ) [pronounced kaw-HAHN], which means to act as a priest, to be a priest, to serve [as a priest], to minister as a priest. Strong’s #3547 BDB #464. The second verb is the Qal perfect of bânâh (ה ָנ ָ) [pronounced baw-NAWH], which means to build, to rebuild. Strong’s #1129 BDB #124.

Johanan is barely squeezed between Azariah 1 and 2, and is found only in the genealogies. Despite all of the information that we have on Zadok, on Azariah 1 and the mention of Azariah 2 serving in the Temple, we know nothing about Johanan. Now actually, we have a small uncertainty concerning Azariah 1 and 2; there are two Azariah’s who lived around the time of Solomon and there is an Azariah named in 1Kings 4:2 and both are named in this passage. They are both descendants of Zadok, and therefore could be called the son of Zadok (1Kings 4:2); therefore, both passages could refer to the same Azariah. The second Azariah is clearly connected to the Temple worship in this verse. However, we do not know if the first Azariah began as the High Priest of the new Temple under Solomon, only to be quickly replaced by his grandson. If the grandson, Azariah 2, was High Priest for, say, 30 years of Solomon’s 40 year reign, then he would be the one most closely associated with the Temple, even if his grandfather, Azariah 1, was the first priest of the Temple. Therefore, when we come to a chart which correlates the various priests to the kings over Judah, there will be some Scriptural references, e.g., this particular one, which may not be correctly correlated.

When Solomon dedicated the Temple, the focus was upon Jehovah, the God of Israel, Jesus Christ (2Chron. 2:1–3:1). Solomon basically was concerned about two things: (1) Jehovah, the God of Israel, should have a place of permanence in Israel. We recognize now why the Tent of Meeting represented the temporary residence of the Lord of Glory (this was Christ in His first incarnation); and the Temple represented Him in His permanent residence on this earth, in the Millennium.

First things first: Barnes claims that this particular line is flawed. There are 3–4 generations between Amariah and Hilkiah, which is apparently too few for the estimated 200 years of history that they cover. At worst, we have a few generations missing. If you examine the list of Priests and Kings below, you will see that we have more than enough priests for the time of the kings during this span. Some of the priests are of an unknown origin (not all of them have to come in one particular line), and they more than take up the slack for what is missing. They may even be the one’s who are missing. The way that I have set up the line of priests, I have a generation of priests for every generation of kings. So, I don’t think that we have a problem, other than the exact origin of those priests found in Scripture during this time. Barnes: [This genealogy]...is not a list of High-Priests, but the genealogy of Jozadak or Jehozadak, whose line of descent party coincided with the list of High-Priests, partly differed from it. Where it coincided, all the names are given; where it differed, some are omitted, in order (probably) to render the entire list from Phinehas a multiple of seven .

There was possibly an Azariah 2.5, not on this list or in this passage, who was the High Priest under King Uzziah and Hezekiah. King Uzziah had decided that he was going to offer incense up on the altar of incense, one of the many activities which was exclusive to the priests. Azariah 2.5, along with 80 other priests, expressed their dissatisfaction. King Uzziah was struck with leprosy and the priests helped him to get out of the Temple 2Chron. 26:16–21). Azariah was the High Priest (of the chief priest) when King Hezekiah ruled as well (2Chron. 31:8–10). Hezekiah began his rule in 716 b.c. and Judah was dispersed in 597 b.c. If this man is the same as Azariah 3 on the list above, then there are only two recorded priests during the last century (Seraiah and Jehozadak). Although this is possible, it would be an unusually long reign in both cases. It is possible that Azariah’s reign went a ways into that century as well. Because Azariah 2.5 (or 3) is said to be of the house of Zadok (2Chron. 31:10), if this is a fourth Azariah, then he would be either the father or grandfather of Azariah 3 and not listed in any of the genealogies. In the passages named, his genealogy is not mentioned, apart from being a priest in the line of Zadok. Now, one of our problems is that it seems unlikely that a person mentioned in two passages of Scripture should be left out of line of priests. This gives us several possibilities: (1) The line matches the reality of the line of priests and three of them averaged about 33 years each in this office; (2) there is another Azariah mentioned in Scripture, but not in this exact line and therefore not mentioned in this line (there are 20+ Azariah’s in Scripture—however, this Azariah is called a High Priest twice and said to be in the line of Zadok). (3) This is an Azariah from this particular line of Zadok, but he is not mentioned in this line (that is very unlikely). (4) That the Azariah found throughout Scripture, but not in this line is in the line of Zadok, but in a line which branched off. He was named a High Priest, but he is not in the exact same line as we have listed in I Chron. 6. (5) There are one or more High Priests in the line of Phinehas between Azariah 3 and Jehozadak who are not listed in any of these genealogies.

Our discussion immediately above about there being possibly an Azariah 2.5 was only because there were only a few names to follow his until the dispersion of Judah. However, with Hilkiah, we have a real problem (Azariah was not a real problem; it just merited some discussion). The problem is this: the Azariah 2.5, whom we originally theorized could have existed, would have preceded Hilkiah in time (Hilkiah was High Priest during the time of Josiah and Azariah 2.5 was High Priest under Uzziah and Hezekiah (earlier kings). This could not have been Azariah 2, as he was the father of Amariah 2, who was the High Priest under Jehoshaphat. And this could not have been Azariah 3, as he is the son of Hilkiah, making him too late in time to have served under Uzziah and Hezekiah. This means that there must have been an Azariah 2.5. The actual several possibilities are: (1) there are either two Hilkiah’s (the second one not mentioned in any of the genealogical lines but mentioned in Scripture); (2) there is an extra Azariah, not mentioned in any of the lines, but mentioned in Scripture; (3) the names of Hilkiah and Azariah transposed in all of the lines. Whether we have an extra Hilkiah or Azariah, the problem is the same. Why would these men rate several mentions in Scripture but not in the chronological lines? The problem with their names being transposed in the genealogical lines are twofold (a) these are relatively well-known priests; and, (b) their names are transposed in two lines in two different passages as well as being transposed in the Septuagint. (4) A fourth possibility/explanation is that either Azariah 2.5 (or the Hilkiah mentioned in Scripture but not in this line) are not in this particular line of priests (which is primarily the High Priest line; Ithamar’s does find its way into the priests, but is cut off early on). Both men are called High Priests. I am interested whether anyone else in my four books dealing with contradictions caught this problem. Several of my sources do call out for an additional Azariah not named in this genealogical line. In any case, if you examine my comparison of the priestly line to line of Kings, you will see that I have inserted an Azariah 2.5, in the line of Zadok, who essentially fixes everything and squares away any Scriptural problems simply by being there. I need to add that this is not a contradiction of any sort; we have a specific line of High Priests given in this chapter which is, apparently, not the only line of High Priests. It appears as though the firstborn of the High Priest would be the next High Priest, and his firstborn after that—however, this was not always the case. The third-born son of Aaron, Eleazar, was the second High Priest. Eleazar’s son, Phinehas, was the next High Priest, and his authority appeared to eclipse Joshua’s as well. We know the circumstances there; but this would indicate that there existed no hard and fast rule that only the firstborn of the firstborn of the firstborn would be the High Priest.

Hilkiah, the High Priest, was sent by King Josiah to count the money brought into the Temple. The purpose was to use these funds to repair the Temple, which, apparently, had fallen into disrepair. Hilkiah found a copy of the Book of the Law in the Temple, which was recognized by all as being the Book of the Law (2Kings 22:4–14 2Chron. 34:9–30). Josiah had Hilkiah empty out the Temple of all of the idolatrous materials in 2Kings 23:4. I should mention that having a second Hilkiah would also clear up the chronology and lineage problems; however, most exegetes seem to call for an additional Azariah instead.

Seraiah was the High Priest when Nebuchadnezzar was moving against Judah. He took Seraiah (and a few others) and had them executed at Riblah (2Kings 25:18–21 Jer. 52:24–27). Ezra was descended from Seraiah (Ezra 7:1), meaning, obviously, that Seraiah had sired children prior to this excecution. This Seraiah is also found in a genealogical line in Neh. 11:10–11.

Ahitub 2 and Shallum (Meshullam in I Chron. 9:11) are found only within these parallel passages (and some are mentioned in the genealogical lines found in I Esdras 1 & 8).

In the table which will follow, I will have done the following things: (1) I will list every king over the United Kingdom and over Judah in order, giving one estimation of their reigns. (2) I will list 13 of the prophets of Scripture who wrote books next to these kings (Elijah, Elisha, Joel, Jonah and Amos will be missing, as they were properly prophets to the Northern Kingdom). (3) I will list all of the priests and High Priests from the various lines of Scripture and correlate them both in time and in their proper genealogical line. (4) I have listed every priest whose name does not occur in a genealogy, but occurs in narrative Scripture. In some cases, I was able to place them in a genealogy and in others I was not. And, (5) when a priest is spoken of in connection with any particular king, then I will note one or two passages that confirm that. This way, you should be able to look at any individual priest or any line of priests in Scripture, go to this chart, and find that particular priest listed.

The only verb that I would like to examine here is the Hiphil infinitive construct of gâlâh (הָלָ) [pronounced gaw-LAW], which means, in the Qal, to uncover, to remove. In the Hiphil, it means to remove, to uncover; the subject causes the uncovering of or the removal of. Strong’s #1540 BDB #162. This indicates that Jehozadak was alive when Judah was removed from the Land of Promise. My guess is that he was a very young man, if not a child, at this time. He will be the High Priest when Israel returns to the land, but he apparently does not take a very active role (I Chron. 6:15 Haggai 1:1, 12, 14 2:2, 4 Zech. 6:11). Particularly in the passages in Haggai, it appears as though his son, Joshua, was more actively involved in political affairs. In fact, apart from the 1Chronicles passage, the other passages listed simply name Jehozadak as High Priest and the father of Joshua, who is the person actually spoken of. Ezra also mentioned these two, although Joshua is Jeshua and Jehozadak is Jozadak. This particular fact is probably the strongest argument against Ezra’s authorship of Chronicles (unless he simply copied the information almost word-for-word as it was listed elsewhere). Another factor is that Jozadak may simply be an abbreviated form of Jehozadak.

Jehozadak means Jehovah is righteous. Barnes: It has been noted as remarkable that the heads of both the priestly and the royal stock carried to Babylon should have had names (Zedekiah and Jehozadak) composed of the same elements, and assertive of the “justice of God,” which their sufferings showed forth so signally. Jehozadak is mentioned in several places in the Apocrypha (I Esdras 5:5, 48, 56 6:2 9:19 Ecclesiasticus 49:12). Bear in mind that the Apocrypha are not false writings; they just are not a part of Scripture. Some of them are simply historical accounts which may be relatively accurate (as accurate as any history book); and some purport to be something they are not (e.g., authored by a writer of Scripture when they were not).

Jehozadak’s son, Joshua, set up the altar to burn sacrifices to Jehovah God upon Judah’s return from their exile (Ezra 3:2). He helped to oversee the construction of the Temple (Ezra 3:8 5:2). He was one of the men who had married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:18).

The Basic Genealogical Lines of Levi

This sentence means that we are finished with the priestly succession of the line of Levi ( the line of Kohath through Eleazar) and that we now begin a new line. We covered Levi and his sons in I Chron. 6:1.

This is actually the beginning of chapter 6 in Chronicles in the Hebrew. Now you may wonder, what were they thinking? Isn’t this all the line of Levi? The reasoning behind splitting the chapters at this verse is that what will follow will be three lines of descent (Gershom, Kohath and Merari) and then what will follow are three lines of ascent (Heman, Asaph and Ethan). The latter three will trace their lines back to the former three. So, if anything, vv. 16–48 could stand on its own as a separate chapter, or as a separate subsection of this chapter in the English.

Libni would have been born to Gershom while in Egypt. It is unknown whether he is Gershom’s son, grandson, or whatever. However, one of the large clans or families was named after him, the same is true of Shimei (see Ex. 6:17 Num. 3:18, 21 26:58 I Chron. 6:20 23:7—he is called Ladan in the last passage). Shimei was the ancestor of the well-known Asaph, known from the psalms and from I Chron. 16:7. It is possible this is also the Shimei who is descended from Libni. The earliest mentions of Shimei and Libni are as families; therefore, they do not necessarily have to be brothers.

There is a minor problem with the line of Shimei in I Chron. 6:42b–43, which reads: ...a son of Zimmah, a son of Shimei, a son of Jahath, a son of Gershom, a son of Levi. In I Chron. 23:10, Jahath is said to be the son of Shimei. Either the line got transposed in the first passage or there were two Jahath’s—one the father and one the son of Shimei. There could be two different Shimei’s as well. I listed them separately in the Line of Levi.

These four sons were covered in I Chron. 6:2. I Chron. 6:16–19a appears to be almost a duplication of Ex. 6:16–19 Num. 3:17–20 26:57–61. The only difference is that Ex. 6:16–19 gives the ages of Levi and Kohath. Num. 3:17–20 appears to be word-for-word the same. Num. 26:57–61 is more wordy and has additional information, e.g., the name of Amram’s wife and the fact that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were all born to Amram.

Mahli and Mushi are the sons or descendants of Merari, mentioned in Ex. 6:19 Num. 3:20, 33 26:58 I Chron. 6:19, 29, 47 23:21, 23 24:26, 28, 30 Ezra 8:18. There is no personal information about Mahli or Mushi in any of those passages. They are all of a genealogical nature.

We begin this verse with a lâmed, which could be rendered As to Gershom...

Since Shimei is not mentioned, we can assume that we have a line of sons from Gershom through Libni. There is another line of Jahath mentioned in vv. 39–43; because some of the names are the same, the others are occasionally matched with the line found here. That is probably a mistake. Half of a column of notes in Scofield’s Reference Bible matches up names which should not be matched up. In the Hebrew and in the Septuagint, the names are different enough as to indicate that we are following a different line. If you take a look at the chart which covers the Line of Levi, you will see that these two lines are sufficiently different to be listed separately. Our other option is that they are the same line and each line left out a few people here and there; this is possible, but less likely. However, what appears to be the easiest way to examine this is via a chart of the line of Gershom:

Jahath is mentioned only here and in I Chron. 6:43 (he is not the same as the Jahath found in I Chron. 23:10, who was a descendant of Shimei). Jahath is the only person, besides Libni and Gershom, who are definitely found in both passages.

Zimmah is actually mentioned here and in 2Chron. 29:12, but simply as a name. Joah is found only here and possibly in 2Chron. 29:12 (Eden, a Levite, is called a son of Joah in that passage). Iddo ( which means beloved favorite) is found only here. This particular Zerah, who has a very common name in Scripture, is found only here (and possibly in v. 41). Jeatherai is found only here.

The sons of Kohath are broken into three sections, and it is unclear, in this immediate context, whether there is a father son relationship between one section and the next. I treated them that way, as though, rather than three sections, there was simply a list of descendants. That did not cause any serious problems with the other lines of descent which are found throughout the Bible, and put this list into agreement with the ascent of Heman, which begins in v. 33b. So that you do not become confused, this is not the priestly descent of Kohath. This descent goes through Korah, rather than through Moses and Aaron. Selman presents these as parallel lines:

In the line of Levite, we began with a relatively easy line, where there was a lot of agreement and one main problem, either with a person who was left out or misplaced in two passages. In a genealogy, that’s nothing. However, we have Korah mentioned in this passage and in v. 38, and the lines are so similar as to almost demand that we assume that they are the same line. This will require some suppositions and insertions and mixing of the lines. I will attempt to put together in the chart, the Line of Levi, at the beginning of this chapter, a possible solution to these several passages which allows all of them to be true.

There is a supposition that we have been operating under, which does not appear to be true for the line of Kohath. We have assumed that, in general, we do not have the preservation of a linear line of descent through the periods of the judges and slavery to Egypt. We have so many names in this line which appear to extend to Samuel, the last judge, that we can no longer operate under that original hypothesis (well, actually, we could, but it would be stretching things—actually compressing them, so that we would have a new generation every 20 years or so—not unusual for us today, but unusual for the Israelites at that time). What has obviously occurred is that some person, early on in the line of Kohath—probably near the first few decades of slavery—began to carefully record his own family line and he passed this down. Since this apparently lasted throughout Israel’s bondage to Egypt, it would have been almost irreligious to discontinue the tradition.

Let me be careful to point out that we are not dealing in contradictions here, but with an hypothesis which seems to fit most of the time, but not here. The other option is that we have two or three separate Samuel’s whose lines are almost identical. Although such a thing is possible, it is unlikely.

The first person to deal with is Amminadab, who is named only here as the father of Korah. Bear in mind that Kohath was the immediate son of Levi and that Izhar was probably the actual son of Kohath; however, there were several generations between Izhar and Korah. Therefore, we should have no problem with a mention of Korah’s immediate father, Amminadab. The main problem that most people have is that he is not mentioned anywhere else with respect to Korah. Back in Exodus and Numbers, the actions of Korah were a disgrace to his family; therefore, Moses did not closely connect Korah with his living relatives or recently deceased relatives. However, Korah’s line did culminate in some wonderful believers; therefore, the writer of Chronicles would give Korah’s more recent relations. There is also an Amminadab who gave his daughter to be the wife of Aaron (Ex. 6:23). It is possible that this is the same man—this would, in part, give reason for Korah’s name to be listed in that same genealogical context. In other words, the period of time that this genealogy was recorded has an effect on who is listed. Moses, because of despicable behavior of Korah, did not list his immediate father; however, because the line of Korah is redeemed in Heman, the Chronicler includes Korah’s father in this genealogy, because he is not longer shamed by his family.

Korah is probably the most notorious of the Levites. He allied himself with Dathan and Abiram, two Reubenites, near the beginning of the desert wilderness wanderings of Moses and the Israelites. They stirred up 250 leaders of Israel, who apparently caused a large population to rebel against Moses and Aaron. Had Moses been on a mountain somewhere, then Aaron, of course, would have said, “Hey, I’m with you guys.” However, he and Moses were together, meaning that he would side with Moses. The rebels’ problem was that Moses and Aaron exalted themselves above the people, and, to these three leaders, all the sons of Israel were equal and all of them were sons of God, with a bit of the divine nature going on in all of them (Num. 16:1–3). What was going on here was, essentially, religious Communism. Korah, Dathan and Abiram declare that all of the people are equal to Moses and all of them have the same religious knowledge. Or, I chose Communism to portray this negatively. We could go to our own Bill of Rights, which states: All men are created equal. What you ought to understand is that an ideology, e.g. Communism, is what is sold to the masses to gather their support. The reality is a power struggle. The leader sells to the people whatever they can in order to gain leadership. When Korah tells Moses that all of the people are equal, does Korah mean himself included? Certainly not. Korah wants to take the place of Moses. He sells this phony equality to the people, spouts that before Moses, but what he wants is Moses’ power. Haven’t you ever noticed in a democracy that some candidates beat the drums for this or that, but end up doing almost entirely the opposite when in office. They beat the drums to get the ideological support of the people. Once they have it, they do what they want when in power (which is not necessarily bad). I recall two candidates who hopscotched ownership of the governor’s office in Texas for nearly a couple decades. Under the administration of the candidate supported by the teacher’s organizations, a man who continually spoke out in favor of teacher salary raises, my salary hardly ever moved. Under the candidate who, as far as I know, did not make a public issue of our salaries, my salary went up significantly. The democrats are thought of as a party who are fiscally irresponsible and the republicans are thought of as just the opposite. However, it was under a democratic administration that we began to balance the budget and to pay down the national debt. Don’t misunderstand you—I am not trying to influence you to vote in any way here. My point is that ideology is used to sell a product—nothing more than that. Here we have it done in the earliest of times—3500 years ago.

Korah’s family was mostly wiped out, but not entirely removed. He apparently left behind either children or grandchildren. My guess is that the first Assir and Elkanah (found in Ex. 6:16–24 and 1Chron. 6:22–28) were taken in God’s discipline of Korah’s rebellion. However, Elkanah’s son, Ebiasaph, carried on the line. He probably named his son and his son’s son after his father and grandfather who perished in Korah’s rebellion (this is purely conjecture on my part). We find his name as Abiasaph in Ex. 6:24, which is Ebiasaph in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Ebiasaph is also mentioned in 1Chron. 9:19 in a rather short genealogical line.

Tahath is the last matching name for a few generations in the two Korah lines in this chapter. Either he has two different sons (which is the way I presented it in the Tribe of Levi chart), or his son is listed in one line and his grandson in another. We don’t have a lot of reason to side one way or the other. However, the generation named afterwards is Uzziah in the first genealogy and Azariah in the second, two names given to the same king in the line of Judah (see The Kings, Prophets and Priests of Judah). Therefore, this could be the same person and it could be a continued divergence of the two lines of Tahath. Again, there are no strong arguments either way.

Shaul in the first line may be Joel in the second. If, in fact, that is the case, and Azariah is equivalent to Uzziah (somewhat like Bob and Robert), the only difficult names we have which would then match up are Uriel’s and Zephaniah’s. They could be father and son or a brother and brother with a Levirate marriage thing happening. They could be different names for the same person, although that seems to be the least likely. However, the lines, apart from this portion and some obvious exclusions, are almost exactly the same. They are presented without explanation in the same chapter, so, my guess is that the editor pretty much copied these from existing records.

In Scripture, Assir 1, Assir 2, Elkanah 1, Uriel are found only in genealogies and an examination of the two charts, The Tribe of Levi and The Lines of Korah, would be most beneficial in placing them genealogically.

There is a slight difference in the readings of 1Chron. 6:25–26, so let me list the two basic versions:

NASB                                    And the sons of Elkanah were Amasai and Ahimoth. As for Elkanah, the sons of Elkanah were Zophai his son and Nahath his son,...

NIV                                 The descendants of Elkanah: Amasai, Ahimoth, Elkanah his son, Zophai his son, Nahath his son,...

Owen's Translation                And sons of Elkanah: Amasai and Ahimoth; Elkanah. Sons of Elkanah: Zophai his son and Nahath his son,...

In the most literal version, on the left, I took this directly from the Massoretic text—this indicates that Elkanah 2 has three sons: Amasai, Ahimoth and Elkanah 3. However, in the Greek, Elkanah 3 is not a son of Elkanah 2, but of Ahimoth. This does make some difference, as, down in v. 35, Elkanah 3 is the son of Mahath, who is the son of Amasai. In fact, this reading is found in one early printed edition, in the Greek, in the Latin and in the Syriac codices. Since this is in agreement with so many texts, and also with v. 35, this is the way it should be.

There is another difference in the manuscripts. Some of the Septuagint manuscripts add to the end of v. 27, and Samuel, his son. In the Hebrew, this is implied, but not stated (v. 28 begins with naming the sons of Samuel). This addition is not absolutely necessary, as the link between Elkanah 4 and Samuel is established in both 1Sam. 1:19–20 and 1Chron. 6:33–34.

Zophai, in this first list, is probably equivalent to Zuph in the second, the primary difference between the two names being vowel points. In our passage, we have tsôwphay (י-פצ) [pronounced tzoh-PHAH-ee], which is taken to be the gentilic adjective of Zuph; however, that would seem unlikely, since we also have son of in this context. In any case, it is given the same Strong’s number as Zuph. Strong’s #6689 BDB #847. Zuph is tsûwph (ףצ) [pronounced tzoof], which means honeycomb. It is transliterated Zuph. Strong’s #6689 BDB #847. He is so named in 1Sam. 1:1 as an ancestor of Samuel; he is also called an Ephraimite in that verse. Since the Kohathites were stationed in the territory of the Ephraimites (1Chron. 6:66), we would expect there to be some intermarriage; furthermore, Zuph could be called an Ephraimite simply based upon his birthplace. We will spend a little more time with Zophai (or Zuph) when we get to 1Sam. 1:1.

It is with Nahath that we have a smidgeon of a problem. He is either left out of the lines of Samuel in 1Sam. 1:1 and 1Chron. 6:34, or he is equivalent to Tohu in the first passage and to Toah in the second. In the Hebrew, his name is nachath (ת-ח-נ) [pronounced NAH-khahth], which means descent. Strong’s #5184 BDB #639. In v. 34, we have tôwach (-ח) [pronounced TOH-ahkh], and transliterated Toah. It probably means pain, wound. Strong’s #8430 BDB #1063. These are obviously pretty different words. In 1Sam. 1:1, it is tôchûw (חֹ) [pronounced TOH-khoo]. Although Strong’s lists it separately, BDB considers it to be equivalent to Strong’s #8430 BDB #1063. Strong’s #8459 BDB #1063. Essentially, the different is in the transposition of the last two consonants.

Eliab is less of a problem, but his name does not match exactly those in the other two lines. We might do well to compare these names in the Hebrew: Eliab is ělîyâ^bv (בָאי.לֱא) [pronounced el-ee-AW^BV], which means God is father. Strong’s #446 BDB #45. V. 34 differs primarily in the final consonant. It is ělîyêl (ל̤אי.לֱא) [pronounced el-ee-ĀL],which means God is my God. Strong’s #447 BDB #45. In 1Sam. 1:1, this is ělîyhûw (הי.לֱא) [pronounced el-ee-HOO], which means He is [my] God. Strong’s #453 BDB #45.

After these three, the final three names are in complete agreement. The first is y^erôchâm (םָחֹרי) [pronounced y^e-roh-KHAWM], which means may he be compassionate. It is transliterated Jeroham. Strong’s #3395 BDB #934. All of the contributors to ZPEB seem to agree that we are speaking of the same line and that Jeroham is a Levite by genealogy and an Ephraimite by locale. Undoubtedly, there was some intermarriage in here. One contributor suggests that he was a non-practicing Levite. Given the spiritual state of Israel during that time, that is not out of line. However, this does not have to be true in order for him to be called a Levite and an Ephraimite.

Samuel’s father was Elkanah. In the Hebrew, that is elq^eqânâh (הָנָקל∵א) [pronounced el^e-kaw-NAW], which means God has created or God has taken possession of. Strong’s #511 BDB #46. Elkanah, called Elkanah 4 in my chronological lines, had two wives. His favorite, Hannah, was barren. She, therefore, prayed to God for a son whom she would dedicate to God. That is, if God gave her a son, she would give God this son back. God agreed to her proposal and she bore Samuel. He was given to Eli the priest for care after he was weaned from his mother. As a priest, he might have begun his service to God in his mid-20’s. However, in keeping with her vow, Hannah brought Samuel to the temple as an infant. His parents did not completely abandon Samuel. They brought him clothes and supplies for the first several years of his life at the Tent (1Sam. 1:1–28 2:18–21). Hannah did, later on, bear Elkanah other children. Both of Samuel’s parents were believers who went annually to Shiloh to worship at the Tent of Worship. Obviously, for Eli to accept Samuel as a man for the priesthood, Samuel had to be a Levite in the line of Aaron.

Let me offer you one of many possible scenarios. Elkanah 4 was full or part Levite who lived in Ephraim in a city which was not specifically a city given over to the Levites. This would imply that he was not really a practicing Levite and that it would be proper to refer to him, in genealogies, as a Levite; and, as a citizen, an Ephraimite. His wife Hannah, also a believer, and possibly full or part Levite, cannot get pregnant by him, and she realizes that he is not doing what God requires of a Levite (even though they both appear to be believers with some reasonable modicum of devotion). Therefore, she dedicates her unborn, unconceived son to God, as a Levite. When Samuel is conceived and then born, she is able to deliver him to Eli and not have him rejected as a priest, because he has the proper pedigree. This particular scenario, which is an hypothesis, would easily explain all references to Elkanah as a Levite and as an Ephraimite, as well as how Samuel could be accepted in the Tent of Worship as a priest to God.

There are a few names in the line of Samuel which are very similar, but do not match exactly, as you will recall in the previous chart. That could means that we are dealing with lines that diverge and then converge a couple generations later. These could also be variations or even mistakes in one document or the other. One name could be a missing generation in another line.

In Scripture, Elkanah 2, Amasai, Ahimoth, Elkanah 3, are found only in genealogies and an examination of the two charts, The Tribe of Levi and The Lines of Korah, would be most beneficial in placing them genealogically.

We find some of these men in the line of Samuel in 1Sam. 1:1. The similarities are too close to think that we are speaking of completely different lines.

We are not born a blank slate completely dependent upon environment; similarly, our psychological and physiological makeup at birth can certainly be modified by our environment. The Bible never seems to show a preference for one over the other, although, generally speaking, it requires full responsibility for our actions regardless of the circumstances. God, knowing the beginning from the end, knew full well what was going to happen when Hannah gave birth to Samuel and what would happen because Samuel was handed over to Eli, the priest, for care. There was a reason for God to have chosen Samuel to be raised by Eli—Eli’s own sons, who would have been in line to follow him in service, were worthless as priests, and a prophet told Eli that, on the same day, they would both die, and that this would be the sign that God had removed the priesthood from the house of Eli. In their place, God and Eli raised up Samuel, both as a priest over Israel, and as a prototype of Him Who was to come (1Sam. 2–4). Samuel grew to be an incredible man of God who commanded both the respect of Saul and David.

Samuel’s name is sh^emûwêl (ל̤א ̣מש) [pronounced sh^emoo-ĀL], which meaning is generally given as the name of El. However, given his background, this is really not correct. His name actually means heard of God, because his mother was barren. She prayed to God for a son and vowed to dedicate this son to God if God would give her this son. Therefore, when she became pregnant and bore a son, she named him, God has heard [me]. From the standpoint of the Hebrew, shâma׳ (ע ַמ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAHĢ] means to listen, to hear. Strong's #8085 BDB #1033. êl (ל ֵא) [pronounced ALE], means God. Strong’s #410 BDB #42. When these are put together, they mean God has heard, which makes a lot more sense than the name of God. Strong’s #8050 BDB #1028. Samuel functioned as the last judge, as a prophet, and as a priest to God. He was followed in authority by King Saul, the first king of Israel, whom he picked out (God knew that the people would not have a clue as to whom they should select and allowed them to choose a man who was terribly flawed). As has been said, Samuel’s line was Levitical in nature, although his father is called an Ephraimite in 1Sam. 1:1, which indicates intermarriage and/or location (the Kohathites were located in Ephraim—1Chron. 6:66).

God called Samuel when Eli was old. Apparently, Samuel did not recognize that he was being called, but Eli did and filled him in. Samuel began to serve while Israel was at a very low point, spiritually speaking. Israel was at war with the Philistines. The Israelites were losing badly, so that they prevailed upon Eli’s degenerate sons to bring the Ark out for good luck, thinking that having the Ark there would insure their victory. It never occurred to them that the Ark could be captured. The Philistines captured the Ark, killed Eli’s sons, defeated Israel, and Eli, when he heard the news of all this, died. This is what Samuel walked into at the beginning of his ministry. It was obvious that Israel needed a strong and dedicated spiritual leader.

Samuel prepared the people of Israel by teaching them doctrine and turning them away from idolatry. He prayed and he offered sacrifices. Roughly 20 years after the Ark’s capture, it was returned to Israel and the Philistines were defeated.

Samuel set up a roving judgeship, and covered a circuit where he presided over court decisions in Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah. Despite his outstanding leadership, the people of Israel petitioned Samuel for a king. They were unhappy with Samuel delegating authority to his two sons and they wanted a king so that they could be like other nations. A theocracy does not require having a king. God called up Samuel to select Saul as Israel’s king, an act which disappointed Samuel (who understood that Israel was a theocracy), but God told him, “They have not rejected you, they have rejected Me.” Saul was anointed twice by Samuel—once in a private ceremony which recognized that God had chosen him; and once in a public ceremony, to indicate to the people that Saul would rule over them.

Although Saul began as a strong and dedicated king, he eventually showed more and more that his feet were made of clay. Samuel reprimanded him several times, and eventually, at God’s behest, anointed David as king over Israel. David did not immediately assume his position as king over all Israel. God had him wait, which was predictory that the King Who was to come would also wait before assuming His place as ruler over the world. When Samuel finally died, Saul sunk to his lowest level yet, going to a heathen medium, resulting in his eventual death by the sin unto death .

Now that we have covered Samuel, you will note that in the Hebrew, the firstborn son has the name Vashni, which is probably not what you have in your Bible. In the Greek Septuagint, he is Sani (the second is Abia). Both the Tanakh and Young call the firstborn Vashni and the second son Abijah. The NASB inserts the name Joel, as do most other modern translations. The NRSV cites the Greek Syriac translation, as well as 1Chron. 6:33 and 1Sam. 8:2). Surprisingly enough, the NJB does not insert a name for the firstborn (and they follow the verse numbering of the Hebrew rather than of the Greek, which is quite rare for a modern language version). Here’s the deal: Vashni is the transliteration of the wâw conjunction and the Hebrew numerical adjective shenîy (י.נ∵ש) [pronounced sheh-NEE], which means second, the second, the other [one]. Strong’s #8145 BDB #1041. Together, the wâw conjunction and the word shenîy make Vashni, and is taken, in some circles, to be someone’s name. This would give us two options: ...the firstborn Vashni and Abijah or ...the firstborn and the second and Abijah. Taking this as a proper noun certainly allows the text to make more sense. 1Sam. 8:2 1Chron. 6:33, Lagarde’s Greek Old Testament and the Syriac codex for this verse, all have Joel as the firstborn of Samuel. This simply means that Joel probably was dropped out of the text due to homœoteleuton. Homoeoteleuton [pronounced ho-me-OP-to-ton] means that the copyist would look to a word that he was copying, and then go back to the text that he had copied, see a word which was similar or ended in a similar fashion, and more or less assume that he had just written that word down. The ending of Joel and Samuel are fairly close; this means, when he went to write down the word Joel, his eye traveled back to what he was copying, saw the end of the name Samuel, thought he copied it, and then went back to get the next word or words to copy. I placed the name Joel where it should reasonably be placed, considering the wâw conjunction which precedes the name of Samuel’s second son, Abijah. We know very little about Samuel’s children, except for the fact that they did some judging in Beersheba, but were willing to take bribes and set aside justice (1Sam. 8:1–3). It was their judicial conduct which seemed to precipitate the people of Israel to call for a king to rule over them.

In 1Chron. 23:21, Merari is said to have two sons, Eleazar and Kish. Eleazar died, siring only daughters and no sons, so the sons of Kish married the daughters of Eleazar (i.e., the first cousins married). Therefore, Libni would have been descended from them. Libni, Shemei, Uzzah, Shimea and Haggiah are only found here. Asaiah apparently was a contemporary of David and he headed 220 Levites; David called upon him and several other Levite leaders to carry the Ark to a place that David had prepared for it (1Chron. 15:1–15).

The Ancestors of Heman, Asaph and Ethan—those Who Headed the Musicians Guild

It is in verses like there where The Amplified Bible truly earns its name; here, it reads: These David put over the service of song in the house of the Lord, after the ark of the covenant rested there [after being taken by the Philistines and later places in the house of Abinadab, where it remained for nearly 100 years during the rest of Samuel’s judgeship, and Saul’s entire reign, and into David’s reign].

First of all, we have to properly place this verse into its correct context. Does it properly end the verses which came before or does it properly begin a new section? V. 31 begins with the word these—and it is important to determine whether these looks backwards to the men who have been already named or whether it looks forward to men who will be named. Of the previous people named, only two of them could be listed in connection with the Ark—and one of them incorrectly. And the one in the previous verse is named in connection with bringing the Ark back to Israel. That is not what this verse refers to—this verse refers to the service of the Ark after it had been brought back to Israel. Since the names of Heman and Asaph will follow this passage as those who are in charge of the music in the Tent of Jehovah, and since this is confirmed by 1Chron. 15:16–17, which reads: Then David conferenced with the heads of the Levites to appoint their relatives as the singers, with instruments of music, harps, lyres, loud cymbals, to raise the sounds of joy. Therefore, the Levites appointed Heman ben Joel, and from his relatives, Asaph ben Berechiah; and from the sons of Merari, their relatives, Ethan ben Kushaiah. These three men are mentioned in 1Chron. 6:33, 39,44. We can therefore determine that this verse is a break from that which has come before (contrary to the translation of the Complete Jewish Bible) and that it points toward Heman, Asaph and Ethan.

The first verb in this verse is the 3^rd person masculine singular, Hiphil perfect of ׳âmad (ד ַמ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-MAHD], which means to take a stand, to stand, to remain, to endure, to withstand. In the Hiphil, it means to cause to stand, to station, to set, to place, to decree, to destine. Strong's #5975 BDB #763. What David set these men over the feminine plural construct of yâd (דָי) [pronounced yawd], which means hands. This word is often used for leadership and guidance. Strong's #3027 BDB #388. In this case, the hands also refer to the use of the hands on musical instruments. It is the leadership of the masculine singular construct of shîyr (רי.ש) [pronounced sheer], which means song. Strong’s #7892 BDB #1010. This is followed by a house of Y^ehowah.

Then we have the prefixed preposition min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min], a preposition which usually denotes separation (away from, out from, out of from). Here we have a separation of time and it means after. Strong's #4480 BDB #577. Then we have the masculine singular construct of the noun mânôwach (-חנָמ) [pronounced maw-NOH-wahkh], which means rest, a condition or state of rest, a place of rest. Strong’s #4494 BDB #629. This is followed by the definite article and the noun for Ark.

The gist of this verse is fairly easy to get. We will carefully exegete it, however, so that we know all that is here:

CEV                                       These musicians served at the sacred tent and later at the Lord’s temple that King Solomon build.

NASB                                    And the ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the Lord in Jerusalem; and they served in their office according to their order.

Young's Lit. Translation ...and they are ministering before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, in song, till the building by Solomon of the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem; and they stand according to their ordinance over their service.

We begin with the 3^rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect of the verb to be, followed by the masculine plural, Piel participle of shârath (ת ַר ָש) [pronounced shaw-RAHTH], which means to serve, to minister. This verb is found only in the Piel. Strong’s #8334 BDB #1058. It is used in the participle with the verb to be to indicate continuous service. We completely take this for granted and don’t realize the fact that there was a continuous ministry at the Ark of God was both unusual and a blessing.

We then have two words for tent. The first is masculine singular construct of mîsh^ekân (ן ָ  ׃ש  ̣מ) [pronounced mish^e-KAWN], which means a residence, a dwelling place, tent, tabernacle. This is the word translated tabernacle throughout the Pentateuch. Strong's #4908 BDB #1015. This is followed by the masculine singular construct of ohel (ל ∵הֹא) [pronounced OH-hel] is translated tent, tabernacle, house; and it refers to the temporary dwelling of Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 18), the temporary dwellings of Jacob and his wives when on the road (Gen. 31), to the Tent or Tabernacle of God (Ex. 33). Strong's #168 BDB #13. The former word refers primarily to a residence; the latter word more to the action of the pitching of the tent. My feeling, after examining a few passages, is that ohel is the most temporary of the structures; mîsh^ekân is semi-permanent; and bêyth (also found in this verse) is permanent.

Tent is followed by the masculine singular noun môw׳êd (ד̤עמ) [pronounced moh-ĢADE], which means a specific time, a pre-determined time, an appointed time. This, with tent, is often rendered the Tent of Meeting. The problem with that rendering is that the concept of there being a specific time involved is lost. Strong's #4150 BDB #417. Literally, what we have so far, is And so they were ministering to faces of the Tabernacle of the Tent of Appointed Time...

This is followed by the bêyth preposition bêyth preposition b^e ( ׃) [pronounced b' ] which usually denotes proximity. It is translated in, among, into, against, with, at, through, by. In the second class of meanings for bêyth, it can refer to having respect to anything: in respect to, on account of, in that, about concerning. This is how it is used here. No Strong’s # BDB #88. This is followed by the masculine singular noun shîyr, again, (רי.ש) [pronounced sheer], which means song or, perhaps singing or music. Strong’s #7892 BDB #1010.

The continue the idea of the duration or their responsibilities, we have the preposition ׳ad (ד ַע) [pronounced ģad ] which means as far as, even to, up to, until. Strong’s #5704 BDB #723. This is followed by the Qal infinitive construct of to build, and then we have the proper noun, Solomon, the mark of a direct object, and a house of Y^ehowah in Jerusalem. This gives us: And so they were ministering before the Tabernacle of the Tent of the Appointed Time with respect to the music even until a building of the House of Y^ehowah by Solomon.

The second sentence begins with the wâw consecutive, the masculine plural, Qal imperfect of ׳âmad again. ד ַמ ָע, [pronounced ģaw-MAHD], means to take a stand, to stand, to remain, to endure, to withstand. Strong's #5975 BDB #763. Then we have the kaph preposition (which looks a lot like the bêyth preposition) and the 3^rd person masculine singular noun mish^epâţ (ט ָ  ׃ש  ̣מ) [pronounced mish-PAWT], which means judgement, a verdict rendered by a judge, a judicial decision, a judicial sentence. It can also mean manner, custom, fashion. Strong's #4941 BDB #1048.

This is followed by the preposition ׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced ģahl ], which means upon, beyond, on, against, above, over, by, beside. When ׳al is used in connection with something geographical, particularly water; it has the connotation of contiguity or proximity; so here, it means by or beside. When used with verse of covering or protecting, it means above, upon, even though the articles of clothing may be physically around the person. It can also mean on the ground of (or upon the basis) something is done (Deut. 17:11 Psalm 94:20) or, similarly, where the basis conveyed involves the ground; i.e., it involves the cause or the reason or the grounds for something (then, translated on account of, because of as in Gen. 20:2 21:12). It can therefore be variously rendered as on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, besides, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by on to, towards, to, against, in the matter of, concerning, as regards to. This is perhaps one of the most versatile prepositions in the Hebrew language. Strong’s #5920, #5921 BDB #752. This is followed by the feminine singular noun for service. Both of the final two nouns have a 3^rd person masculine plural suffix. The final sentence is: And so they stood [or, remained] as their custom on account of their service.

I realize that I beat this verse half to death in the Hebrew; however, what is key is that the service of music continued uninterrupted at the return of the Ark until the time that Solomon build the Temple of God. The result of this was a multitude of psalms written by David and the men whose names will follow.

The Hebrew here is fairly easy. We have mentioned Heman, who appeared to have fostered a musical dynasty. His only other mention in Scripture is 1Chron. 25:5, where he is said to have had fourteen sons and three daughters. Since he is listed first, and since his entire line is given, we might assume that he was the chief of the musicians in David’s and Solomon’s courts. What follows in the next several verses is his pedigree, scoped backwards from the previous lines.

The three men whose pedigrees will be confirmed are Asaph, Heman and Ethan (also known as Jeduthun). Although Asaph is generally listed first and is apparently the chief among them, Heman’s line ascent is given first, as he is a descendant of Kohath, the priestly line of Levi.

We have covered pretty much all of these men in previous verses. Israel, of course, is Jacob’s God-given name. You will note that I placed this genealogy in parentheses; the second person in charge of music is now named:

With have the masculine singular noun here, âch (חָא) [pronounced awhk], which means brother (Gen. 4:2 27:6); close relative (Gen. 14:14, 16—Lot was Abram's nephew, not his brother)—Lev. 10:4); and fellow-countrymen (Lev. 19:17 25:14, 46). Strong's #251 BDB #26. Here, it means relative, as they are both Levites. This word is also used because of their similar vocations.

Asaph is much more prominent in Scripture than is Heman. His name appears in the inscription of Psalms 50, 73–83. It has been suggested that there are two Asaph’s, as at least two of those psalms (74 and 79) sound as if they are psalms of the dispersion (they could be prophetic). Now, generally speaking, unless something is presented is prophetic, I do not like to call is prophetic. For instance, some people are so anal-retentive about remaining orthodox and determining authorship for Deuteronomy, for instance, that they often say, well, Moses could have written the last few lines prophetically (they say the same thing about the end of Joshua). That’s pure goofy. There is no reason why we would not expect to have a proper ending added after the deaths of Moses and Joshua and there is no reason why we should expect them to write their own obituaries, as it were. Such a view in no way minimizes the inspiration of Scripture. However, we do have the minor problem that there is never a distinction made in Scripture between the Asaph of David’s time and an Asaph who came on the scene after the dispersion of Israel. What is at stake here is the authorship of two psalms. In retrospect, Asaph is called a prophet (2Chron. 29:30). During the time of David, his music is associated with prophecy (1Chron. 25:1). Asaph’s four sons were connected both with the ministry of music and with prophecy in 1Chron. 25:2. Therefore, that he wrote two psalms which were prophetic should not be a problem to us .

Asaph’s appointment to help head the musicians guild, if you will, is found here and in 1Chron. 15:16–17 16:4–5, 37. Asaph and Heman also take part in the dedication of the newly-built Temple under Solomon in 2Chron. 5:1, 11–12. Asaph apparently led the singing, played the cymbals and perhaps even headed a school of music (1Chron. 15:19 Neh. 7:44). 128 of Asaph’s descendants returned from the dispersion with Ezra (Ezra 2:41) and served in Zerubbabel’s Temple (Ezra 3:10) .

We follow Asaph’s line backwards, as we did with Heman. These men played important parts in the ministry of the Tent of Jehovah, as well as in regards to the Temple; therefore, we see their proper origins in this chapter. Whereas, we have pretty much a complete line for Heman, we obviously have only a partial line for Asaph.

We have studied several of these men already. We examined a Shimei back in 1Chron. 6:17. The Shimei’s are a bit difficult to keep track of, as there are as many as six of them who are Levites, all minor players in Scripture. This particular Shimei is said to be the son of Jahath, the son of Gershom who is the son of Levi. In 1Chron. 6:17, Gershom was said to have two sons: Libni and Shimei. Sons means descendants and the earliest mention of this Shimei is always in relationship to the families descended from Gershom (Ex. 6:17 Num. 3:18) This means that they do not have to be brothers and listed separately as I did in the Line of Levi. Shimei could have been descended from Libni and their families could have separated into two separate units (this has happened many times before). In other words, it is unclear whether the Shimei in this verse is the same or different from the Shimei in 1Chron. 6:17.

Zerah, Zimmah and Jahath were all possibly covered already in 1Chron. 6:20. Although Jahath is definitely the same in both passages, we are not 100% certain about Zerah and Zimmah (they are simply names in a genealogy, so there is not a problem either way). And, of course, we covered Gershom and Levi at the beginning of this chapter.

Malchijah, although mentioned only here, is interesting because of his name (several people in Scripture have this name). It means my king is Yah. It recognized that Israel is a theocracy and that God rules over Israel.

Adaiah may be Iddo of 1Chron. 6:21, although this is not necessary, since there are definitely gaps in both lines.

Now, as for the ancestors of Asaph: Berechiah is known only through being the father of Asaph (our passage and 1Chron. 15:17. It is possible that he was appointed by David as a gatekeeper in 1Chron. 15:23. Most of these men—Baaseiah, Shimea, Michael, Ethni and Ethan—are known only from this passage. In three early printed editions and in the Greek and Syriac codices, Baaseiah is Maaseiah (not that it makes any difference).

We have previously studied the ancestors of Asaph and Heman; and we have the genealogical lines going both ways. However, for Ethan, we only have the list of his ancestors. The very short line of Merari that we have already studied is simply not long enough to place side-by-side this line (see the Genealogy of Levi).

We have already examined Mahli, Mushi, Merari and Levi early on in this chapter. Although it appears as though Mahli and Mushi are brothers who are sons of Merari, one could, without a careful examination, content that the Mahli of this verse is the same person as the Mahli found elsewhere, which would indicate that Mahli was a son of Mushi who broke away to form his own family. However, we have the two different Mahli’s also listed in 1Chron. 23:21–23 24:26–30.

As we would expect, most of these people—Abdi, Malluch, Hashabiah, Amaziah, Hilkiah, Amzi, Bani, Shemer—are found only in this passage. In some cases, there are other men in Scripture with the same names.

Ethan is one of the three heads of music named in this passage and in 1Chron. 15:19. He appears to be uniformly called Ethan for awhile, and then, Jeduthun (see 1Chron. 9:16 25:1, 3, 6). This is not a scribal error nor, necessarily, a nickname. We have several specific cases where a new name superceded the given name of a character in Scripture: Abraham, Sarah, Joshua, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, Paul, Peter, etc. He is called a son of Kishi here and a son of Kushaiah in 1Chron. 15:17. Kish and Kushaiah are either the same person or in the same family line. He is occasionally incorrectly identified with the Ethan of 1Chron. 2:6 and 1Kings 4:31, because all three are mentioned along with Heman. You have to be careful in situations like this. We simply have two relatively common names; just because John and Paul who hung out together in the 1960’s and are two people that you might be familiar with, that does not mean they were the only John and Paul of their time period to hang out together. There is a Kish mentioned in 2Chron. 29:12, who is the son of an Abdi; however, the time period is too different for these to be the same set of men.

This very length passage named the three men who were heads over the music guild of the Tabernacle of God (and then over the Temple of God). The verb is the 3^rd person masculine plural, Qal passive participle of

What they were placed over is the feminine singular construct of ׳ă^bvôdâh (ה ָדֹב ֲע) [pronounced ģu^b-vo-DAWH] and it means labour, service. Strong’s #5656 & 5647 BDB #715.

The author or compiler of Chronicles spent a lot of time dealing with the musicians from the time of David. We have three lines telescoped from each head to their respective ancestors, who were the three sons of Levi. In 1Chron. 15:16–22, these three are mentioned again along with others who made up the Tabernacle Orchestra. Their accompaniment of the Ark being brought up by David is mentioned in 1Chron. 15:27–28. All of 1Chron. 25 deals with the musicians who carried over from the time of David to the time of Solomon. Hezekiah also organized (or, resurrected) the Levitical musicians guild in 2Chron. 29:25–29. These passages have prompted some to think that the author/editor of Chronicles was a musician himself. However, this person records several lists, such as the divisions of the Levites (1Chron. 24), the divisions of the gatekeepers (1Chron. 26), as well as the commanders of the army (1Chron. 27). He apparently was a man who was very fond of lists, and, undoubtedly the ancestor of David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace and Irving Wallace (Jewish family members and author/editors of the Book of Lists series). God’s Word is eternal. There are a lot of names that we will come across which will mean nothing to us. However, those names are recorded for all eternity and those men named will spend eternity in the presence of Christ Jesus.

You will note that we have three heads of the musicians guild and all three come from the three branches of the Levite family: Heman’s ancestor is Kohath, Asaph’s ancestor is Gershom, and Ethan was the descendant of Merari. All three come from and represent the three sons of Levi.

The Descendants of Aaron Who Made up the Priests of Israel

There were several articles of furniture in the Tent of Worship, two of them being altars. The first altar was the bronze altar, which was acacia wood overlaid with bronze. When someone approached the Tabernacle, the first thing that they saw was this bronze altar. It was upon this altar that the blood of the animals were shed, and then they were burned before God. It was this shedding of blood and sacrifice of this animal—an innocent animal without spot or blemish—which provide access and forgiveness for the sinner. According to the Law, almost all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). The other altar was the incense altar which was before the veil of the entrance to the Holy of Holies. It was on this altar of incense that incense was burned twice a day, which are related to the prayers of the believer, which would include rebound (one’s confession of sin directly to God). And another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, that he might offer it to the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar w, which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand (Rev. 8:3–4).

You may be surprised at one or two of the things found in this verse, so let me give you a couple translations first:

NASB                                    But Aaron and his sons offered [lit., offered up in smoke] on the altar of burnt offering and on the altar of incense, for all the work of the most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.

Young's Lit. Translation And Aaron and his sons are making perfume on the altar of the burnt-offering, and on the altar of the perfume, for all the work of the holy of holies, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses servant of God commanded.

What Aaron and his sons did is the Hiphil participle of qâţar (ר-טָק) [pronounced kaw-TAHR], which means to burn incense, to make sacrifices smoke. Strong’s #6999 BDB #882. The altar upon which they offered this incense is the masculine singular construct of altar and the feminine singular noun ׳ôlâh (ה ָלֹע) [pronounced ģo-LAW], which means burnt offering. It is a word which is related to the word for climb, ascend and it can be consistently rendered burnt offering. It is what ascends to God; physically, it is the smoke, but spiritually, it is man reaching to God through the means which God has provided. Strong #5930 BDB #750.

The second altar is the altar of q^eţôreth (ת ∵רֹט  ׃ק) [pronounced k'toe-RETH], which means incense (and not perfume). Strong's 7004 BDB #882. The idea behind the incense is efficacy. God finds the sacrifice efficacious. In other words, there is enough to the sacrifice to satisfy God’s righteousness. Now, when it comes to the sacrifice of bulls and rams, these merely point to the great sacrifice that is to come—the satisfaction by God concerning the sacrifice also points ahead to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

Surprisingly enough, these altars are rarely mentioned in the Old Testament. We have their descriptions and functions given in Ex. 30, and then they are mentioned only a handful of times in Exodus, Leviticus, and, surprisingly enough, I and 2Chronicles.

What this verse further does is it differentiates between the work of the Levites and the work of the sons of Aaron. Theologians have been sloppy and they refer to the Levitical priesthood and to the Levitical priests. This is incorrect. Only those who are descendants of Aaron qualify as priests to God—and only one of them is the High Priest. The Levites assisted the Aaronite priesthood, but they did not supplant them or replace them. This verse confirms this. The priests were those who offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people on the altars. The Aaronites represented man to God, as it were (the prophet, on the other hand, represented God to man). The idea was simple—man sinned; the priest offered up an innocent animal, without spot or blemish on the altar on behalf of the man who sinned; and God, accepting temporarily the sacrifice of the animal as a substitute for the man, covered over the man’s sin. The priest offered up the animal to God rather than the man. This, of course, foretold of Christ going to the cross as our perfect substitute, a lamp without spot or blemish, who paid for our sins with His Own blood. He suffered the penalty that was due us, and by His death, we are forgiven.

We compared this line with three other lines in Scripture and found them to be remarkably identical (this line did not go forward in time as much as the others did). We covered these people in whatever depth that we could back in vv. 5–9.

Although this line is, for all intents and purposes, identical to genealogical lines which have already been listed, this past few verses actually serve a different function. They legitimize the line of Zadok, which is traced down to Solomon’s time, as the only Levitical division authorized to offer sacrifices. Barnes suggests that this line came from a source who belonged to the time period of David, of whom Ahimaaz was a contemporary; and suggests that the other genealogy came from a document which belonged to the period of the Captivity.

In this line of Aaron, there is a great deal going on that we really don’t know about apart from the study of God’s Word elsewhere. This gives us a bare-bones outline of this aspect of the priesthood. Aaron had four sons, two of which were fathers to the priestly lines to Israel—Eleazar and Ithamar. Somehow, the line of Ithamar began as the most prominent, culminating, more or less, in the person of Eli, who was a priest and a judge over Israel for 40 years. Eli had two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, both whom were priests to God, but unbelievers. Their main interest in the sacrifices to God was the resultant barbeque that they got to participate in. They finally began to require that uncooked and possibly even live meat be given them, so that they could barbeque at their own convenience. This was a blatant distortion of the priesthood and God spoke to Eli about it (1Sam. 2:27–36). In this, God told Eli that his line would be cut off from the priesthood (because of the behavior of Eli’s sons), and that his sons would eventually beg the priestly line for a few duties so that they might have a crust of bread to eat (this was in stark contrast to the behavior of Eli’s sons, who constantly feasted). God first brought in Samuel