Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Chronicles 9:18 - 9:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The duties of the Levites. - 1Ch 9:18. The first half of this verse, “And until now (is he) in the king's gate eastward,” must be referred to Shallum (Berth.). To imagine a reference to all the doorkeepers, “until now are they,” does not suit 1Ch 9:24-26, according to which the doorkeepers kept guard upon all the four sides. The eastern gate of the temple was called the king's gate, because by this gate the king went in and out to the temple; cf. Eze 46:1-2; Eze 41:3. The remark, “until now is Shallum watcher,” etc., presupposes the existence of the temple at the time of the preparation of this register, and points to the pre-exilic time. Against this Bertheau has raised the objection that the name king's gate may have been retained even in the post-exilic times for the eastern gate. This must of course be in general admitted, but could only be accepted if it were proved that Shallum lived after the exile. This proof Bertheau obtains by taking the words, “until now is Shallum in the king's gate,” to mean, “that, according to the ancient arrangement, Shallum, the chief of all the doorkeepers, had still to guard the eastern entrance; according to which Shallum would be the collective designation of the whole series of the chiefs of the doorkeepers who lived from David's time till after the exile;” but the words cannot be thus interpreted. Such an interpretation cannot be made plausible by identifying the name Shallum with Meshelemiah or Shelemiah, to whose lot it fell in the time of David to be doorkeeper to the eastward (1Ch 26:1, 1Ch 26:14); for in doing so, we would overlook the fact that in 1Ch 9:21 of our chapter also he bears the name Meshelemiah. The circumstance that both Shallum and Meshelemiah are called Ben-Kore, of the sons of Abiasaph, by no means justifies the identification of these two quite different names; for it is neither necessary nor probable that בֵּן should here be taken in its narrower sense, and Kore regarded as the immediate father of both. The name קֹרֵא is repeated in the family of the east doorkeepers, as we learn from 2Ch 31:14, where it is stated that this office was held by a Kore ben Jimna. “These (who are named in 1Ch 9:17) are the doorkeepers for the camp of the sons of Levi” (of the Levites), - an antiquated expression, bringing to remembrance the time of Moses, when the Levites, on the journey through the wilderness, were encamped about the tabernacle (Num 3:21.).
1Ch 9:19
1Ch 9:19 gives more exact information as to Shallum's person and his official position. He, the descendant of Kore, the son (descendant) of Abiasaph, a Korahite, and his brethren according to his father's-house (i.e., called brethren because they, like him, belonged to the father's-house of Korah), were over the work of the service, viz., keepers of the thresholds of the tent, i.e., of the house of God, of the temple, which, according to the ancient custom, was called tent, because God's house was formerly a tent-the tabernacle. “And his fathers (the ancestors of Shallum) were by the encampment of Jahve, guardians of the entrance.” With these words the author of this register goes back into the ancient time; and we learn that Shallum's ancestors, of the father's-house of the Korahite Abiasaph, had held the office of guardian of the entrance to the house of God from the time of the conquest of Canaan and the setting up of the tabernacle in Shiloh. The remark in 1Ch 9:20, that Phinehas the son of Eleazar was prince over them in time past, points to the same period. In the book of Joshua and the older books there is no record of the matter; but since the Korahites were descended through Ishhar from Kohath, and the Kohathites held, according to Num 4:4., the first place among the servants of the holy place, and were responsible for the holiest vessels, we cannot doubt that the statement here rests upon accurate historical tradition. The “encampment of Jahve” is the holy place of the tabernacle, the dwelling of Jahve in the midst of His people. This designation also is derived from the circumstances of the Israelites in their wandering in the Arabian desert, and is likewise employed in 2Ch 31:2 in reference to Solomon's temple; but in our verse the tabernacle is intended. It had only one entrance, מָבֹוא, the guarding of which was entrusted to the above-mentioned Korahites.
1Ch 9:20
Phinehas was prince over them, not as high priest, but during the high-priesthood of his father Eleazar, i.e., in the time of Joshua, just as Eleazar, under the high-priesthood of Aaron in the time of Moses, had the oversight of the keepers of the holy place, as prince of the princes of Levi (Num 3:32). The words עִמֹּו יהוה do not contain a historical remark, “Jahve was with him,” for then the conjunction w would stand before it, as in 1Ch 11:9; they are a blessing - “Jahve be with him” - in reference, probably, to the covenant of peace entered into with him and his descendants by Jahve (Num 25:11-13).
1Ch 9:21
1Ch 9:21 is quite unconnected with the preceding context, the conjunction w being omitted, and its contents also present considerable difficulties. Zechariah, the son of Meshelemiah, can only be the Zechariah who is mentioned in 1Ch 26:2 as the first-born of Meshelemiah, and who lived in the time of David; for at the time when David divided the porters into classes, there fell to him the lot towards midnight, i.e., the duty of waiting at the door on the north side of the holy place (1Ch 26:14). With this, indeed, the general statement of our verse, “he was porter of the door (or the entrance) of the tent of the covenant,” is not inconsistent. But what purpose does this general statement serve? With what design is Zechariah, and he alone, mentioned? We have no means of giving a definite answer to this question; but he may perhaps be named as being the person who, before David's division of the Levites into classes was carried out, had charge of the porters' service in the tabernacle. But even if this conjecture be accepted as well grounded, the abrupt way in which it is mentioned still remains enigmatical.
1Ch 9:22
With 1Ch 9:22 the narrative seems to return to the enumeration begun in 1Ch 9:17-19, so that the reflections on the earlier times, 1Ch 9:19-21, are to be regarded as a parenthesis. 1Ch 9:22 runs: “They all who were chosen for doorkeepers for the thresholds, 212 (men): they, in their villages were they registered; they were ordained by David and Samuel the seer on their fidelity.” The infinitive הִתְיַחֵשׂ is used substantively, “in reference to them, in their villages as their genealogical registration accomplished.” If 1Ch 9:22 be the continuation of 1Ch 9:17-21, then the number given (212) will refer to the doorkeepers in active service at the time of the preparation of the register. With this hypothesis, however, the last clause of the verse, which states that David and Samuel had appointed them, does not seem to harmonize. But if we consider that the four men mentioned in 1Ch 9:17 are heads of fathers'-houses, and that their fathers'-houses were not extinguished at the death of their temporary heads, and performed the same service from generation to generation, it might well be said of the generation performing the service at the time of the preparation of our register, that David had appointed them to their office. The case would of course be similar, if, as we have above supposed, the four names in 1Ch 9:17 are designations of the classes of doorkeepers, for these classes also performed the same service continually. The statements of our 22nd verse cannot be referred to the time of David, for in 1Ch 26:8-10 the number of the doorkeepers appointed by David amounted only to eighty, viz., sixty-two of the sons of Obed-Edom, and eighteen of the sons of Meshelemiah, which, with the addition of thirteen Merarites (1Ch 26:10-11), gives a total of ninety-three, while in our verse the number is 212. According to Ezr 2:42, the number of doorkeepers who returned with Zerubbabel was 139 men; and in the register, Neh 11:19, the number is stated to be 172. From the remark that they were registered in their villages (חַצְרֵיהֶם, as in 1Ch 6:41; Jos 13:23, and elsewhere), we learn that the doorkeepers dwelt in villages near Jerusalem, whence they came to the city so often as their service required, as the singers also did in the post-exilic time, Neh 12:29. יִסַּד, to found, set, ordain, and so appoint to an office. “David and Samuel the seer:” הָרֹאֶה, the ancient designation of the prophets, for which at a later time נָבִיא was the more usual word; cf. 1Sa 9:9. Nowhere else do we find any record of Samuel's having taken any part in David's arrangement of the service of the Levites in the holy place. Samuel, moreover, was no longer living when David began to arrange the worship at the time when the ark was brought to Jerusalem, for he died before Saul, and consequently before the beginning of David's reign; cf. 1Sa 25:1 with 1Sa 28:3. Bertheau is consequently of opinion that this statement of our historian rests merely upon the general recollection, according to which the worship was organized afresh, and established in its newer form, in the time of David and Samuel. This is of course possible, but there is no cogent reason against accepting the much less remote supposition that the chronicler took this remark from his authority. The mention of Samuel after David has not a chronological signification, but David is named first on account of his connection with the matter in hand; for the thorough re-organization of the worship, and the classification of the persons engaged in carrying it on, originated with David. For these arrangements of David, however, Samuel had prepared the way in his struggle for the restoration of the theocracy, and of the worship which had fallen into desuetude under Eli and his profligate sons. To do this in any measure, he must have, without doubt, ordained trustworthy men to the individual offices, and thus have prepared the way for King David. בֶּאֱמוּנָתָם is found in 1Ch 9:26, 1Ch 9:31 without the suffix, with the meaning “in good faith” (cf. 2Ki 12:16; 2Ki 22:7; 2Ch 31:12), and accordingly is here upon their fidelity, i.e., because they had been recognised to be faithful.
1Ch 9:23-24
They (those ordained by David) and their sons (descendants) were at the doors of the house of Jahve-of the tent-house (הָאֹהֶל בֵּית is added to בֵּית־יהוה, in order that the latter might not be confined to Solomon's temple); for the watch (מִשְׁמָרֹות of persons, as in Neh 12:9; Neh 4:3, Neh 4:16), according to the four winds (quarters) were they, i.e., the doorkeepers stood so, in accordance with the arrangement made by David; cf. 1Ch 26:14.
1Ch 9:25-26
“And their brethren in their villages (cf. 1Ch 9:22) were bound to come the seventh day, from time to time, with these.” The infinitive בֹּוא with לְ expresses duty, as in 1Ch 5:1. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the week, on which each class in order had to take charge of the services. אֵלֶּה עִם are the chiefs mentioned in 1Ch 9:17 who dwelt in Jerusalem, and of whom it is said in 1Ch 9:26, “for they are on their fidelity, the four mighty of the doorkeepers.” In explanation of the גִּבֹּרֵי, Bertheau very fittingly compares σταρτηγοῖ τοῦ Ἱεροῦ, Luk 22:52. The words הַֽלְוִיִּם הֵם, which may be translated, “they are the Levites,” or “they (viz., the Levites),” are somewhat surprising. The Masoretic punctuation demands the latter translation, when the words would be an emphatic elucidation of the preceding הֵמָּה. Were they a subscription, we should expect אֵלֶּה instead of הֵם; while, on the other hand, the circumstance noticed by Bertheau, that in the following verses the duties not merely of the doorkeepers, but of the Levites in general, are enumerated, would seem to favour that sense. Even in the second half of the 1Ch 9:22 it is not the doorkeepers who are spoken of, but the Levites in general. May we not suppose that the text originally stood הָיוּ הַֽלְוִיִּם וּמִן (cf. 1Ch 9:14) instead of וְהָיוּ הַֽוִיִּם וְהֵם, and that the reading of our present text, having originated in a transcriber's error, found acceptance from the circumstance that 1Ch 9:27 apparently still treats of, or returns to, the service of the doorkeepers? So much is certain, that from 1Ch 9:26 onward the duties of the Levites in general, no longer those of the doorkeepers, are spoken of, and that consequently we must regard the Levites (הַֽלְוִיִּם), and not the before-mentioned four doorkeepers, as the subject of וְהָיוּ: “and the Levites were over the cells of the storehouses of the house of God.” The cells in the outbuildings of the temple served as treasure-chambers and storehouses for the temple furniture. הָאֹוצְרֹות with the article in the stat. constr. (Ew. §290, d.), because of the looser connection, since the genitive בֵּית־הא also belongs to הַלְּשָׁכֹוה.
1Ch 9:27
1Ch 9:27 refers again to the doorkeepers. They passed the night around the house of God, because the care of or watch over it was committed to them, and “they were over the key, and that every morning,” i.e., they had to open the door every morning. מַפְתֵּחַ occurs again in Jdg 3:25 and Isa 22:22, in the signification key, which is suitable here also.
1Ch 9:28
And of them (the Levites), some were over the vessels of the service, by which we are probably to understand the costly vessels, e.g., the golden cups for the libations, etc., which were brought from the treasure-chamber only for a short time for use in the service. They were brought, according to the number, into the place where the service took place, and after being again numbered, were again carried forth; and according to 1Ch 9:29, other Levites were set over הַכֵּלִים and over הַקֹּדֶשׁ כְּלֵי.
1Ch 9:29
And of them, others were set over the vessels (in general), and over all the holy vessels which were used for the daily sacrificial service, and over the fine flour (סֹלֶת, vide on Lev 2:1), wine, oil, and incense which was required therein for the meat and drink offerings, and the בְּשָׂמִים, spicery, for the holy perfumes (frankincense, cf. Exo 25:6).
1Ch 9:30
And of the priests' sons were preparers of the ointments for the spices. It is the preparation from various spices of the holy anointing oil, Exo 30:23-25, which is meant, and which consequently was part of the priest's duty.
1Ch 9:31
Mattithiah, the first-born of the Korahite Shallum (vide 1Ch 9:19), was on good faith over the panbakings (pastry) for the meat-offerings, over the preparation of which he was to watch. To the name Mattithiah מִן־הַֽלְוִיִּם is added, in contrast to the הַכֹּהֲנִים מִן־בְּנֵי in 1Ch 9:30. The word הַחֲבִתִּים (pastry, panbaking) occurs here only; cf. מַחֲבַת, pan of sheet iron, Exo 4:3.
1Ch 9:32
Finally, to some of the Kohathites was committed the preparation of the shew-bread, which required to be laid on the table fresh every Sabbath; cf. Lev 24:5-8. The suffix אֲחֵיהֶם refers back to the Levites of the father's-house of Korah in 1Ch 9:32.
1Ch 9:33-34
1Ch 9:33, 1Ch 9:34 contain subscriptions to the section vv. 14-32. Since the enumeration of the Levites dwelling in Jerusalem in 1Ch 9:14-16 began with the Levitic singer families, so here we find that the singers are mentioned in the first subscription, “these are the singers, heads of fathers'-houses of the Levites,” with an additional remark as to their service: “In the cells free, for day and night it is incumbent upon them to be in service,” which is somewhat obscure. פְּטוּרִים, from פָּטַר, in later Hebrew, let loose, set free. Rashi and Kimchi have already translated it, immunes ab aliis nempe ministeriis, or ab omni alio officio. Adopting this linguistically assured translation, we must supply with בַּלְּשָׁכֹת, dwelling or waiting in the cells of the courts of the temple, freed from every other business in order that they may apply themselves wholly to their service, for they are wholly busied therewith day and night. Day and night is not to be pressed, but signifies perpetually, continually. Bertheau translates בַּמְּלָאכָה עֲלֵיהֶם, “they were over them in the service,” i.e., had to take the oversight of the singers subordinate to them. but this can hardly be correct; and the passage quoted to justify this translation, 2Ch 34:12, proves nothing, because there מֻפְקָד is used along with it. We therefore prefer to take עֲלֵיהֶם in the signification “it is incumbent upon them,” although we should then expect הַמְּלָאכָה instead of בַּמְּלָאכָה; cf. 1Ch 9:27. Yet בַּמְּלָאכָה can in this connection quite well be used elliptically or concisely for “to be in service,” i.e., to carry on their musical duties. The second subscription (1Ch 9:34) refers to all the Levites, and is similar in contents and form to that in 1Ch 8:28.