1) The genealogy of Levi is given in detail, tracing the lineage of Aaron and his descendants who served as high priests down to Jehozadak during the Babylonian exile. 2) Commentators note the care taken to accurately record the lineage of the priestly tribe of Levi, especially the line of Aaron and the high priests. The names listed were not all high priests themselves. 3) The document discusses the sons and descendants of Levi, Aaron, and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar. It aims to clearly connect Aaron as high priest to his forefather Levi and trace the passing of the high priesthood through Aaron's lineage.

1. I CHRONICLES 6 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Levi
1 [a]The sons of Levi:
Gershon, Kohath and Merari.
CLARKE, "The sons of Levi - It has been well remarked that the genealogy of Levi
is given here more ample and correct than that of any of the others.
And this is perhaps an additional proof that the author was a priest, felt much for the
priesthood, and took care to give the genealogy of the Levitical and sacerdotal families,
from the most correct tables; for with such tables we may presume he was intimately
acquainted.
GILL, "The sons of Levi,.... After an account of the chief of the tribes of Judah and
Simeon, of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, follows that of Levi, and his
posterity; the kingdom being given to Judah, the birthright to Joseph, and the
priesthood to Levi: the immediate sons of Levi were
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; as in Gen_46:11, from these sprung the three
families of the Levites.
HENRY 1-30, "The priests and Levites were more concerned than any other Israelites
to preserve their pedigree clear and to be able to prove it, because all the honours and
privileges of their office depended upon their descent. And we read of those who, though
perhaps they really were children of the priests, yet, because they could not find the
register of their genealogies, nor make out their descent by any authentic record, were,
as polluted, put from the priesthood, and forbidden to eat of the holy things, Ezr_2:62,
Ezr_2:63. It is but very little that is here recorded of the genealogies of this sacred tribe.
I. The first fathers of it are here named twice, 1Ch_6:1, 1Ch_6:16. Gershom, Kohath, and
Merari, are three names which we were very conversant with in the book of Numbers,
when the families of the Levites were marshalled and had their work assigned to them.
Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam, we have known much more of than their names, and
cannot pass them over here without remembering that this was that Moses and Aaron
1

2. whom God honoured in making them instruments of Israel's deliverance and settlement
and figures of him that was to come, Moses as a prophet and Aaron as a priest. And the
mention of Nadab and Abihu (though, having no children, there was no occasion to
bring them into the genealogy) cannot but remind us of the terrors of that divine justice
which they were made monuments of for offering strange fire, that we may always fear
before him. 2. The line of Eleazar, the successor of Aaron, is here drawn down to the
time of the captivity, 1Ch_6:4-15. It begins with Eleazar, who came out of the house of
bondage in Egypt, and ends with Jehozadak, who went into the house of bondage in
Babylon. Thus, for their sins, they were left as they were found, which might also
intimate that the Levitical priesthood did not make anything perfect, but this was to be
done by the bringing in of a better hope. All these here named were not high priests; for,
in the time of the judges, that dignity was, upon some occasion or other, brought into the
family of Ithamar, of which Eli was; but in Zadok it returned again to the right line. Of
Azariah it is here said (v. 10), He it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that
Solomon built. It is supposed that this was that Azariah who bravely opposed the
presumption of king Uzziah when he invaded the priest's office (2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_
26:18), though he ventured his neck by so doing. This was done like a priest, like one
that was truly zealous for his God. He that thus boldly maintained and defended the
priest's office, and made good its barriers against such a daring insult, might well be said
to execute it; and this honour is put upon him for it; while Urijah, one of his successors,
for a base compliance with King Ahaz, in building him an idolatrous altar, has the
disgrace put upon him of being left out of this genealogy, as perhaps some others are.
But some think that this remark upon this Azariah should have been added to his
grandfather of the same name (1Ch_6:9), who was the son of Ahimaaz, and that he was
the priest who first officiated in Solomon's temple. 3. Some other of the families of the
Levites are here accounted for. One of the families of Gershom (that of Libni) is here
drawn down as far as Samuel, who had the honour of a prophet added to that of a Levite.
One of the families of Merari (that of Mahli) is likewise drawn down for several descents,
1Ch_6:29, 1Ch_6:30.
K&D 1-15, "(5:27-41). The family of Aaron, or the high-priestly line of Aaron, to the
time of the Babylonian exile. - 1Ch_6:1-3. In order to exhibit the connection of Aharon
(or Aaron) with the patriarch Levi, the enumeration begins with the three sons of Levi,
who are given in 1Ch_6:1 as in Gen_46:11; Exo_6:16, and in other passages. Of Levi's
grandchildren, only the four sons of Kohath (1Ch_6:2) are noticed; and of these, again,
Amram is the only one whose descendants - Aaron, Moses, and Miriam - are named
(1Ch_6:3); and thereafter only Aaron's sons are introduced, in order that the
enumeration of his family in the high-priestly line of Eleazar might follow. With 1Ch_6:2
cf. Exo_1:18, and on 1Ch_6:34 see the commentary on Exo_6:20. With the sons of
Aaron (1Ch_6:44) compare besides Exo_6:23, also Num_3:2-4, and 1Ch_24:1-2. As
Nadab and Abihu were slain when they offered strange fire before Jahve (Lev_10:1.),
Aaron's race was continued only by his sons Eleazar and Ithamar. After Aaron's death,
his eldest son Eleazar was chosen by God to be his successor in the high priest's office,
and thus the line of Eleazar came into possession of the high-priestly dignity.
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:1-3
The tribe of Levi is now taken. The first three verses prepare the way for running rapidly
down the line of high priest descent, from Aaron’s son Eleazar to Jehozadak, who is
2

3. reached at the twenty-fifth name from Levi, though not necessarily the twenty-fifth
generation, as there appear (1Ch_6:11-13) to be some omissions. Nor are all the names
which are given those of high priests, for the genealogy of Jehozadak did not always pass
though such.
1Ch_6:1
This verse gives the three branches of Levi,and is in agreement with the enumeration of
them in Gen_46:11 and Exo_6:16, viz. Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. We have not
the third parallel passage in the place of mention of the other tribes (Num_1:47-54), but
it is compensated for somewhat later (Num_3:14-20).
ELLICOTT, "The tribe of Levi, its principal genealogies, and its cities. (1) The genealogy
of Aaron, including his descent from Levi, and his successors in the line of Eleazar until
the Babylonian exile (1 Chronicles 6:1-15). (2) A double series of the sons of Gershon,
Kohath, and Merari, the three sons of Levi, to whom also the ancestry of Heman, Asaph,
and Ethan is traced (1 Chronicles 6:16-48). (3) A repetition of the line of Aaron, from
Eleazar to the age of David and Solomon, as prelude to the account of the cities of the
Levites (1 Chronicles 6:49-81).
(1-15) THE LINE OF AARON THROUGH ELEAZAR TO JEHOZADAK.
(1-3) Aaron’s descent from Levi.
(1) The sons of Levi; Gershon . . .—So Genesis 46:11; Exodus 6:16, and uniformly in the
Pentateuch. In 1 Chronicles 6:16 we have the spelling Gershom, which perhaps indicates
a difference of source.
(2) The sons of Kohath.—The names are the same as in Exodus 6:18. Kŏhath, or Kĕhath,
was the chief house of Levi. The name is put second in the series, perhaps for euphonic
reasons. (Comp. “Sheni, Ham, and Japhet” with Genesis 9:24; Genesis 10:21.)
(3) And the children.—Heb., sons (bnê ‘Âmrâm).
Aaron, and Moses.—Exodus 6:20.
And Miriam.—Numbers 26:59 : “the prophetess, the sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20).
3

4. The sons also of Aaron.—Heb., ‘Aharon; Arab., Hârûn. Exodus 6:23, Numbers 26:60
name the four sons of Aaron in the same order as here. “Nadab and Abihu died when
they offered strange fire before the Lord” (Numbers 26:61). A fuller account is given in
Leviticus 10:1-7.
PARKER, "Verses 1-81
Aaron—Eleazar—Unknown Workers—Religious Uses of Music
1 Chronicles 6
This chapter traces the line of Aaron through Eleazar to Jeho-zadak. The chronicler
takes infinite pains to trace the genealogy of Aaron from the period of his descent from
Levi through his successors in the line of Eleazar until the Babylonian exile, and after
setting forth the double series of the three sons of Levi, viz, Gershom, Kohath, and
Merari, he repeats the line of Aaron from Eleazar to the age of David and Solomon as
preliminary to an account of cities of the Levites given in 1 Chronicles 6:49-81. We ought
now to be in good company seeing that we are in the lineage of priests. Every man"s
white robe will symbolize his holy character, and every man"s official duties will indicate
the nobler exercises of spiritual worship. Society has a right to draw inferences from the
occupations of men. No surgeon should be inhuman because by profession he is a healer
and restorer. No lawyer should be seditious, rebellious, dishonourable, because he is
supposed to know the law and to have entered upon its exposition, because of his love of
high study and the discipline of citizenship. If this is so in high professions, what shall be
said of the priests of the living God? From them we look for whatsoever things are true,
lovely, pure, honest, and of good report, and in so far as they fall short, they themselves
must bear the responsibility, for they, and they only, are to blame for every lapse. But are
we to look for absolute perfectness even in consecrated men? We may look for it, but
certainly we shall not find it in any real sense. It is unjust to expect more from men than
men can render. There must however be a steady determination to realise the ideal and
to attain the divine. The apostle Paul did not count himself to have attained, but he
continually pressed toward the Mark , and by so much proved the earnestness of his
spirit. There is an infinite difference between falling short of an ideal and seeking to
accommodate the life to the lowest level of purpose and service. It should never be
forgotten that the man who selects a high ideal is himself the creator of the very
standard which his enemies may turn into a taunt against him. If he had not made
known his determination to climb the highest of all hills he might have secured some
reputation by ascending much lower elevations. When he said he meant to go to heaven,
he put into the hands of his enemies a rod with which they might chastise him. It must
therefore never be forgotten that even an imperfect Christian may be a better man than
the loudest boaster of virtue who knows nothing of spiritual motive or ideal standards.
As a speck is more easily seen upon a white surface than upon a coloured one, so the
4

5. flaws and drawbacks of Christians are the more conspicuous because of the dazzling
purity of the Christianity which is professed.
We read of Eleazar that he was "priest in Aaron"s room." This reminds us of the
commonplace, that the first and best of the priests must succumb to the law of death.
When God appointed Aaron as priest, he did not only elevate an individual, he founded
an office which was not to be abrogated until it was fulfilled as to its highest purpose in
the man Christ Jesus. Aaron, therefore, may be said to have continued to the very end of
the priesthood, which was begun in him through his legitimate successors. It is nothing
to the point to say that the individual man has died, if so be the office is continued in full
vigour and efficiency. The popular view is that the king never dies. So may it be said of
the Christian ministry. Consecrated apostles, enterprising evangelists, learned teachers,
individually die and are forgotten, but the great work of the ministry never ceases. Nor
does the ministry ever go permanently back in efficiency. On the surface there may be
great differences as to what is called pulpit power, but within the view of God, the
motion of Christian influence is always towards increase and consolidation. The
sentence however that Eleazar was priest in the room of Aaron is pathetic, as reminding
us how difficult it is to fill the room which great men have occupied. In many instances
we do not know how much a man has been really doing until we endeavour to find a
successor to bear his mantle and carry forward his obligations. No man is less valued
than a spiritual teacher. In many cases he is regarded as little better than an intruder and
a meddler, who comes with an uncertain message, and is expected to deliver it in the
least offensive form. When to outward disadvantages, often concealed in the form of
distrust or contempt, there is added a sense of personal inferiority to the Aaron who
went before, the position of the Christian teacher becomes one of positive distress. The
only mitigation of such sorrow must come from looking at the work rather than at the
worker, steadfastly looking beyond and having respect to the recompense of the reward.
If Eleazar thinks only of Aaron, he may well tremble to succeed so renowned a priest; the
Christian teacher however is not to think that he has succeeded Paul or John , but to
consider that he directly represents Jesus Christ, and that to represent Jesus Christ is to
be assured of spiritual sustenance and final reward.
In this chapter as in others, we come upon a long list of unfamed priests and workers.
Who ever heard of Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Ahitub, Ahimaaz, or Johanan! There
were twenty-two successors of Aaron in the interval between his death and the
Babylonian exile. It is quite uncertain how many centuries that interval comprised; but
in the lengthened period through which the succession ran we cannot but be struck with
the absence of illustrious names. What social advantages are necessary to the
development of men of supreme power? Can such men be born in slavery? Are they the
product of ignorance and darkness? Are the great men of any period the natural issue of
their times, or are they created on purpose to throw their times into contrast. Of some of
these men we hear a little, but that little only shows how far short they fall of the highest
reputation. Of Uzzi we hardly know more than that he was contemporary with Eli.
Scripture is absolutely silent as regards the six persons named in 1 Chronicles 6:6 and 1
Chronicles 6:7. We know little more of Zadok than that he was appointed sole high priest
by Solomon who deposed Abiathar ( 1 Kings 2:27, 1 Kings 2:35). Ahimaaz is chiefly
known as a young man and a fleet runner, who rendered service to king David at the
5

6. time of the revolt of Absalom. Johanan is utterly unknown. Yet all these men were either
priests, or workers, or recognised persons in the social and official circles to which they
belonged. So again and again we come upon the familiar lesson that there is a middle
point between renown and contempt; there is a point of life-influence—thorough
downright good work which never blossoms into the kind of conspicuousness which
belongs to world-wide and enduring fame. Even amongst the disciples of Christ there
were only three who really stood out so as to attract the attention of all men. At the last
indeed, one did stand out, not in fame, but in infamy, a man whose name can never be
pronounced without horror and disgust. It must ever be true that the great majority of
men must work within narrow limits and be content with the eulogium of domestic
recognition. At the last the whole matter of reputation will be adjusted and determined
by the Judge of the whole earth. The first may be last, and the last may be first. The very
fact that all our awards may be reversed should make us cautious in the distribution of
primacies which concern themselves more with the coronation of genius than with the
recognition and encouragement of simpler merits. We are not to hesitate to give honour
to whom honour is due, but we should never be so far carried away with pomp and
grandeur, however real, as to neglect the least of Christ"s servants or the humblest
ministrants who wait upon his altar.
In reading 1 Chronicles 6:19—"And these are the families of the Levites according to
their fathers"—we must remember that the word "families" does not mean single
households but groups of households or clans. This is important as showing the
beginning of an enlargement which is to continue until the whole world shall be
regarded as constituting one family. Towards this consummation we can but proceed
with painful slowness. The work of grace within us is long in subduing the idea that God
is partial in his choices and blessings. The heart almost secretly cherishes the idea that
walls of separation between men and men must in some degree continue for ever. It is
hard for one nation to believe that other nations are as near to God as themselves. All
this may not be admitted in theory, but an examination of the heart will lead to the
conclusion that every man clings more or less to the notion that God is interested in his
fortunes more than in the fortunes of other men. The spread of Christianity is important
in a social as well as in a theological sense as tending to the instruction of men in mutual
interpretation of motive and purpose. Christianity brings men together; never divides
and antagonises men; it always points towards brotherhood, mutual confidence,
reciprocal honour, and united action. All this is possible of Christianity simply because
Christianity represents the second Adam, the one man who idealises and crowns
humanity. Nothing is more noticeable in the progress of Christianity than the
disillusioning of the apostolic mind as to God"s partiality for the Jews. [See the case of
Peter and Cornelius as representing the whole Biblical idea upon this question of
humanity.] Christianity is opposed to all limitation, narrowness, bigotry, exclusiveness;
its noble watchword is the world, the whole world, the whole world for Christ.
In the thirty-first verse we are introduced to what may be called the larger ministry.
"And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the Lord,
6

7. after that the ark had rest." ( 1 Chronicles 6:31).
They were made to stand, according to a literal interpretation, by the sides [hands] of
song as if to minister to the sacred music. They continue ministering, before the dwelling
of the tent of meeting, with the music. The religious uses of music is a question which
the Church has hardly yet considered. Possibly there will never be wanting those who
look upon music as an alien, and regard every advance made by it with suspicion and
condemnation. There are not wanting those who would describe thorough attention to
music in the church as turning the church into a concert room. All such opposition
however must end in nothing. It is now beginning to be recognised that music may be
turned into a grand evangelical instrument, and the sneer about "singing the Gospel" is
gradually losing the confidence of those who first ignorantly applauded. As a matter of
observation and experience it is beyond all doubt that people will gather in great
numbers to listen to music when no attraction of an ordinary kind will bring them to the
sanctuary.
The wise religious guides of any age will watch the temper of the people, and will
respond to it in a way which will involve nothing of degradation, but which will secure
the attention which may be turned to the highest ends. On all such matters argument is
simply needless. Obstinate bigotry is not to be put down by reasoning; it is simply left to
be converted by events. Let the church be open night and day for music; let the music
always be religiously rendered; let every singer make the words heard as well as the
notes; and in the end it will be found that the music of the appeal has found an entrance
for the truth of the doctrine. The service of song in the house of the Lord should be the
most beautiful of all religious exercises. The heavenly ones are continually praising God
in the upper sanctuary. We read nothing of preaching in heaven, but we do read of songs
and harps, thanksgivings, and of praises louder than the sound of many waters. We are
perfectly well aware that there are persons who would pervert the use of music and do
injury to the very spirit of the Church, but we must not take our rule of procedure from
them; but endeavour to displace them by a right adaptation of music; and to supersede
them by pointing out and following a more excellent way.
2 The sons of Kohath:
Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.
7

8. GILL. "And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel,....
Given in the same order as in Exo_6:18; see Gill on Exo_6:18.
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:2
The second son, Kohath, rather Kehath, is at once singled out, in order to get at the
priest line. He was one of the travellers with Jacob into Egypt, was probably about
twenty years the junior of Joseph, lived thirty years after his death, and attained the age
of one hundred and thirty-three years, after a residence in Egypt of about one hundred
and fifteen years in all. The Kohathites are expressly mentioned in their sacred duties in
the time of David (1Ch_15:5-8), and in the time of Hezekiah (2Ch_29:12-14). The four
sons of Kohath are next instanced, in order to get another step nearer the clear
beginning of the priest line. This is done in the person of the oldest brother, Amram,
who became father of Aaron and Moses and Miriam.
3 The children of Amram:
Aaron, Moses and Miriam.
The sons of Aaron:
Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
8

9. GILL 3-15, "And the children of Amram, Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam,....
Very memorable persons: Aaron was the high priest, Moses the prophet and lawgiver,
and Miriam a prophetess, see Mic_6:4,
the sons also of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar; the two first
were destroyed by fire from heaven for offering strange fire, Lev_10:1 and the third
succeeded his father in the high priesthood; the line of which is drawn from Aaron
through him unto the Babylonish captivity, from hence to the end of the fifteenth verse,
where it ends: Jehozadak is the same with Josedech, Hag_1:1 who went young into
Babylon, and whose son Joshua, born in the captivity, came out of it on the
proclamation of Cyrus, Ezr_2:2. According to Josephus (e), and other Jewish writers (f),
in the times of Uzzi, 1Ch_6:6 the priesthood was translated into the family of Ithamar, of
which Eli was the first high priest; where it continued to the times of Solomon, when it
was restored to Zadok, of the line of Eleazar. It is particularly observed of Azariah, 1Ch_
6:10 that he it was that executed the priest's office in the temple built by Solomon; not
that he was the first that officiated in it, that was Zadok; but this seems to be Azariah,
who was the high priest in the times of Uzziah, who opposed him when he would have
offered incense in the temple, 2Ch_26:17, which may be the reason why he is so
particularly taken notice of here; though some think this is to be understood of Johanan,
the father of Azariah, supposed to the same with Jehoiada, who, in the times of Athaliah,
was the instrument of preserving both church and state, 2Ki_11:4, the temple in which
he ministered is described as built by Solomon, because at the time of the writing of this
there was another temple built, or building, by Zerubbabel.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:3 And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam.
The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
Ver. 3. And Miriam] See Micah 6:4. {See Trapp on "Micah 6:4"}
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:3
Once more, Aaron is singled out, and Eleazar, the third of his four sons, fixes the exact
channel of descent required.
4 Eleazar was the father of Phinehas,
9

10. Phinehas the father of Abishua,
CLARKE, "Eleazar begat Phinehas - As the high priesthood continued in this
family for a long time, the sacred historian confines himself to this chiefly, omitting
Nadab and Abihu, and even the family of Ithamar.
K&D, "1Ch_6:4-15
(5:30-41). In 1Ch_6:4-15 the descendants of Eleazar are enumerated in twenty-two
generations; the word ‫יד‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫,ה‬ “he begat,” being repeated with every name. The son so
begotten was, when he lived after his father, the heir of the high-priestly dignity. Thus
Phinehas the son of Eleazar (Exo_6:25) is found in possession of it in Jdg_20:28. From
this the older commentators have rightly drawn the inference that the purpose of the
enumeration in 1Ch_6:4-15 was to communicate the succession of high priests from
Eleazar, who died shortly after Joshua (Jos_24:33), to Jehozadak, whom
Nebuchadnezzar caused to be carried away into Babylon. From the death of Aaron in the
fortieth year after Israel came forth from Egypt, till the building of the temple in the
fourth year of the reign of Solomon, 400 years elapsed (480 - _40 = 440, 1Ki_6:1). From
the building of the temple to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by the
Chaldaeans there was an interval of 423 years (36 years under Solomon, and 387 years
during which the kingdom of Judah existed; see the chronological table to 1 Kings 12).
Between the death of Aaron, therefore, and the time when Jehozadak was led away into
captivity, supposing that that event occurred only under Zedekiah, lay a period of 440 +
423 = 863 years. For this period twenty-two generations appear too few, for then the
average duration of each life would be 39 1/4 years. Such an estimate would certainly
appear a very high one, but it does not pass the bounds of possibility, as cases may have
occurred in which the son died before the father, when consequently the grandson would
succeed the grandfather in the office of high priest, and the son would be omitted in our
register. The ever-recurring ‫יד‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ cannot be brought forward in opposition to this
supposition, because ‫יד‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ esuace in the genealogical lists may express mediate
procreation, and the grandson may be introduced as begotten by the grandfather. On the
supposition of the existence of such cases, we should have to regard the average above
mentioned as the average time during which each of the high priests held the office. But
against such an interpretation of this list of the posterity of Eleazar two somewhat
serious difficulties are raised. The less serious of these consists in this, that in the view of
the author of our register, the line of Eleazar remained an uninterrupted possession of
the high-priestly dignity; but in the historical books of the Old Testament another line of
high priests, beginning with Eli, is mentioned, which, according to 1Ch_24:5, and
Joseph. Ant. v. 11. 5, belonged to the family of Ithamar. The list is as follows: Eli (1Sa_
2:20); his son Phinehas, who, however, died before Eli (1Sa_4:11; his son Ahitub (1Sa_
14:3); his son Ahijah, who was also called Ahimelech (1Sa_14:3; 1Sa_22:9, 1Sa_22:11,
1Sa_22:20); his son Abiathar (1Sa_22:20), from whom Solomon took away the high-
priesthood (1Ki_2:26.), and set Zadok in his place (1Ki_2:35). According to Josephus,
10

11. loc. cit., the high-priestly dignity remained with the line of Eleazar, from Eleazar to Ozi
(‫י‬ִ‫זּ‬ֻ‫,ע‬ 1Ch_6:4-6); it then fell to Eli and his descendants, until with Zadok it returned to
the line of Eleazar. These statements manifestly rest upon truthful historical tradition;
for the supposition that at the death of Ozi the high-priesthood was transferred from the
line of Eleazar to the line of Ithamar through Eli, is supported by the circumstance that
from the beginning of the judgeship of Eli to the beginning of the reign of Solomon a
period of 139 years elapsed, which is filled up in both lines by five names, - Eli, Phinehas,
Ahitub, Ahijah, and Abiathar in the passages above quoted; and Zerahiah, Meraioth,
Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in 1Ch_6:6-8 of our chapter. But the further opinion
expressed by Joseph. Antt. viii. 1. 3, that the descendants of Eleazar, during the time in
which Eli and his descendants were in possession of the priesthood, lived as private
persons, plainly rests on a conjecture, the incorrectness of which is made manifest by
some distinct statements of the Old Testament: for, according to 2Sa_8:17 and 2Sa_
20:25, Zadok of Eleazar's line, and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, were high priests in
the time of David; cf. 1Ch_24:5. The transfer of the high-priestly dignity, or rather of the
official exercise of the high-priesthood, to Eli, one of Ithamar's line, after Ozi's death,
was, as we have already remarked on 1Sa_2:27., probably brought about by
circumstances or relations which are not now known to us, but without an extinction of
the right of Ozi's descendants to the succession in dignity. But when the wave of
judgment broke over the house of Eli, the ark was taken by the Philistines; and after it
had been sent back into the land of Israel, it was not again placed beside the tabernacle,
but remained during seventy years in the house of Abinadab (1 Sam 4:4-7:2). Years
afterwards David caused it to be brought to Jerusalem, and erected a separate tent for it
on Zion, while the tabernacle had meanwhile been transferred to Gibeon, where it
continued to be the place where sacrifices were offered till the building of the temple.
Thus there arose two places of worship, and in connection with them separate spheres
of action for the high priests of both lines, - Zadok performing the duties of the priestly
office at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39; cf. 1Ki_3:4.), while Abiathar discharged its functions in
Jerusalem. But without doubt not only Zadok, but also his father Ahitub before him, had
discharged the duties of high priest in the tabernacle at Gibeon, while the connection of
Eli's sons with the office came to an end with the slaughter of Ahijah (Ahimelech) and all
the priesthood at Nob (1 Sam 22); for Abiathar, the only son of Ahimelech, and the
single survivor of that massacre, fled to David, and accompanied him continuously in his
flight before Saul (1Sa_22:20-23). But, not content with the slaughter of the priests in
Nob, Saul also smote the city itself with the edge of the sword; whence it is probable,
although all definite information to that effect is wanting, that it was in consequence of
this catastrophe that the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon and the high-priesthood
entrusted to Zadok's father, a man of the line of Eleazar, because the only son of
Ahimelech, and the only representative of Ithamar's line, had fled to David. If this view
be correct, of the ancestors of Ahitub, only Amariah, Meraioth, and Zerahiah did not
hold the office of high priest. But if these had neither been supplanted by Eli nor had
rendered themselves unworthy of the office by criminal conduct; if the only reason why
the possession of the high-priesthood was transferred to Eli was, that Ozi's son Zerahiah
was not equal to the discharge of the duties of the office under the difficult
circumstances of the time; and if Eli's grandson Ahitub succeeded his grandfather in the
office at a time when God had already announced to Eli by prophets the approaching
ruin of his house, then Zerahiah, Meraioth, and Amariah, although not de facto in
possession of the high-priesthood, might still be looked upon as de jure holders of the
dignity, and so be introduced in the genealogies of Eleazar as such. In this way the
11

12. difficulty is completely overcome.
But it is somewhat more difficulty to explain the other fact, that our register on the
one hand gives too many names for the earlier period and too few for the later time, and
on the other hand is contradicted by some definite statements of the historical books.
We find too few names for the time from the death of Aaron to the death of Uzzi (Ozi),
when Eli became high priest, - a period of 299 years (vide the Chronological View of the
Period of the Judges, ii. 1, S. 217). Five high priests - Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki,
and Uzzi - are too few; for in that case each one of them must have discharged the office
for 60 years, and have begotten the son who succeeded him in the office only in his 60th
year, or the grandson must have regularly succeeded the grandfather in the office, - all of
which suppositions appear somewhat incredible. Clearly, therefore, intermediate names
must have been omitted in our register. To the period from Eli till the deposition of
Abiathar, in the beginning of Solomon's reign - which, according to the chronological
survey, was a period of 139 years - the last five names from Zerahiah to Zadok
correspond; and as 24 years are thus assigned to each, and Zadok held the office for a
number of years more under Solomon, we may reckon an average of 30 years to each
generation. For the following period of about 417 years from Solomon, or the completion
of the temple, till the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans, the twelve names
from Ahimaaz the son of Zadok to Jehozadak, who was led away into captivity, give the
not incredible average of from 34 to 35 years for each generation, so that in this part of
our register not many breaks need be supposed. But if we examine the names
enumerated, we find (1) that no mention is made of the high priest Jehoiada, who raised
the youthful Joash to the throne, and was his adviser during the first years of his reign (2
Kings 11, and 2Ch_22:10; 2Ch_24:2), and that under Ahaz, Urijah, who indeed is called
only ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ֹה‬‫כּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ but who was certainly high priest (2Ki_16:10.), is omitted; and (2) we find
that the name Azariah occurs three times (1Ch_6:9, 1Ch_6:10, and 1Ch_6:11), on which
Berth. remarks: “Azariah is the name of the high priest in the time of Solomon (1Ki_
4:2), in the time of Uzziah (2Ch_26:17), and in the time of Hezekiah (2Ch_31:10).”
Besides this, we meet with an Amariah, the fifth after Zadok, whom Lightf., Oehler, and
others consider to be the high priest of that name under Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_19:11. And
finally, (3) in the historical account in 2Ki_22:4., Hilkiah is mentioned as high priest
under Josiah, while according to our register (1Ch_6:13) Hilkiah begat Azariah; whence
we must conclude either that Hilkiah is not the high priest of that name under Josiah, or
Azariah is not the person of that name who lived in the time of Hezekiah. As regards the
omission of the names Urijah and Jehoiada in our register, Urijah may have been passed
over as an unimportant man; but Jehoiada had exerted far too important an influence on
the fate of the kingdom of Judah to allow of his being so overlooked. The only
possibilities in his case are, either that he occurs in our register under another name,
owing to his having had, like so many others, two different names, or that the name
‫ע‬ ָ‫ָד‬‫י‬ ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ has fallen out through an old error in the transcription of the genealogical list.
The latter supposition, viz., that Jehoiada has fallen out before Johanan, is the more
probable. Judging from 2Ki_12:3 and 2Ch_24:2, Jehoiada died under Joash, at least five
or ten years before the king, and consequently from 127 to 132 years after Solomon, at
the advanced age of 130 years (2Ch_24:15). He was therefore born shortly before or after
the death of Solomon, being a great-grandson of Zadok, who may have died a
considerable time before Solomon, as he had filled the office of high priest at Gibeon
under David for a period of 30 years.
Then, if we turn our attention to the thrice recurring name Azariah, we see that the
12

13. Azariah mentioned in 1Ki_4:2 cannot be regarded as the high priest; for the word ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ֹה‬‫כּ‬ in
this passage does not denote the high priest, but the viceroy of the kingdom (vide on the
passage). But besides, this Azariah cannot be the same person as the Azariah in 1Ch_6:9
of our genealogy, because he is called a son of Zadok, while our Azariah is introduced as
the son of Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, and consequently as a grandson of Zadok; and the
grandson of Zadok who is mentioned as being high priest along with Abiathar, 1Ki_4:4,
could not have occupied in this grandfather's time the first place among the highest
public officials of Solomon. The Azariah mentioned in 1Ki_4:2 as the son of Zadok must
not be considered to be a brother of the Ahimaaz of our register, for we very seldom find
a nephew and uncle called by the same name. As to the Azariah of 1Ch_6:10, the son of
Johanan, it is remarked, “This is he who was priest (or who held the priest's office; ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ִ‫,כּ‬
cf. Exo_40:13; Lev_16:32) in the house (temple) which Solomon had built in
Jerusalem.” R. Sal. and Kimchi have connected this remark with the events narrated in
2Ch_26:17, referring it to the special jealousy of King Uzziah's encroachments on the
priest's office, in arrogating to himself in the temple the priestly function of offering
incense in the holy place. Against this, indeed, J. H. Mich. has raised the objection, quod
tamen chronologiae rationes vix admittunt; and it is true that this encroachment of
Uzziah's happened 200 years after Solomon's death, while the Azariah mentioned in our
register is the fourth after Zadok. But if the name Jehoiada has been dropped out before
Johanan, and the Jehoiada held the high priest's office for a considerable time under
Joash, the high-priesthood of his grandson Azariah would coincide with Uzziah's reign,
when of course the chronological objection to the above-mentioned explanation of the
words ‫וגו‬ ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ ‫הוּא‬ is removed.
(Note: Bertheau's explanation is inadmissible. He says: “If we consider that in the
long line of the high priests, many of them bearing the same name, it would naturally
suggest itself to distinguish the Azariah who first discharged the duties of his office
in the temple, in order to bring a fixed chronology into the enumeration of the
names; and if we recollect that a high priest Azariah, the son, or according to our
passage more definitely the grandson, of Zadok, lived in the time of Solomon; and
finally, if we consider the passage 1Ch_6:32, we must hold that the words, 'He it is
who discharged the duties of priest in the temple which Solomon had built in
Jerusalem,' originally stood after the name Azariah in v. 9; cf. 1Ki_4:2.” All
justification of the proposed transposition is completely taken away by the fact that
the Azariah of 1Ki_4:2 was neither high priest nor the same person as the Azariah in
v. 10 of our register; and it is impossible that a grandson of Zadok whom Solomon
appointed to the high-priesthood, instead of Abiathar, can have been the first who
discharged the duties of high priest in the temple. Oehler's opinion (in Herzog's
Realencyklop. vi. 205), that the Amariah who follows Azariah (1Ch_6:11) is identical
with the Amariah under Jehoshaphat, is not less improbable; for Jehoshaphat was
king sixty-one years after Solomon's death, and during these sixty-one years the four
high priests who are named between Zadok and Amariah could not have succeeded
each other.)
But lastly, the difficulty connected with the fact that in our passage Azariah follows
Hilkiah, while in 2Ki_22:4. and 2Ch_31:10, 2Ch_31:13, Azariah occurs as high priest
under King Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the time of his great-grandson Josiah, cannot be
cleared away by merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah and Azariah. For, apart
altogether from the improbability of such a transposition having taken place in a register
formed as this is, “Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, and Azariah
13

14. begat,” the main objection to it is the fact that between Azariah, 1Ch_6:13, who lived
under Uzziah, and Hilkiah four names are introduced; so that on this supposition,
during the time which elapsed between Uzziah's forcing his way into the temple till the
passover under Hezekiah, i.e., during a period of from 55 to 60 years, four generations
must have followed one another, which is quite impossible. In addition to this, between
Hezekiah and Josiah came the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, who reigned 55 years and
2 years respectively; and from the passover of Hezekiah to the finding of the book of the
law by the high priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year of Josiah, about 90 years had
elapsed, whence it is clear that on chronological grounds Hilkiah cannot well have been
the successor of Azariah in the high-priesthood. The Azariah of v. 11f., therefore, cannot
be identified with the Azariah who was high priest under Hezekiah (2Ch_31:10); and no
explanation seems possible, other than the supposition that between Ahitub and Zadok
the begetting of Azariah has been dropped out. On this assumption the Hilkiah
mentioned in v. 13 may be the high priest in the time of Josiah, although between him
and the time when Jehozadak was led away into exile three names, including that of
Jehozadak, are mentioned, while from the eighteenth year of Josiah till the destruction
of the temple by the Chaldaeans only 30 years elapsed. For Hilkiah may have been in the
eighteenth year of Josiah's reign very old; and at the destruction of Jerusalem, not
Jehozadak, but his father Seraiah the grandson of Hilkiah, was high priest, and was
executed at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_25:18, 2Ki_25:21), from which we may
conclude that Jehozadak was led away captive in his early years. The order in which the
names occur in our register, moreover, is confirmed by Ezr_7:1-5, where, in the
statement as to the family of Ezra, the names from Seraiah onwards to Amariah ben-
Azariah occur in the same order. The correspondence would seem to exclude any
alterations of the order, either by transposition of names or by the insertion of some
which had been dropped; but yet it only proves that both these genealogies have been
derived from the same authority, and does not at all remove the possibility of this
authority itself having had some defects. The probability of such breaks as we suppose in
the case of Jehoiada and Azariah, who lived under Hezekiah, is shown, apart altogether
from the reasons which have been already brought forward in support of it, by the fact
that our register has only eleven generations from Zadok, the contemporary of Solomon,
to Seraiah, who was slain at the destruction of Jerusalem; while the royal house of David
shows seventeen generations, viz., the twenty kings of Judah, omitting Athaliah, and
Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, the last two as being brothers of Jehoiakim (1Ch_3:10-24).
Even supposing that the king's sons were, as a rule, earlier married, and begat children
earlier than the priests, yet the difference between eleven and seventeen generations for
the same period is too great, and is of itself sufficient to suggest that in our register of
the high priests names are wanting, and that the three or four high priests known to us
from the historical books who are wanting - Amariah under Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada
under Joash, (Urijah under Ahaz,) and Azariah under Hezekiah - were either passed
over or had fallen out of the list made use of by the author of the Chronicle.
(Note: The extra-biblical information concerning the prae-exilic high priests in
Josephus and the Seder Olam, is, in so far as it differs from the account of the Old
Testament, without any historical warrAnt. Vide the comparison of these in
Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, Opp. ed. ii. vol. i. p. 682ff.; Selden, De success, in
pontific. lib. i.; and Reland, Antiquitatt. ss. ii. c. 2.)
14

15. TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:4 Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua,
Ver. 4. And Eleazar begat Phineas.] Famous for his zeal, and God’s promise thereupon,
that he and his should be priests before him for ever. [Numbers 25:13] How Eli, of the
lineage of Ithamar, came to be high priest, is nowhere expressed; but in this catalogue is
no mention of him or his sons, but only of such as sprang from Eleazar.
ELLICOTT, "(4-15) Twenty-two successors of Aaron, for the interval between his death
and the Babylonian exile (circ. 588 B.C.). How many centuries that interval comprises is
uncertain. The Exodus has been placed at various dates from 1648 B.C. (Hales), and
1491 (Usher) to circ. 1330 (Lepsius and other modern scholars), and even so late as
1265. It is premature, therefore, to object, as some have done, that twenty-two
generations are too few for the period they are supposed to cover. If the later dates
assigned for the Exodus be nearer the truth, an allowance of about thirty years to the
generation would justify the list. At least we have no right to say that the list requires a
reckoning of forty or fifty years to the generation. On the other hand, it may well be the
case that some links in the chain are wanting. Comp. Ezra 7:1-7, where this list recurs in
an abridged form, giving only fifteen names instead of twenty-two.
(4) Eleazar begat Phinehas.—Numbers 20:22-28 tells how Moses, by Divine command,
made Eleazar priest in Aaron’s room. Joshua 14:1; Joshua 17:4 represent him as acting
with Joshua in Canaan. Joshua 24:33 records his death and place of burial. For
Phinehas, son of Eleazar, see Exodus 6:25; Numbers 25:7; Numbers 25:11; Judges 20:28
(as ministering before the Ark at Bethel). The list before us appears to ignore the line of
Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining son. 1 Chronicles 24:1-6, however, proves that the
chronicler was well aware that there had been other personages of high-priestly rank
besides those registered here (see especially 1 Chronicles 6:5 : “for there had been
princes of the sanctuary and princes of God, of the sons of Eleazar and of the sons of
Ithamar”). The line of Eleazar alone is here recorded as being at once the elder and
legitimate, and also the permanent one from the time of Solomon onwards.
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:4
Eleazar. From this name inclusive follow the twenty-two, which terminate with
Jehozadak, who indeed never attained him s elf to the office of high priest, but was son
of Geraiah, last high priest before the Captivity, and father of Jeshua, high priest, who
returned with Zerubbabel from the Captivity. It has been pointed out by Lord A. C.
Hervey that the name Jehozadak is of the same meaning with Zedekiah, the last king
before the Captivity; and that Jeshua is the same in meaning with Joshua, the leader of
the tribes into Canaan. The two elder brothers of Eleazar, viz. Nadab and Abihu, died
without issue (Le Jos_10:1; Num_3:4, Num_3:32; Num_20:28; Num_24:1-3). It is
somewhat obscurely said that the sacred office remained in the family of Eleazar till, in
the person of Eli, it passed awhile into that of Ithamar, his brother (1Ki_2:26, 1Ki_2:27;
Jos_8:1, § 3), to be recovered again in the Zadok of our verse 9 (1Ch_24:3, 1Ch_24:4).
Phinehas; a memorable man (Num_25:7-13; Jos_22:10-33; Jdg_20:28; Psa_106:30,
Psa_106:31; which Grove well compares with Gen_15:6; Rom_4:3). Abishua; only
mentioned in this chapter and Ezr_7:1-5. Josephus (Ezr_8:1, § 3) asserts that he it was
15

16. who was succeeded in the high priesthood, not by any one of his own descendants, but
by Eli, till Zedok, in the time of David, all the intervening members of the Eleazar family
being private individuals. But no reliance can be placed on this assertion, for see
Josephus again (Ezr_5:11, § 5).
5 Abishua the father of Bukki,
Bukki the father of Uzzi,
JAMISON, "Uzzi — It is supposed that, in his days, the high priesthood was, for
unrecorded reasons, transferred from Eleazar’s family to Ithamar’s, in which it
continued for several generations.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:5 And Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi,
Ver. 5. And Bukki begat Uzzi.] In this man’s time it is supposed that Eli (and so his
posterity after him) got the high priest’s office - sed quo iure quave iniuria, parum
constat - till after four generations it was resettled by Solomon upon Zadok, the son of
Ahitub, [1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 2:35] who [with his descendants] were high priests till
after the captivity.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:5. Bukki begat Uzzi — In whose days it is supposed that the
high- priesthood was translated from Eleazar’s family to Ithamar’s, for some cause now
unknown, in whose line it continued for some successions.
ELLICOTT, "(5) Uzzi is assumed to have been contemporary with Eli, whose immediate
descendants to the fourth generation exercised the office of the high-priest, according to
the data of the Books of Samuel and Kings. The line of Eli is as follows: Eli, Phinehas,
Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar. (See 1 Samuel 1:28; 1 Samuel 2:4; 1 Samuel 2:11; 1 Samuel
14:3; 1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Samuel 22:20; 1 Kings 2:26-27.)
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:5-7
Of the five succeeding names, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, it may
16

17. be said that they reappear in the list of Ezr_7:1-28; but that little or nothing else is
known of them. Lightfoot (’Temple Service,’ 4. § 1) supposes that the change of
priesthood family to Ithamar took place after Meraioth. But it is just as probable that the
gap between Abishua and Eli, or possibly even between Phinehas and Eli, was filled by
holders of the high priest office unknown by name to us.
6 Uzzi the father of Zerahiah,
Zerahiah the father of Meraioth,
ELLICOTT, "(6) Zerahiah begat Meraioth.—Scripture is silent as regards the six
persons named in 1 Chronicles 6:6-7. That the line of Eleazar abstained from the
priestly functions during the ascendency of the house of Ithamar-Eli, is probably
nothing more than a groundless guess on the part of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 1, 3). The
indications of the Scriptures point the other way. Zadok and Abiathar enjoyed a co-
ordinate authority in the time of David (1 Samuel 20:25), and proofs are not
wanting of the existence of more than one recognised sanctuary, in which the
representatives of both houses might severally officiate. (See Note on 1 Chronicles
16:39.)
7 Meraioth the father of Amariah,
Amariah the father of Ahitub,
8 Ahitub the father of Zadok,
17

18. Zadok the father of Ahimaaz,
CLARKE, "Ahitub begat Zadok - Through this person the high priesthood came
again into the family of Eleazar.
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:8
Ahitub. With this name begins the light again. Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, and Azariah
are of frequent mention in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Ahitub, here and elsewhere
plainly given as father of Zadok, seems to be given as father of Meraioth in 1Ch_9:11 and
Neh_11:11, and grandfather of Zadok; and in both passages is termed "ruler of the house
of God"—an expression probably equivalent to high priest, as Azariah, high priest in the
reign of Hezekiah, is also so described (2Ch_31:13). The recurrence of the two names
Ahitub and Zadok in verses 11 and 12 is very possibly the result of some error; and it is in
favour of such a supposition, in some form of it, at all events, that in that place, where,
including Shallum (or Meshullam), only three steps are found, several more seem to be
required—the period one of some one hundred and eighty years, and filled in the list of
Judah’s kings by as many as nine in succession. On the other hand, it is open to question
whether the recurrence of the names Ahitub and Zadok be not legitimate. And this may
then be the solution of 1Ch_9:11 and Neh_11:11, as above, with their insertion of
Meraioth—still other names being absent which would make up the requisite number of
generations. Zadok. The earliest glimpse we get of him is in 1Ch_12:28, where he is
introduced as "a young man mighty of valour," who now casts in his lot with David at
Hebron, on Saul’s death. In 2Sa_15:24, 2Sa_15:29, 2Sa_15:35, we find him and Abiathar
the recognized priests. In 1Ki_1:7, 1Ki_1:8, we find him true to David when Abiathar
joined Adonijah—the punishment of the latter and the reward of the former being
recorded in 1Ki_2:27, 1Ki_2:35, respectively. Up to that time it is evident. that Abiathar
had precedence in rank over Zadok. His death is not recorded, but it must be assigned to
a date previous to the dedication of the temple, from the account of which (1Ki_8:1-66.)
his name is entirely absent. The last allusions to him are in 1Ki_4:2, 1Ki_4:4; in the
latter of which verses (specially coupled as the name is with the deposed Abiathar) the
notice is probably as merely historical as it certainly is in the former. This same verse
states that Azariah was "the priest," and that he was son, i.q. grandson, of Zadok,
proving, with very little doubt, that the explanatory parenthesis of our verse. 10 should
follow the Azariah mentioned in the previous verse.(8) Zadok was appointed sole high-
priest by Solomon, who deposed Abiathar (1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 2:35).
Ahimaaz.—2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 17:17; cf. 2 Samuel 18:27. In all these passages
Ahimaaz appears as a young man and a fleet runner, who did service to David in the time
18

19. of Absalom’s revolt. He nowhere appears as high-priest.
Azariah.—See 1 Kings 4:2, which mentions “Azariah son of Zadok the priest,” in a list of
Solomon’s grandees. The remark in 1 Chronicles 6:10, “he who served as priest in the
house that Solomon built in Jerusalem,” enigmatical where it stands, is intelligible if
connected with Azariah son of Ahimaaz; contrasting him with his grandfather, Zadok,
who had ministered at Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39); and with the other high-priests who
were his namesakes, as the first Azariah. Solomon reigned forty years. Azariah,
therefore, may have succeeded to the priesthood before his death.
ELLICOTT, "
9 Ahimaaz the father of Azariah,
Azariah the father of Johanan,
BARNES, "Ahimaaz begat Azariah - It must, apparently, be this Azariah, and not
the son of Johanan 1Ch_6:10, who was high priest at the dedication of Solomon’s
Temple. For Zadok, who lived into the reign of Solomon 1Ki_4:4 cannot have been
succeeded by a great-great-grandson. The notice in 1Ch_6:10, which is attached to the
second Azariah, must, beyond a doubt, belong properly to the first.
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:9
Ahimaaz. The first important notice of him is found in 2Sa_15:36, and the last in 2Sa_
19:29. He is not to be identified with Solomon’s "officer" in Naphtali (1Ki_4:15). Azariah.
As above said, it is almost without a doubt after this Azariah (1Ki_4:2) that the
parenthetical comment of next verse should be read. Again, this Azariah must not be
identified with him of the time of King Uzziah (2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_26:20), who must have
been nearly a century later, and was contemporary with Isaiah, Joel, and Amos.
19

20. 10 Johanan the father of Azariah (it was he who
served as priest in the temple Solomon built in
Jerusalem),
CLARKE, "Johanan - Supposed to be the same as Jehoiada.
Executed the priest’s office - Probably this refers to the dignified manner in which
Azariah opposed King Uzziah, who wished to invade the priest’s office, and offer incense
in the temple. See 2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_26:18.
JAMISON, "he it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple that
Solomon built in Jerusalem — It is doubtful whether the person in favor of whom
this testimony is borne be Johanan or Azariah. If the former, he is the same as Jehoiada,
who rendered important public services (2Ki_11:1-20); if the latter, it refers to the
worthy and independent part he acted in resisting the unwarrantable encroachments of
Uzziah (2Ch_26:17).
in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem — described in this particular
manner to distinguish it from the second temple, which was in existence at the time
when this history was written.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:10. He it is that executed the priest’s office, &c. — So did
all the rest: but it is implied that he did it worthily; he filled his place well, and
valiantly discharged his office. For it is supposed this was that Azariah who boldly
opposed the presumption of King Uzziah, when he invaded the priest’s office, 2
Chronicles 26:17. This remark may, however, relate to Johanan, otherwise called
Jehoiada, who is so highly commended for the good service which he did to the
house of God, and of the king; of whom see 2 Kings 11. In the temple that Solomon
built — In Solomon’s temple; so denominated to distinguish it from the second
temple, which was built, or in building, when these books were written.
PULPIT, "1Ch_6:10
Of Johanan and Azariah, his son, nothing can be found with any certainty. It is
presumable that they were priests in the reigns of Abijah and Asa.
20

21. TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he [it is] that executed the
priest’s office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)
Ver. 10. And Johanan.] Alias Jehoiadah. [2 Chronicles 23:1]
He it is that executed the priest’s office.] Whether we understand it of the father or the
son, we do not amiss: Nam uterque se strenue gessit in sacerdotio, they were gallant men
both.
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:10. He it is that executed the priest's office, &c.— Some suppose
that this Azariah is he who strenuously opposed king Uzziah; and that, therefore, he is
thus mentioned. Houbigant thinks that he was the son of Zadok, mentioned 1 Kings 4:2.
ELLICOTT, "(10) Johanan begat Azariah.—Johanan is un. known. The name Azariah
occurs thrice in the present list—viz., in 1 Chronicles 6:9-10; 1 Chronicles 6:13. We have
already identified the first with the son, or rather grandson, of Zadok, who is mentioned
in 1 Kings 4:2. A high-priest (Azariah) withstood King Uzziah’s assumption of priestly
privilege (2 Chronicles 26:17), circ. 740 B.C. The Jewish exegetes Rashi and Kimchi
supposed him to be identical with Azariah son of Johanan, fancifully explaining the
remark, “he it is that executed the priest’s office in the temple,” &c., as a reference to his
bold defence of the priestly prerogative against the king himself. If this were right,
several names would be omitted in 1 Chronicles 6:9-10. But we have seen that the
remark in question really belongs to a former Azariah, and has been transposed from its
original position in 1 Chronicles 6:9 by the inadvertence of some copyist. Another
Azariah is mentioned (2 Chronicles 31:10) as “chief priest of the house of Zadok,” early
in the reign of Hezekiah. Him, too, we fail to identify with either of the Azariahs of the
present list. (See 1 Chronicles 6:13, Note.)
11 Azariah the father of Amariah,
Amariah the father of Ahitub,
BARNES, "Ahitub - Between Amariah and Hilkiah 1Ch_6:13 this genealogy is most
certainly defective, as it gives three generations only for a period for which nine
21

22. generations are furnished by the list of the kings of Judah, and which cannot be
estimated as much short of 200 years. Further, no one of the names in this part of the
list occurs among the High priests of the period, several of whom are mentioned both in
the Second Book of Chronicles and in Kings; the explanation of which seems to be that
the present is not a list of high priests, but the genealogy of Jozadak or Jehozadak,
whose line of descent partly 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. See the note
at 1Ch_6:20.
ELLICOTT, "(11) Azariah begat Amariah.—Perhaps the Amariah of 2 Chronicles
19:11, who was high-priest under Jehoshaphat.
PULPIT. "Amariah. High priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:11;
see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' sub voce, 2). A step ascertainable as this helps to keep
the line and chronology steady amid surrounding obscurity.
12 Ahitub the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Shallum,
ELLICOTT, "(12) And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum.—See 1
Chronicles 6:8 : “And Ahitub begat Zadok.” The recurrence of names in the same
families is almost too common to require notice, except where confusion of distinct
persons has resulted or is likely to result, as in the instance of those among our
Lord’s immediate followers, who bore the names of Simon, Judas, and James.
Somewhere about this part of the list we miss the name of Jehoiada, the famous
king-maker, who put down Athaliah and set up Joash (2 Chronicles 23). In like
manner, Urijah, the too compliant high-priest of the reign of Ahaz, who flourished a
generation or so later, is conspicuous here by omission (2 Kings 16:10-16).
Urijah may have been omitted because of his unworthy connivance in an unlawful
worship, not, however, as “an unimportant man,” as Keil thinks. (Comp. Isaiah
8:2.) But if the list is a list of actual high-priests, Jehoiada can only have been
22

23. omitted by accident, unless indeed he is represented in it by an unrecognised alias.
Double names are common in Scripture, from Jacob-Israel, Esau-Edom,
downwards.
PULPIT, "Amariah. High priest in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:11;
see Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' sub voce, 2). A step ascertainable as this helps to keep
the line and chronology steady amid surrounding obscurity.
13 Shallum the father of Hilkiah,
Hilkiah the father of Azariah,
ELLICOTT, "(13) Hilkiah begat Azariah.—Hilkiah is probably the well-known
high-priest who “found the Book of the Law” which led to the great reformation of
Josiah’s reign (2 Kings 22:8, seq.). Azariah, his son, is not elsewhere mentioned. The
Azariah of 2 Chronicles 31:10, who figures as high-priest under Hezekiah, at least
eighty years earlier, is absent from this list.
PULPIT, "Shallum, called in 1 Chronicles 9:11 and Nehemiah 11:11 Meshullam.
There are at fewest fifteen persons of this name. The present is named as ancestor of
Ezra (Ezra 7:2). Hillkiah. There are seven persons of this name. The present was the
celebrated one of them all; and from three chief circumstances:
14 Azariah the father of Seraiah,
23

24. and Seraiah the father of Jozadak.[b]
CLARKE, "Seraiah - He was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar, 2Ki_25:18, 2Ki_
25:21.
JAMISON, "Azariah begat Seraiah — He filled the supreme pontifical office at
the destruction of Jerusalem, and, along with his deputy and others, he was executed by
Nebuchadnezzar’s orders at Riblah (2Ki_25:18, 2Ki_25:21). The line of high priests,
under the first temple, which from Zadok amounted to twelve, terminated with him.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:14 And Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat
Jehozadak,
Ver. 14. And Azariah begat Seraiah.] Who was the father, or grandfather, of Ezra
the scribe. [Ezra 7:1]
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:14. Azariah begat Seraiah, &c.— Seraiah was put to death
by Nebuchadnezzar. In him ended the succession of high-priests under the first
temple. Their number from Zadok amounted to twelve.
ELLICOTT, "(14) Seraiah begat Jehozadak.—Seraiah was still high-priest at the
moment of the fall of Jerusalem (588 B.C. ). Nebuchadnezzar caused him to be put
to death at Riblah (2 Kings 25:18-21; Jeremiah 52:24, seq.) From Azariah (1
Chronicles 6:10) to Seraiah we find only ten names. In the list of the kings of Judah
for about the same interval eighteen names occur (see 1 Chronicles 3:10-16). This
fact undoubtedly suggests the omission of some generations from the list before us.
The use of the word “begat” throughout the series is not to be pressed to the
contrary conclusion. Like the term “son” in Ezra 7:3 (“Azariah, son of Meraioth,”
though six intermediate names are given in Chron.), it is a somewhat elastic
technical formula in these genealogies.
24

25. PULPIT, "Azariah. The third occurrence of this name in this list. This person is
found again in Ezra 2:1-70 :l, but is wanting in Nehemiah 11:11. Seraiah; found also
in Nehemiah 11:11, in a list which omits the preceding Azariah, and in Ezra 7:1. The
end of his high priesthood and of himself is recorded with that of Zephaniah (2
Kings 25:18, 2 Kings 25:21), and (not the Seraiah, "the quiet prince," of Jeremiah
51:59-64) he is also spoken of in Jeremiah 52:24-27. He was high priest in the time of
Zedekiah.
15 Jozadak was deported when the Lord sent
Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar.
BARNES, "Jehozadak - The meaning of the name is “Jehovah is righteous.” 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.
K&D, "1Ch_6:15
(5:41). Jehozadak is the father of Joshua who returned from exile with Zerubbabel,
and was the first high priest in the restored community (Ezr_3:2; Ezr_5:2; Hag_1:1).
After ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫,ה‬ “he went forth,” ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ ‫גּ‬ ַ‫בּ‬ is to be supplied from ‫וגו‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ל‬ְ‫ג‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ “he went into exile”
to Babylon; cf. Jer_49:3.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:15 And Jehozadak went [into captivity], when the LORD carried
away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.
Ver. 15. And Jehozadak went into captivity.] Where he begat Joshua, the high priest,
25

26. who helped Zerubbabel in rebuilding the city and temple. [Haggai 1:1]
ELLICOTT, "(15) And Jehozadak went into captivity.—The Heb. is went away. Our
version rightly supplies into captivity. (Comp. Jeremiah 49:3.) Jehozadak was
presumably a child at the time; half a century later a son of his, the high-priest Jeshua or
Joshua, returned with Zerubbabel at the head of the first colony of restored exiles, 536
B.C. (Haggai 1:1; Ezra 3:2).
When the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.—
The chronicler is generally charged with a strong Levitical and priestly bias, in
unfavourable contrast to the “prophetical” tendency of the writers of Samuel and Kings.
The sentiment of this verse, however, and of many other passages, is thoroughly
accordant with the point of view of the greater prophets. Isaiah, e.g., never wearies of
proclaiming that the Assyrian conquerors were mere instruments in the hands of
Jehovah, unconsciously executing His fore-ordained purposes.
Nebuchadnezzar.—So the name is spelt in Kings, Chronicles, and Daniel, but incorrectly.
Jeremiah 24:2, &c., reads Nebuchadrezzar, which is nearer the true name, Nabium-
kudurri-açur (Nebo protect the crown).
PULPIT, "Jehozadak. He did not share the violent end of his father, nor did he attain his
father's high priest office, but lived to the end a captive (see note on 1 Chronicles 6:4).
Where this name occurs in Haggai and Zechariah, it is the same in the Hebrew as here,
though Englished in the Authorized Version as Josedech. Where it occurs in Ezra and
Nehemiah, the shorter form of Jozadak is found in the Hebrew as in the Authorized
Version.
16 The sons of Levi:
Gershon,[c] Kohath and Merari.
GILL 16-19, "The sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Which is
repeated from 1Ch_6:1 for the sake of their posterity, whose names are given in the three
following verses, in the same manner as in Exo_6:17.
26

27. JAMISON 16-48, "The sons of Levi; Gershom, etc. — This repetition (see 1Ch_
6:1) is made, as the historian here begins to trace the genealogy of the Levitical families
who were not priests. The list is a long one, comprising the chiefs or heads of their
several families until David’s reign, who made a new and different classification of them
by courses.
K&D 16-81, "(Ch. 6). The families and cities of the Levites. - Vv. 1-34. Register of the
families of the Levites. - This is introduced by an enumeration of the sons and grandsons
of Levi (1Ch_6:16-19), which is followed by lists of families in six lines of descent: (a) the
descendants of Gershon (1Ch_6:20-21), of Kohath (1Ch_6:22-28), and of Merari (1Ch_
6:29-30); and (b) the genealogies of David's chief musicians (1Ch_6:31, 1Ch_6:32), of
Heman the Kohathite (1Ch_6:33-38), of Asaph the Gershonite (1Ch_6:39-43), and of
Ethan the Merarite (1Ch_6:44-47); and in 1Ch_6:48, 1Ch_6:49, some notes as to the
service performed by the other Levites and the priests are added.
(6:1-4). The sons of Levi are in 1Ch_6:1 again enumerated as in 1Ch_6:1; then in
1Ch_6:16-22 the sons of these three sons, i.e., the grandsons of Levi, are introduced,
while in 1Ch_6:1 only the sons of Kohath are mentioned. The only object of this
enumeration is to make quite clear the descent of the Levitic families which follow. The
name of the first son of Levi is in 1Ch_6:16, 1Ch_6:17, 1Ch_6:20, etc. of this chapter
‫ם‬ֹ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ֵר‬‫גּ‬, which was the name of Moses' son, cf. 1Ch_23:15.; whereas in 1Ch_6:1 and in the
Pentateuch we find a different pronunciation, viz., ‫ן‬ ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ֵר‬‫גּ‬. The names of Levi's grandsons
in 1Ch_6:17-22 coincide with the statements of the Pentateuch, Exo_6:17-19, and Num_
3:17-20, cf. Num_26:57. Bertheau and other commentators consider the words in 1Ch_
6:17, “and these are the families of Levi according to their fathers,” to be a “concluding
subscription” to the statements of 1Ch_6:15-17, and would remove ְ‫ו‬ before ‫ה‬ֶ‫לּ‬ ֵ‫,א‬ as not
compatible with this supposition. But in this he is wrong: for although the similar
statement in Exo_6:20 is a subscription, yet it is in Num_3:20 a superscription, and
must in our verse also be so understood; for otherwise the enumeration of the
descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, which follows, would be brought in very
abruptly, without any connecting particle, and the ְ‫ו‬ before ‫ה‬ֶ‫לּ‬ ֵ‫א‬ points to the same
conclusion.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:16. The sons of Levi, Gershom, &c. — This he repeats as
the foundation of the following genealogy of those Levites who were not priests.
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:16. &c. The sons of Levi— This pedigree of the posterity of
Levi is given again, 1 Chronicles 6:43. It appears most probable, that in this
catalogue the name of the son of Gershom was omitted, and ‫לבני‬ Libni, inserted,
from ‫בנו‬ beno, his son, since the name of Gershom's son in the Syriac and Arabic, 1
Chronicles 6:20, is said to be Nahath instead of Jahath, as we find it in the second
27

28. catalogue. See Pilkington, p. 29.
ELLICOTT, "Verses 16-19
(16-19) The three branches of Levi with their main subdivisions. Parallel passages,
Exodus 6:16-19; Numbers 3:17-20.
(16) Gershom.—See Note on 1 Chronicles 6:1. In the Pentateuch, Gershom is son of
Moses; Gershon, son of Levi.
(19) And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers.—The
word’families” (Heb., mishpehuth) does not mean single households, but groups of
households, or clans. The sentence concludes the short list of the great Levitical
houses, just as at Exodus 6:19. (See also Numbers 3:20, where a like formula
appears to introduce what follows.)
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:16-19
These verses have a re-enumeration of the three sons of Levi, and differ from the
enumeration of 1 Chronicles 6:1, in being followed by the sons of each of these three,
and afterwards by the line of descendants from each, instead of by the sons of only
one, Kohath, and his descendant in only one stem, the high priest stem, and with
only one object. All these names agree with Exodus 6:17-19 and Numbers 3:17-20
(comp. also Numbers 3:21-36 with Numbers 26:57-60), with the trifling exceptions
already alluded to, in the Hebrew spelling of Gershom and the Authorized Version
spelling of Shimei and the Authorized Version Mahali of Exodus 6:19. The latter
half of Exodus 6:19, according to the Hebrew, should rather refer to what has
preceded, and be a "subscription," though it might best suit the connection to
regard it as introducing what was to follow, and as being a "superscription."
Bertheau holds with the former of these views, Keil with the latter.
28

29. 17 These are the names of the sons of Gershon:
Libni and Shimei.
18 The sons of Kohath:
Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.
19 The sons of Merari:
Mahli and Mushi.
These are the clans of the Levites listed according
to their fathers:
BENSON, "Verse 19-20
1 Chronicles 6:19-20. The families of the Levites according to their fathers —
29

30. That is, these were the heads of the families which sprang from them. And it is
thought the following catalogue contains the successive heads or chiefs of their
several families until the times of David, by whom they were distributed into several
courses. Zimmah his son — His grandson by his son Shimei, as appears from 1
Chronicles 6:42-43; the names of father and son being often used in Scripture of
more remote progenitors or successors.
20 Of Gershon:
Libni his son, Jahath his son,
Zimmah his son,
barnes, "Of Gershom - The names in this list are curiously different from those in
1Ch_6:41-43, which yet appear to represent the same line reversed. Probably both lists
are more or less corrupted, and, as in many genealogies, omission is made, to reduce the
number of the names to seven. Compare e. g. 1Ch_6:22-28 with 1Ch_6:33-38. Compare
the other genealogy ties of this chapter; and see also Matt. 1:1-17.
GILL, "Of Gershon, Libni his son,.... Whose genealogy runs thus, Jahath, called
Jehiel, 1Ch_23:8. Zimmah, between whom was Shimei, 1Ch_6:42. Joah, the same with
Ethan, 1Ch_6:42. Iddo, called Adaiah, 1Ch_6:41. Zerah, Jeaterai, whose name was also
Ethni, 1Ch_6:41, the posterity of Shimei, the brother of Libni, are omitted.
JAMISON, "Zimmah his son — his grandson (1Ch_6:42).
30

31. ELLICOTT, " (20) Of Gershom.—Literally, to—i.e., belonging to Gershom.
Libni his son.—See Numbers 3:21, “To Gershon, the clan of the Libnite, and the
clan of the Shimeite; these are the clans of the Gershonite.”
The names Jahath, Zimmah, and Zerah recur in the line of Asaph, 1 Chronicles
6:41-43 below (see the Note there). Jeaterai, in whom the present series culminates,
is wholly unknown. At the time when the list was first drawn up, the name may have
represented a famous chieftain or family. It has the ending of a patronymic or
gentilic term, and perhaps should be read with different vowels, we ‘Ithrai, or ‘Ithri,
“and the Ithrite” (comp. ‘Ishai for Yishai), a clan of which came two of David’s
heroes (1 Chronicles 11:40).
Verse 20-21
(20, 21) The genealogy of the Gershonites in seven successive generations. It does not
occur in the Pentateuch. This and the two following lists of Kohathites and
Merarites are symmetrical in plan, but not in the number of names included.
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:20-21
(A) These verses apparently give seven lineal descendants of Gershom, through his
eldest son Libni. The question is whether this list of seven is part of the longer list of
thirteen from Gershom (1 Chronicles 6:39-43). terminating with Asaph; and it
seems impossible to decide the question satisfactorily. From the occurrence of the
name Shimei in this latter, though in the wrong place, viz. after Jahath in the
descending order, instead of before him, some think, Keil and Zockler among them,
that it is a line from Shimei, the brother of Libni, and second son of Gershom. If this
be so, the occurrence of three names, the same and in the same order, is a thing to be
remarked, though possible enough in itself. But if not, then either the names Joah,
Iddo, Jeaterai, in the former list, must be interchangeable with Ethan, Adaiah,
Ethni, respectively in the latter (a thing which the similarity of the Hebrew letters
might render credible), while the Shimei of 1 Chronicles 6:42 is omitted from 1
Chronicles 6:20, and the Libni of 1 Chronicles 6:20 from 1 Chronicles 6:43; or the
one list must pick up some links and leave others, and the other do likewise, whilst
those taken the same by both are in the minority. This last supposition may be the
more probable, though not free from difficulty. Zimmah. Beside the uncertainty of
the identity of this Zimmah with the same name in 1 Chronicles 6:42, it is very
31

32. remarkable that we find a Zimmah, also father of a Joah, in 2 Chronicles 29:12; also
in this same passage we find three other reproductions of a similar kind—father and
son-of what have first been found in this sixth chapter, viz. "Mahath, son of
Amasai" (2 Chronicles 29:35); "Joel, son of Azariah" (verse 36); "Kish, son of
Abdi" (verse 44). It seems as though the individual descendant was quoted in these
instances by the name of the ancestor at a certain point.
21 Joah his son,
Iddo his son, Zerah his son
and Jeatherai his son.
GILL, "The sons of Kohath, Amminadab,.... The same with Izhar, 1Ch_6:2 the
posterity of his brethren, Amram, Hebron, and Uzziel, are omitted; and his genealogy is
carried to a considerable length, for the sake of Samuel the prophet, who sprang from
him: it stands thus, Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph, Assir, Tahath, Uriel, called
Zephaniah, 1Ch_6:36 Uzziah, the same with Azariah, 1Ch_6:36. Shaul, whose name is
Joel, 1Ch_6:36 then through the sons of Elkanah, before mentioned, Amasai, Ahimoth,
called Mahath, 1Ch_6:35 another Elkanah, Zophai, or Zuph, 1Ch_6:35. Nahath, the
same with Toah, 1Ch_6:34 and Tohu, 1Sa_1:1, Eliab, called Eliel, 1Ch_6:34, and Elihu,
1Sa_1:1, Jeroham, another Elkanah, the father of Samuel the prophet, whose firstborn
was Vashni, and whose name also was Joel, 1Ch_6:33 and so here it is read in the Syriac
and Arabic versions:
and his second son Abiah.
22 The descendants of Kohath:
32

33. Amminadab his son, Korah his son,
Assir his son,
CLARKE, "Korah - See the history of this man, and his rebellion, Numbers 16:1-33.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:22 The sons of Kohath; Amminadab his son, Korah his
son, Assir his son,
Ver. 22. Korah his son.] This was that sinner against his own soul, [Numbers 16:1]
whom the earth swallowed up quick. Howbeit his children came to good, many of
them, as Elkanah, Samuel, the sons of Korah, in David’s days. Dathan and Abiram,
his fellow sinners, are stigmatised for their stubbornness, [Numbers 26:9] as before
them was Cain, [Genesis 4:15] and after them Ahaz. [2 Chronicles 28:22]
ELLICOTT, "Verse 22-23
(22–23) The sons of Kohath. As the text stands we have here a threefold list, each
portion of which is isolated from the rest, and begins afresh with the word onê (the
sons of).
(22) Amminadab his son.—Amminadab is not mentioned as a son of Kohath in the
Pentateuch or elsewhere. Korah, here called son of Amminadab, is called son of
Izhar, son of Kohath, Exodus 6:21. (See 1 Chronicles 6:18, supra, and 1 Chronicles
6:38, infra.) Some assume that Amminadab is a “by-name” of Izhar (so Margin). It
is more likely that the name Izhar has dropped out of the text of 1 Chronicles 6:22.
(22, 23) Assir his son, Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son.—Comp. Exodus 6:24 :
“And the sons of Korah, Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph, these are the sons of
33

34. Korah.” The connection, then, is as follows:—
The conjunction and, in 1 Chronicles 6:23, seems to hint that the connection is no
longer one of direct descent, but that the three, Assir, Elkanah, and Ebiasaph, are to
be regarded as brothers.
(23) And Assir his son.—Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:37 below, in the line of Heman,
which in great part coincides with the present series. There we read, “Assir, son of
Ebiasaph, son of Korah.” The present Assir is therefore son of Ebiasaph, and
nephew of the former Assir (1 Chronicles 6:22). The form of a direct descent is now
resumed and continued with Tahath, son of Assir (1 Chronicles 6:24).
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:22-28
(B) These verses give descendants, probably twenty-one in number, from Levi,
through his second son, Kohath, to Joel, eldest son of Samuel and (verse 33) father
of Heman. The descendants of Kohath through his eldest son, Amram, have been
given from verses 3-15. But the descendants now to he spoken of are through
another son, here called Am-minadab, a name not appearing among the four of
verse 2, but apparently standing for the Izhar of that verse. For he is said to have a
son Korah, by whom, indeed, the genealogy moves on, while in verses 37, 38. and
Numbers 16:1, Korah is said to be the son of Izhar. Without the occurrence of this
clue, we should have been at a loss to tell who Amminadab was, as we are now at a
loss to explain the unexplained substitution of this new name. The Vatican
Septuagint has Amminadab, while the Alexandrine has altered to Izhar, probably
deeming the other name a mere error.
1 Chronicles 6:22, 1 Chronicles 6:23
Korah (comp. Numbers 16:27, Numbers 16:32, Numbers 16:33, with Numbers
26:9-11). From Exodus 6:24 we also learn that the throe next in lineal succession to
Korah, were Assir, Elkanah, and Ebiasaph, or Abiasaph; though Elkanah and Assir
34

35. are omitted from verse 37, in the ascending line.
23 Elkanah his son,
Ebiasaph his son, Assir his son,
24 Tahath his son, Uriel his son,
Uzziah his son and Shaul his son.
ELLICOTT, " (24) In the corresponding verse of the genealogy of Heman below (1
Chronicles 6:38) the names are Tahath, Zephaniah, Azariah, and Joel. It is easy to
suppose that as the two series diverge after Tahath, Uriel and Zephaniah are two
different sons of Tahath. But we notice (1) that Uzziah (1 Chronicles 6:24) may =
Azariah, 1 Chronicles 6:36 (comp. King Uzziah—Azariah, 2 Kings 15:1; 2
Chronicles 26:1); (2) that although there is an apparent break between 1 Chronicles
6:24-25, so that a new list begins with the sons of Elkanah (1 Chronicles 6:25), yet 1
Chronicles 6:35-36 speak of an “Amasai, son of Elkanah,” in exact agreement with 1
35

36. Chronicles 6:25; and (3) that the correspondence between the two lists (1 Chronicles
6:22-30; 1 Chronicles 6:33-38) is so close, that it is difficult not to assume their
substantial identity. Uriel may have been also known as Zephaniah, and Shaul as
Joel.
JAMISON, "Uriel — or Zephaniah (1Ch_6:36).
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:24-28
Tahath. From this name onwards to the end of 1 Chronicles 6:28 we must have
recourse to the reversed list of 1 Chronicles 6:33 37, in order to make out our way.
Even then we shall scarcely have a chain of all the licks; e.g. there is no evidence
here (as there is in the case of Amminadab above) that Uriel and Zephaniah
designate the same person. The lists may be brought, however, into pretty close
harmony without any violent suppositions or substitutions, thus: Tahath, Uriel,
Zephaniah, Uzziah (i.q. Azariah), Shaul (i.q. Joel), Elkanah, Amasai, Ahimoth (i.q.
Mahath), Elkanah Zophai (i.q. Zuph), Nahath (i.q. Toah, Tohu, 1 Samuel 1:1), Eliab
(i.q. Eliel, Elihu, 1 Samuel 1:1), Jeroham, Elkanah, Samuel (i.q. Shemuel), Joel (1
Samuel 8:2, which distinctly gives Joel as firstborn son, and supplies the explanation
of the Vashni here by expressly mentioning Abish as "his second" son).
25 The descendants of Elkanah:
Amasai, Ahimoth,
ELLICOTT, "(25) And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai.—See last Note. It is natural to
identify the Elkanah of 1 Chronicles 6:36 with this one. The posterity of both are so
nearly the same; otherwise we might have taken the present Elkanah for the person
36

37. mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:23.
26 Elkanah his son,[d] Zophai his son,
Nahath his son,
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:26. As for Elkanah, &c. — This was another Elkanah,
son or grandson of the former Elkanah, and either the son or brother of Ahimoth,
last mentioned, or of Amasai. Nahath his son — Called also Toah, 1 Chronicles 6:34,
and Tohu, 1 Samuel 1:1. The Elkanah mentioned in the next verse was the father of
the Prophet Samuel, whose name therefore follows.
ELLICOTT, " (26) The Hebrew text reads: “Elkanah his son—Elkanah—Zophai
his son,” &c. Zophai might mean the Zophite. The LXX. has (1 Chronicles 6:25)
“And sons of Elkanah, Amessi and Ahimoth;” (1 Chronicles 6:26) “Elkanah his son,
Souphi his son,” &c. So the Syriac. That this is correct appears from comparison of
Heman’s pedigree (1 Chronicles 6:35). The second Elkanah in 1 Chronicles 6:26 is
therefore an intrusion, due perhaps to some scribe who remembered 1 Samuel 1:1,
where Zophim occurs just before Elkanah. In 1 Chronicles 6:35 Elkanah is son of
Mahath, son of Amasai. Perhaps Mahath is identical with the Ahimoth of 1
Chronicles 6:25; if so, the true reading of 1 Chronicles 6:25-26 would be: “And sons
of Elkanah: Amasai his son, Ahimoth (Mahath) his son, Elkanah his son, Zophai his
son,” &c. Zophai is to Zuph (1 Chronicles 6:35) as Chelubai (1 Chronicles 2:9) to
Chelub (1 Chronicles 4:11). Nahath looks like a transformation of Toah (1
Chronicles 6:34), and Eliab (1 Chronicles 6:27)—“El is father”—may be a by-form
of Eliel (ibid.) “El is el.” Jeroham and Elkanah go back to Eliel in 1 Chronicles 6:34,
just as they spring from Eliab here. The two series again coincide.
37

38. 27 Eliab his son,
Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son
and Samuel his son.[e]
JAMISON, "Elkanah — the father of the prophet Samuel (1Sa_1:1).
28 The sons of Samuel:
Joel[f] the firstborn
and Abijah the second son.
BARNES, "Vashni - The true name of Samuel’s first-born, which was “Joel” (see the
margin and references), has here dropped out; and the word properly meaning “and his
second (son)” has been taken as the name of the first.
CLARKE, "The first-born Vashni, and Abiah - There is a great mistake in this
verse: in 1Sa_8:2 we read, Now the name of his (Samuel’s) first-born was Joel; and the
name of his second Abiah. The word ‫יואל‬ Joel is lost out of the text in this place, and ‫ושני‬
vesheni, which signifies the second, and which refers to Abiah, is made here into a proper
38

39. name. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Chaldee, copy this blunder; but the Syriac and
Arabic read as in 1Sa_8:2. The MSS. have all copied the corrupted Hebrew in this place.
Jarchi labors to restore the true reading, and yet preserve the integrity of the text, by
paraphrasing thus: “And the second, (‫ושני‬ vesheni), in respect of the first, he was Abiah;
and the second, in respect of Abiah, he was Joel.”
These, Joel and Abiah, were the two sons of Samuel, who administered justice so
badly that the people, being oppressed, began to murmur, and demanded a king. See
1Sa_8:1, etc.
JAMISON, "the sons of Samuel — The sons of Samuel are here named Vashni and
Abiah. The first-born is called Joel (1Sa_8:2); and this name is given to him in 1Ch_
6:33. It is now generally thought by the best critics that, through an error of the copyists,
an omission has been made of the oldest son’s name, and that Vashni, which is not the
name of a person, merely signifies “and the second.” This critical emendation of the text
makes all clear, as well as consistent with other passages relating to the family of
Samuel.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:28 And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni, and
Abiah.
Ver. 28. The firstborn Vashni.] Alias Joel. [1 Samuel 8:2] The Septuagint render the
text thus: And the sons of Samuel were, the firstborn, Joel; and the second (Vashni
signifieth, And the second), Abiah.
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:28. The sons of Samuel— The sons of Samuel, Joel his first-
born, Abiah his second. See 1 Chronicles 6:33 and 1 Samuel 8:2. At the end of the
27th verse, instead of Elkanah his son, read Samuel his son. Houbigant.
REFLECTIONS.—1st, As Judah had the pre-eminence, and Joseph the birthright,
Levi had the honour of the priesthood. Among the descendants of Kohath were
Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, whose names are great in God's book. Two of the sons
of Aaron, on whom the priesthood was settled, suffered for their daring
presumption. In the others, the priestly line was maintained. The line of Eleazar to
the captivity is drawn, during which the high-priesthood in general continued in
that family; though, in the time of the judges, we find it for a while transferred to
the descendants of Ithamar, till Solomon again restored Zadok. Azariah is
mentioned as officiating in Solomon's temple, perhaps when Uzziah invaded the
39

40. priest's office, whom he so nobly withstood. They who have a zeal for God, fear not
to testify against the sins of the greatest men, though at the hazard of prison or
death.
2nd, When David had brought up the ark from Obed-edom's house, he appointed a
solemn choir of Levites, for the constant singing of God's praises; at the head of
which were Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, one out of each of the three great houses of
Levi, with their children, as many as were musical at least. The other Levites,
according to the classes into which they were divided, did the rest of the service,
kept the gates, prepared the sacrifices, &c. Note; (1.) The work of praise in the great
congregation should be as much the minister's care, as the work of prayer. It is a
sure sign of a decay of godliness, when there is a neglect of divine psalmody. (2.)
That only is to God a pleasing service of song, when in the heart, as well as the lips,
we make melody to God. (3.) In God's house there must be no idlers; the work is
important, and calls for labour and diligence.
" (28) And the sons of Samuel.—Heb., Shemuel The third break in the Kohathite
list.
We see from 1 Chronicles 6:33-34 that Samuel (Shemuel, name of God) is son of
Elkanah, son of Jeroham; hence we might suppose that the clause “Samuel his son”
has been accidentally omitted at the end of 1 Chronicles 6:27. But it is quite possible
that the writer assumed the connection to be too well known to require specification,
or that he has here thrown together three independent genealogical fragments.
Comp. with 1 Chronicles 6:27-28 the pedigree of Elkanah, 1 Samuel 1:1 : “Elkanah
son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph.” Here again the names vary,
yet not so as to obliterate their identity. Elihu (“El is He”) = Eliab, Eliel; Tohu, a
fuller form of Toah = Nahath.
The firstborn Vashni, and Abiah.—Vashni is not a proper name, but a corrupt form
of the Hebrew phrase “and the second” (shçnî, secundus). The sons of the prophet
Samuel were Joel, the firstborn, and Abiah, 1 Samuel 8:2 (see also 1 Chronicles 6:33
below). Joel has fallen out of the text here; it should run, “Joel the firstborn, and the
second Abiah.”
40

41. Reviewing the Kohathite list (22-28) we conclude that it represents three statistical
fragments which have been put in juxtaposition by the chronicler or the author
whom he has followed, and that in accordance with the real connection between the
members, as appears on comparison with the continuous list which immediately
follows in 1 Chronicles 6:33-38. The fact that “Samuel his son” is the missing link
between 1 Chronicles 6:27-28, makes it likely that “Elkanah his son” is the true
connection between 1 Chronicles 6:24-25.
From Levi to the sons of Samuel about twenty generations are reckoned. Usher’s
chronology dates the descent of Jacob and his sons into Egypt at 1706 B.C. Twenty
generations are six hundred years. The sons of Samuel would, according to this, be
living about 1106 B.C. and later. Ruth 4:18-22 reckons only ten generations from
Judah to Jesse, the father of David. This again shows that in their genealogical
tables the Hebrews did not uniformly supply every link, but were often content with
a statement of the principal names.
3rdly, Sacrificing was peculiarly appropriated to the priests, the sons of Aaron.
They alone shed the blood of atonement, and burnt incense; and herein they were
typical of him, who, himself both priest and sacrifice, by one oblation of himself
once offered, hath obtained eternal redemption for us.
ELLICOTT
29 The descendants of Merari:
Mahli, Libni his son,
Shimei his son, Uzzah his son,
41

42. GILL, "The sons of Merari; Mahli,.... The posterity of his brother Mushi are
omitted; his genealogy is drawn thus, Libni, Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, Asaiah.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 29-30
(29, 30) A short list of Merarite names. (Comp. Numbers 3:20, and 1 Chronicles
6:14, supra, for the two sons of Merari, Mahli and Mushi, after whom the clans of
the Merarites were designated. The present list traces the line of Mahli to the
seventh generation; all the names are alike unknown. Below, 1 Chronicles 6:44-47,
we have another line going back to Mushi, brother of Mahli. Why has the chronicler
preserved the three lists of 1 Chronicles 6:19-30? The process from Levi to the
worthless sons of Samuel, and the utterly unknown names of Jeaterai and Asaiah,
reads like an anti-climax. But it is not to be forgotten that these no longer significant
fragments are genuine relics of ancient family registers, and as such may have had
more than a merely antiquarian value in the days of the chronicler.
1 Chronicles 6:31-32 are a prelude to the pedigrees of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan,
the three great masters of David’s choirs (33-48). The nature, time, and place of
their special duties are described.
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:29, 1 Chronicles 6:30
(C) In 1 Chronicles 6:19 the two sons of Merari, viz. Mahli and Mushi, are given.
Here one of them, Mahli, is repeated, with six descendants, of no one of whom have
we any other information. From comparison of Numbers 3:20 and Numbers 26:58
there can be no doubt that Mahli and Mushi were brothers, each of whom founded
a family. The descending line of Mushi, unalluded to here, comes to the surface in
Numbers 26:44-47.
30 Shimea his son, Haggiah his son
42

43. and Asaiah his son.
The Temple Musicians
31 These are the men David put in charge of the
music in the house of the Lord after the ark came
to rest there.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:31. And these — Whose names follow, are they whom
David set over the service — Appointed to minister to God by singing songs of
praise in his house; after that the ark had rest — After David had brought it from
the house of Obed-edom, and settled it in Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 8:17.
CLARKE, "After that the ark had rest - The Targum says, “These are they whom
David set over the service of the singing, in the house of the sanctuary, or tabernacle of
the Lord, at the time in which the ark was brought into it;” that is, when it was brought
from the house of Obed-edom.
GILL, "And these are they,.... Who follow; the account of whom begins 1Ch_6:33,
whom David set over the service of the song in the house of the Lord: whom
43

44. he appointed chief musicians, and masters of the chorus, to manage and conduct that
part of divine service in the sanctuary, singing the praises of God, both with vocal and
instrumental music:
after the ark had rest; which was when it was brought from the house of Obededom
to the city of David, and was placed in a tabernacle he provided for it, 2Sa_6:12, where it
remained until the temple was built, when and which was the only time it was removed,
whereas before it had been removed from place to place, and so till now had no rest;
though some understand this of the ceasing or silence of the oracle over the ark, which
was neither consulted by Solomon and his successors, nor any of the high priests
afterwards (g).
HENRY 31-53, "When the Levites were first ordained in the wilderness much of the
work then appointed them lay in carrying and taking care of the tabernacle and the
utensils of it, while they were in their march through the wilderness. In David's time
their number was increased; and, though the greater part of them was dispersed all the
nation over, to teach the people the good knowledge of the Lord, yet those that attended
the house of God were so numerous that there was not constant work for them all; and
therefore David, by special commission and direction from God, new-modelled the
Levites, as we shall find in the latter part of this book. Here we are told what the work
was which he assigned them.
I. Singing-work, 1Ch_6:31. David was raised up on high to be the sweet psalmist of
Israel (2Sa_23:1), not only to pen psalms, but to appoint the singing of them in the
house of the Lord (not so much because he was musical as because he was devout), and
this he did after that the ark had rest. While that was in captivity, obscure, and
unsettled, the harps were hung upon the willow-trees: singing was then thought
unseasonable (when the bridegroom is taken away they shall fast); but the harps being
resumed, and the songs revived, at the bringing up of the ark, they were continued
afterwards. For we should rejoice as much in the prolonging of our spiritual privileges as
in the restoring of them. When the service of the ark was much superseded by its rest
they had other work cut out for them (for Levites should never be idle) and were
employed in the service of song. Thus when the people of God come to the rest which
remains for them above they shall take leave of all their burdens and be employed in
everlasting songs. These singers kept up that service in the tabernacle till the temple was
built, and then they waited on their office there, 1Ch_6:32. When they came to that
stately magnificent house they kept as close both to their office and to their order as they
had done in the tabernacle. It is a pity that the preferment of the Levites should ever
make them remiss in their business. We have here an account of the three great masters
who were employed in the service of the sacred song, with their respective families; for
they waited with their children, that is, such as descended from them or were allied to
them, 1Ch_6:33. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were the three that were appointed to this
service, one of each of the three houses of the Levites, that there might be an equality in
the distribution of this work and honour, and that every one might know his post, such
an admirable order was there in this choir service. 1. Of the house of Kohath was Heman
with his family (1Ch_6:33), a man of a sorrowful spirit, if it be the same Heman that
penned the 88th psalm, and yet a singer. He was the grandson of Samuel the prophet,
the son of Joel, of whom it is said that he walked not in the ways of Samuel (1Sa_8:2,
1Sa_8:3); but it seems, though the son did not, the grandson did. Thus does the blessing
entailed on the seed of the upright sometimes pass over one generation and fasten upon
44

45. the next. And this Heman, though the grandson of that mighty prince, did not think it
below him to be a precentor in the house of God. David himself was willing to be a door-
keeper. Rather we may look upon this preferment of the grandson in the church as a
recompense for the humble modest resignation which the grandfather made of his
authority in the state. Many such ways God has of making up his people's losses and
balancing their disgraces. Perhaps David, in making Heman the chief, had some respect
to his old friend Samuel. 2. Of the house of Gershom was Asaph, called his brother,
because in the same office and of the same tribe, though of another family. He was
posted on Heman's right hand in the choir, 1Ch_6:39. Several of the psalms bear his
name, being either penned by him or tuned by him as the chief musician. It is plain that
he was the penman of some psalms; for we read of those that praised the Lord in the
words of David and of Asaph. He was a seer as well as a singer, 2Ch_29:30. His pedigree
is traced up here, through names utterly unknown, as high as Levi, 1Ch_6:39-43. 3. Of
the house of Merari was Ethan (1Ch_6:44), who was appointed to Heman's left hand.
His pedigree is also traced up to Levi, 1Ch_6:47. If these were the Heman and Ethan that
penned the 88th and 89th psalms, there appears no reason here why they should be
called Ezrahites (see the titles of those psalms), as there does why those should be called
so who are mentioned 1Ch_2:6, and who were the sons of Zerah.
II. There was serving-work, abundance of service to be done in the tabernacle of the
house of God (1Ch_6:48), to provide water and fuel, - to wash and sweep, and carry out
ashes, - to kill, and flay, and boil the sacrifices; and to all such services there were Levites
appointed, those of other families, or perhaps those that were not fit to be singers, that
had either no good voice or no good ear. As every one has received the gift, so let him
minister. Those that could not sing must not therefore be laid aside as good for nothing;
though they were not fit for that service, there was other service they might be useful in.
III. There was sacrificing-work, and that was to be done by the priests only, 1Ch_6:49.
They only were to sprinkle the blood and burn the incense; as for the work of the most
holy place, that was to be done by the high priest only. Each had his work, and they both
needed one another and both helped one another in it. Concerning the work of the
priests we are here told, 1. What was the end they were to have in their eye. They were to
make an atonement for Israel, to mediate between the people and God; not to magnify
and enrich themselves, but to serve the public. They were ordained for men. 2. What
was the rule they were to have in their eye. They presided in God's house, yet must do as
they were bidden, according to all that God commanded. That law the highest are
subject to.
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:31-48
In the early verses of this section we may notice, if not the first beginning, yet some
of the earliest crystallization of the forms of religious services. It was given to David
to settle the ark after its travels through the wilderness, its sojourn in various places
since then, doubtless always within the care of some Levitical family (except when
taken by enemies, 1 Samuel 4:11; 1 Samuel 5:1-12; 1 Samuel 6:1-21.), and in especial
its prolonged twenty years' sojourn .at Kirjath-jearim (1 Samuel 7:1, 1 Samuel 7:2;
45

46. 2 Samuel 6:1-19; 1 Chronicles 13:3-14; 1 Chronicles 15:1-3; 1 Chronicles 17:5). It
now had rest, though its place of rest was only within "curtains" (2 Samuel 7:2; 1
Chronicles 17:1), i.e. in a special separate tent prepared for it by David, which tent
was probably the suggestion, and as it were the nucleus, of the coming grand temple
itself—the house of God. The event was naturally one of great joy and thanksgiving,
of which David himself was the chief leader (2 Samuel 6:17-21; 1 Chronicles 16:1-3);
but it appears also that it furnished the occasion of appointing fixed choir
conductors, leaders of the service of song" (1 Chronicles 16:4-7, 1 Chronicles 16:37,
1 Chronicles 16:41, 1 Chronicles 16:42; 1 Chronicles 25:1-7).
BI, "And these are they whom David let over the service of song lit the house of the
Lord.
The ministry of song
I. Song an element of Christian worship.
II. Song an expression of human feeling.
III. Song a power for which its possessors are responsible. (J. Wolfendale.)
Religious worship
I. Worship varied in its forms.
II. Lively in its spirit.
III. Orderly in its method.
IV. Universal in its participation. (J. Wolfendale.).
32 They ministered with music before the
tabernacle, the tent of meeting, until Solomon
built the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. They
performed their duties according to the
regulations laid down for them.
46

47. BARNES, "1Ch_6:32
They waited on their office - On the establishment and continuance of the choral
service in the temple, see 2Ch_5:12, 2Ch_29:27-30; 2Ch_35:15.
GILL, "And they ministered before the dwelling place of the tabernacles of
the congregation with singing,.... Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; this service
they performed before the ark, which was in a tent or tabernacle David pitched for it;
and which the Targum here calls the tabernacle of time, or a temporary tabernacle:
until Solomon had built the house of the Lord in Jerusalem; the temple there:
and then they waited on their office according to their order; performed it in
the manner prescribed by David, see 1Ch_25:1.
JAMISON, "before the dwelling-place, etc. — that is, in the tent which David
had erected for receiving the ark after it was removed from the house of Obed-edom
[2Sa_6:17]. This was a considerable time before the temple was built.
they waited on their office according to their order — which David, doubtless
by the direction of the Holy Spirit, had instituted for the better regulation of divine
worship.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:32. They ministered before the tabernacle, &c. — Which
David had prepared for the ark when it came to Jerusalem. According to their
order — The order which David himself had constituted a little before his death, as
we read in the latter end of this book.
WHEDON, " 32. Before the dwellingplace of the tabernacle — The dwelling,
(mishcan,) as distinguished from the tabernacle, (ohel,) was the board structure and
its covering of ornamented curtains which formed the principal part of the sacred
tent. Those who ministered before the mishcan must have occupied the court, where
the laver and the altar of burnt offering stood.
According to their order — The order assigned to them by David. On the divisions
47

48. and arrangement of the sons of Levi, see chaps. 23-26.
ELLICOTT, " (31) Set over the service of song.—Literally, made stand by the sides
(hands) of song, as if to minister to the sacred music. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 25:2-3,
where the same peculiar phrase recurs, and Psalms 123:2, “as the eyes of slaves are
unto the hand of their Lord.” Comp. also the common heading of the Psalms, “to the
conductor or precentor;” Authorised Version, “chief musician.”)
In the house of the Lord.—In David’s time, a tent, as next verse declares.
After that the ark had rest.—Perhaps locative: at the restin-place of the Ark (comp.
Genesis 8:9). From the time of its capture by the Philistines (2 Samuel 6:17), the Ark
had no certain dwelling till it was lodged in the tent which David spread for it on
Mount Zion.
ELLICOTT, " (32) And they ministered.—“And they continued ministering, before
the dwelling of the Tent of Meeting, with the music.”
PULPIT, "Instances full of illustration of this ministering… with singing and
waiting on their office are found in 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 29:26-31; 2
Chronicles 35:15, 2 Chronicles 35:16.
The dwelling place of the tabernacle.—A defining genitive, like River of Jordan, or
City of Jerusalem. In the court before this sacred dwelling wherein the Lord met
His people, the services of sacrifice and song were carried on. The tent of the Ark in
the city of David (see 1 Chronicles 16:1) is here called by the old name of the Mosaic
Tabernacle, ‘ôhel mô’çd, “tent of tryst, or meeting,” i.e., of God with man. The
ancient tent appears to have stood at Shiloh, and at Bethel (Judges 20:26-28) in the
days of the Judges, at Nob in the reign of Saul, and later at Gibeon. (See 1
Chronicles 21:29, and 2 Chronicles 1:3.)
Until Solomon had built the house.—The Ark, and the worship of which it was the
48

49. centre, were then transferred to the more august abode of Solomon’s Temple.
And then they waited.—Omit then and read “and they stood at their service
according to their privilege.” The place and precedence of the choirs and their
leaders were fixed by David (1 Chronicles 16:37). Standing was the normal posture
for singing.
33 Here are the men who served, together with
their sons:
From the Kohathites:
Heman, the musician,
the son of Joel, the son of Samuel,
GILL 33-38, "And these are they that waited with their children,.... They and
their posterity, who officiated in the service of singing psalms in the sanctuary: the three
heads of them were of the three families of the Levites, as follow:
of the sons of the Kohathites, Heman a singer; the chief of the singers, and who
composed psalms and hymns, which are in the book of Psalms:
the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel; or Samuel. This Heman was grandson of
Samuel the prophet; for whose sake his genealogy is traced up to Jacob or Israel in the
following verses, and stands thus; after Samuel, Elkanah, Jeroham, Eliel, Toah, Zuph,
Elkanah, Mahath, Amasai, Elkanah, Joel, Azariah, Zephaniah, Tahath, Assir, Ebiasaph,
Korah, Izhar, Kohath, Levi, Israel.
JAMISON, "Shemuel — that is, Samuel. This is the exact representation of the
Hebrew name.
49

50. ELLICOTT, " (33) And these are they that waited (stood) with their children.—The
main sentence which began at 1 Chronicles 6:31, and was suspended by the
parenthetic 1 Chronicles 6:32, is now resumed. The persons meant are the three
chiefs of the Levitical guilds of musicians, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan; their
“children” are the members of those guilds. (Comp. the phrase, “sons of the
prophets,” i.e., members of prophetic guilds, 2 Kings 9:1; Amos 7:14.) 1 Chronicles
25:1-7 supplies the names of the principal “sons” of the three masters. Their
Levitical descent is shown in the genealogies here traced up from themselves to Levi.
First we have the pedigree of Heman (1 Chronicles 6:33-38) the Kohathite.
Heman a singer.—Rather, the singer or minstrel. Heman, as representing the chief
branch of the Levites, is primus inter pares as regards the other master singers. His
choir occupied the centre, having on its right that of the Gershonite Asaph, on its
left that of the Merarite Ethan (1 Chronicles 6:39; 1 Chronicles 6:44), so that
Heman would conduct the whole body of musicians, when the three choirs chanted
in concert. The word “minstrel” is more appropriate than “singer” because the
original term (ham’shôrçr) implies singing which the singer himself accompanies
with an instrument of music. (See 1 Chronicles 25:6; LXX., ὁ ψαλτῳδὸς.)
Son of Joel, the son of Shemuel.—It is interesting to learn that Heman, the great
minstrel, was a grandson of Samuel the great prophet. (For the connection between
music and prophecy, see 2 Kings 3:15; 1 Samuel 10:5-6; and below, 1 Chronicles
25:1, Note.) Considering that some have denied that Samuel was a Levite, the point
of contact here noted looks like an undesigned coincidence.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:33 And these [are] they that waited with their children. Of
the sons of the Kohathites: Heman a singer, the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel,
Ver. 33. Heman.] He was Samuel’s grandchild, by Joel. The posterity (haply, not
immediate) of the righteous shall be blessed.
PULPIT. "We have now the name and pedigree of each of the three chief singers or
musicians (their duty was both vocal and instrumental) of David's appointment,
beginning, according to the analogy of 1 Chronicles 6:2, supra, with Heman, the
50

51. descendant of Kohath, instead of Asaph from Gershom. So the place of Heman was
still the place of honor, in the centre, with Asaph on the right and Ethan on the left
(1 Chronicles 6:39, 1 Chronicles 6:44). Heman is the twenty-first according to this
list (1 Chronicles 6:33-38) after Levi, but the genealogy is indistinct (see above, 1
Chronicles 6:22-28) between Shemuel and Assir, and according to Hervey, Heman
comes fourteenth after Levi. This Heman is to be distinguished from Heman the
"son of Zerah" (1 Chronicles 2:6), and with but little doubt, therefore, from Heman
the Ezrahite (Zerahite) of Psalms 88:1-18. On the other hand, a theory has been
suggested by Lord Arthur C. Hervey which might reconcile the two. He supposes
that if Heman the Kohathite (or his father) had married an heiress of the house of
Zerah, he might have become reckoned in the line of Zerah as well as in that of
Kohath.
34 the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham,
the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,
35 the son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah,
the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,
36 the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel,
the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,
37 the son of Tahath, the son of Assir,
51

52. the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,
38 the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath,
the son of Levi, the son of Israel;
ELLICOTT, "(38) Son of Israel.—Asaph and Ethan are traced to Levi. It was not
needful to repeat “son of Israel” in each case. For further remarks on the names in 1
Chronicles 6:34-38 see above Notes on 22-28, the lines being identical. The
numerous variants, however, seem to imply that the author drew from different
documents.
39 and Heman’s associate Asaph, who served at
his right hand:
Asaph son of Berekiah, the son of Shimea,, "
BARNES, "1Ch_6:39
His brother Asaph - Not “brother” in the ordinary sense of the term, since Asaph
was the son of Berachiah, and a Gershonite, not a Kohathite. “Brother” here may mean
“fellow-craftsman” (compare 1Ch_25:7).
CLARKE, "Asaph - This person, with Heman, the sons of Kora, Ethan, Jeduthun,
52

53. etc., are celebrated in these books, and in the Psalms, for their skill in singing, and the
part they performed in the public worship of God.
It is very likely that their singing was only a kind of recitative or chanting, such as we
still find in the synagogues. It does not appear that God had especially appointed these
singers, much less any musical instruments, (the silver trumpets excepted), to be
employed in his service. Musical instruments in the house of God are, at least under the
Gospel, repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, and tend not a little to corrupt the
worship of God. Those who are fond of music in the theater are fond of it in the house of
God when they go thither; and some, professing Christianity, set up such a spurious
worship in order to draw people to hear the Gospel! This is doing evil that good may
come of it; and by this means, light and trifling people are introduced into the Church of
Christ, and when in, are generally very troublesome, hard to be pleased, and difficult to
be saved.
GILL 39-43, "And his brother Asaph,.... That is, Heman's brother; so Asaph was, as
he was a descendant from the same original ancestor Levi, yet in the line of Gershon;
and as being of the same office, a precentor, or chief singer:
who stood on his right hand; he was next to Heman; Heman stood in the middle,
which was the most honourable (h), and Asaph on his right hand, and Ethan, after
mentioned, on his left; even Asaph, whose name is often met with in the book of Psalms;
and his genealogy here stands thus, as traced up to Levi, viz. Berechiah, Shimea,
Michael, Baaseiah, Malchiah, Ethni, Zerah, Adaiah, Ethan, Zimmah, Shimei, Jahath,
Gershon, Levi.
GILL, "And his brother Asaph,.... That is, Heman's brother; so Asaph was, as he
was a descendant from the same original ancestor Levi, yet in the line of Gershon; and as
being of the same office, a precentor, or chief singer:
who stood on his right hand; he was next to Heman; Heman stood in the middle,
which was the most honourable (h), and Asaph on his right hand, and Ethan, after
mentioned, on his left; even Asaph, whose name is often met with in the book of Psalms;
and his genealogy here stands thus, as traced up to Levi, viz. Berechiah, Shimea,
Michael, Baaseiah, Malchiah, Ethni, Zerah, Adaiah, Ethan, Zimmah, Shimei, Jahath,
Gershon, Levi.
JAMISON, "his brother Asaph — They were brothers naturally, both being
descended from Levi, as well as officially, both being of the Levitical order.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:39. His brother Asaph — Asaph is here called Heman’s
brother, according to the Hebrew phraseology, by which all near relations are
53

54. brothers; and because he was of the same office and employment.
ELLICOTT, " (39) His brother Asaph.—Asaph was Heman’s brother (1) as a
Levite; (2) as a choir-master.
The striking agreement of the line of Heman with that of the Kohathites, detailed in
1 Chronicles 6:22-28 above, has led critics to look for a like coincidence between the
line of Asaph as given here, and that of the Gershonites in 1 Chronicles 6:20-21.
There, however, we have only seven names, here there are thirteen. Still we observe
that in the former passage the three names, Jahath, Zimmah, and Zerah appear in
the same order of lineal descent from Gershon as in the present list; while the
Adaiah of 1 Chronicles 6:41 obviously answers to the Iddo of 1 Chronicles 6:21, and
Ethni (1 Chronicles 6:41) is in Hebrew writing not unlike Jeaterai; and we are
already familiar with the fact that genealogies sometimes recur in abbreviated
forms. (Comp. Ezra 7:1-5, with the line of Aaron in the present chapter.) Upon the
whole, therefore, if the suggested identifications be correct, it appears that Asaph’s
pedigree has really been partially anticipated in 1 Chronicles 6:20-21.
ELLICOTT, "(39-43) The pedigree of Asaph the Gershonite, traced back through
thirteen names to Levi. That of Heman names twenty ancestors for the same period
of time. This is one more illustration of the common usage of overleaping names in
these genealogies.
PULPIT, "Asaph is called brother of Heman, either as brother in office or generally
as relative in the degree of cousin by many removes. He stands fourteenth in line of
descent after Levi, while Ethan (1 Chronicles 6:44) stands thirteenth. If the line of
Heman (as given in 1 Chronicles 6:33-38) were correct. it would force on us the
conviction that there are several omissions in these two lines; but if these are
correct, we must conclude that there are unwarranted additions in the other. On the
names of Asaph's ancestors, see notes on 1 Chronicles 6:20, 1 Chronicles 6:21. From
2 Chronicles 29:30 it seems plain that Asaph was himself a composer of psalms, and
not simply either the musician or rehearser of those of David.
1 Chronicles 6:44
54

55. Ethan. This passage and 1 Chronicles 15:19 are the leading passages for this name
Ethan. But in succeeding references (and they are not a few) to the three chief
leaders of song, the name appears as Jeduthun; unless, as seems scarcely credible,
two different persons are designated. The occasion and significance of the alteration
of the name are not stated, however, and elude detection so far. In 2 Chronicles
35:15 the title of "king's seer" ( ‫ֶה‬‫ז‬ֹ‫ח‬ ) is added to the name Jeduthun, which is
variously spelt ( ‫תוּן‬ִ‫י‬ ְ‫יר‬ ‫יתדוּתוּן‬ ‫ֻתוּן‬‫ד‬ְ‫.)י‬ This arrangement of chief singers, one from
each of the three branches of Levi's family, lasted unbroken to Josiah's reign (2
Chronicles 35:13); and the representatives of Jeduthun, at all events, are mentioned
in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 11:17, Nehemiah 11:18). Kishi. The most
frequent form of this name is Kish ( ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫,ק‬ equivalent to the Vulgate Cis), if, indeed,
the form of this verse and that of 1 Chronicles 15:17, Kushaiah ( ‫ָהוּ‬‫י‬ ָ‫קוּשׁ‬ ), are not
merely the fruit of a corrupt text.
40 the son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah,[g]
the son of Malkijah,
41 the son of Ethni,
the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah,
42 the son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah,
the son of Shimei,
55

56. JAMISON, "Ethan — or Jeduthun (1Ch_9:16; 2Ch_35:15).
43 the son of Jahath,
the son of Gershon, the son of Levi;
44 and from their associates, the Merarites, at his
left hand:
Ethan son of Kishi, the son of Abdi,
the son of Malluk,
BARNES, "1Ch_6:44
Ethan - Or Jeduthun (see the margin). Corruption will scarcely account for the two
forms of the name, since Ethan is used persistently up to a certain point 1Ch_15:19, after
which we have uniformly “Jeduthun.” The case seems to be rather one in which a new
name was taken after a while, which thenceforth superseded the old. Compare Abraham,
Sarah, Joshua, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, etc.
GILL 44-47, "And their brethren, the sons of Merari,.... Who were the brethren
of the Kohathites and Gershonites, descending from the same ancestor Levi: stood
on the left hand; that is, of Heman, see 1Ch_6:39, the chief of whom was Ethan,
sometimes called Jeduthun, 1Ch_16:41 and often in the book of Psalms; his genealogy is
traced up to Levi thus; Kishi, called Kushaiah, 1Ch_15:17 Abdi, Malluch, Hashabiah,
Amaziah, Hilkiah, Amzi, Bani, Shamer, Mahli, Mushi, Merari, Levi.
56

57. BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:44. The sons of Merari stood on the left hand — The
children of the next son of Levi are here mentioned, who had the lowest place
assigned them, because they were of the youngest family. So there were three
principal singers, who were masters and governors of the whole choir: Heman,
descended from Koath, was the prime, who, together with his sons, stood in the
middle: Asaph, descended from Gershom, with his sons, stood on his right hand:
and Ethan, (called also Jeduthun, 1 Chronicles 9:16; 2 Chronicles 35:15, and in the
title of divers Psalms,) descended from Merari, on the left.
ELLICOTT, " (44-47) The pedigree of Ethan the Merarite, traced back through
twelve names to Levi. Ethan is no doubt the same as Jeduthun, 1 Chronicles 25:1; 2
Chronicles 35:15.
(44) And their brethren the sons of Merari.—We should say their comrades or
kinsmen (see Note on 1 Chronicles 6:39). “Brethren,” or “brothers,” is the natural
style for the members of a guild, whether religious like the monastic bodies, or
commercial like the city companies of London, or benevolent like the Freemasons.
The plural pronoun refers to the two preceding guilds of Heman and Asaph. The
Ethanites stood on the left of the Hemanites in the sanctuary, as the Asaphites stood
on their right, and this arrangement was hereditary.
Kishi is a contraction of Kushaiah, like Zabdi of Zebadiah.
(47) Son of Manli, the son of Mushi.—In 1 Chronicles 6:19 Mahli and Mushi appear
as two sons of Merari; so also at Lev. 3:20. Mahli son of Mushi here must be nephew
of the Mahli of those two passages, if the genealogical form is in each case to be
understood literally. It is difficult on a first inspection to perceive any connection
between the present list and that of the Merarites in 1 Chronicles 6:29-30. The series
there is:
57

58. Mahli, Libni, Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, and Asaiah.
Here we have:
Mushi, Mahli, Shamer, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi,
Kishi, and Ethan.
Now it is quite possible that both lines spring from Mushi son of Merari. We have
only to suppose that the name of Mushi has either dropped out or been omitted by
design in 1 Chronicles 6:29. In that case, of course, Mahli in each line becomes
identical. Next we remark that Libni in Hebrew adds but one letter (1) to Bani; and
these two may be variants of the same name. The second line is again more complete
than the first, as it supplies Shamer (Shemer) between Mahli and Bani-Libni.
Further. Uzzi and Amzi express the same idea—that of strength—and may
therefore indicate identity of person. The names Shimei and Shimeah are perhaps
inadvertent duplicates of each other; which may also be the case with Amzi and
Amaziah in the second series. Haggiah perhaps answers to Hilkiah.
Thus it may be right to regard this pedigree of Ethan as related to the Merarite line
of 1 Chronicles 6:29-30, in the same way as those of Heman and Asaph are related
to the first drafts of the Kohathite and Gershonite lines of descent, although the
connection is not so evident in the present instance, owing perhaps to corruption of
the text.
1 Chronicles 6:48-49 constitute the transition from the pedigrees of the three
Levitical choir-masters to the line of the sons of Aaron—Eleazar, which is here
repeated from Aaron to Ahimaaz. The form of the list is, however, different. Instead
of “Eleazar begat Phinehas,” it runs “Phinehas his son” &c. It is more likely that the
chronicler found this list already connected with what follows in the source which
he used for this section, than that he merely chose to repeat part of what he had
already given under a slightly altered form.
58

59. 45 the son of Hashabiah,
the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah,
46 the son of Amzi, the son of Bani,
the son of Shemer,
47 the son of Mahli,
the son of Mushi, the son of Merari,
the son of Levi.
48 Their fellow Levites were assigned to all the
other duties of the tabernacle, the house of God.
GILL, "Their brethren also the Levites,.... Who were not skilled in singing, and
employed in that service, even the rest of the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites:
were appointed unto all manner of service of the tabernacle of the house of
59

60. God; some were porters at the gates; others had the care of the vessels; others slew the
beasts for sacrifices, flayed them, and cut them up, and brought the pieces to the altar of
burnt offerings, for the priests to offer.
JAMISON, "Their brethren also the Levites were appointed unto all
manner of service — Those of them who were endowed with musical tastes and
talents were employed in various other departments of the temple service.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:48. Their brethren were appointed, &c. — Such of them
as had no skill in singing were otherwise employed; being porters, keepers of the
vessels of the sanctuary, occupied in preparing the sacrifices, and such like things. It
is observable, that in all the genealogies of the Levites, there is not a word said of the
sons of Moses and their posterity, he having no ambition to prefer them unto any
great office.
ELLICOTT, " (48) Their brethren also the Levites.—That is, the Levites who were
not musicians—the remaining Levites.
Appointed.—Literally, given—that is, to Aaron and his sons as their assistants;
Numbers 3:9 (Heb.), “And thou shalt give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons, given
are they to him from amongst the sons of Israel.” The word is nethûnîm. (Comp.
nethînim, an identical form, as the name of a well-known class of Temple-servants.)
Tabernacle.—Rather, dwelling-place (mishkan).
PULPIT, "The all manner of service, from that of the three "leaders of song" on
their "cymbals of brass" (1 Chronicles 15:19) down through the other Levitical
grades, is fully illustrated in many places (1 Chronicles 15:18-24; 1 Chronicles
16:37-42; 1 Chronicles 23:2-32; 1 Chronicles 25:1-8; 1 Chronicles 26:1-26).
BI, "And these are they whom David let over the service of song lit the house of the
Lord.
60

61. The ministry of song
I. Song an element of Christian worship.
II. Song an expression of human feeling.
III. Song a power for which its possessors are responsible. (J. Wolfendale.)
Religious worship
I. Worship varied in its forms.
II. Lively in its spirit.
III. Orderly in its method.
IV. Universal in its participation. (J. Wolfendale.).
49 But Aaron and his descendants were the ones
who presented offerings on the altar of burnt
offering and on the altar of incense in connection
with all that was done in the Most Holy Place,
making atonement for Israel, in accordance with
all that Moses the servant of God had
commanded.
GILL 49-53, "But Aaron and his sons,.... Those that descended from him, though of
the same tribe of Levi were all priests:
and they offered upon the altar of burnt offerings; the daily sacrifice, and all the
offerings of the people brought to them:
and on the altar of incense; they burnt incense night and morning: and were
appointed
61

62. for all the work of the place most holy; such as were high priests of the line of
Eleazar, whose work it was to go into the most holy place once a year:
to make atonement for all Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of
God commanded; in Lev_16:1 which see; and on mention of this, a list of the high
priests from Aaron, in the line of Eleazar, is given, to the times of Solomon, in the four
following verses, just in the same order as in 1Ch_6:4.
JAMISON, "1Ch_6:49-81. Office of Aaron and his sons.
But Aaron and his sons offered, etc. — The office and duties of the high priests
having been already described, the names of those who successively filled that important
office are recorded.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:49. But Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar — The
noblest part of the ministry was reserved for them. Aaron alone, and his successors
in the high-priesthood, made atonement and ministered in the most holy place. But
his sons, the other priests, offered on the altars of burnt- offering, and of incense.
ELLICOTT, " (49) But Aaron and his sons offered.—Literally, And Aaron and his
sons were offering. The participle denotes unintermitted action. “Aaron and his
sons” is a technical name for the priests, to whom, according to this passage, three
functions pertained: (1) sacrifice on the altars of burnt-offering and inconse; (2) the
work of the most holy place (Holy of holies); (3) atonement for Israel by special rites
of sacrifice and purification.
According to all that Moses . . . commanded.—This refers to the entire ministry of
the priests. The time in question is the Davidic age.
The servant of God.—Comp. Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:1; Joshua 1:13. After his
death, Moses is thrice called “servant of Jehovah,” in whose earthly household he
had been faithful as a servant (Hebrews 3:5). He fore-figures in grand if imperfect
outline that other servant of Jehovah, of whom the second half of Isaiah has so
much discourse. “Servant of God” (Elohîm) the chronicler writes, because in his day
62

63. the NAME was held in ever-increasing awe.
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:49-53
These verses allude to the more special functions of "Aaron and his sons," as they
are here called, i.e; his lineal descendants (1 Chronicles 6:4-15; Ezra 7:2-5), whose
names, stopping at Ahimaaz, the eleventh generation, are the same with those of 1
Chronicles 6:3-8. The manifest inference is that the present enumeration, stopping
with the name of one contemporary with David (2 Samuel 15:27), was borrowed
from tables of the date of David, and not of the date of the Captivity (veres 15).
1 Chronicles 6:49
The altar of the burnt offering (Le 1 Chronicles 1:3-17). The altar of incense
(Exodus 25:6; Exodus 30:1-7, Exodus 30:7-9, Exodus 30:34-38; Le Exodus 16:12).
Most holy (Le 1 Chronicles 16:12, 1 Chronicles 16:14, 1 Chronicles 16:15, 1
Chronicles 16:17, 1 Chronicles 16:20). An atonement for Israel (Le 1 Chronicles
16:3-19; 1 Chronicles 23:26-32; Numbers 29:1-40.. 7-11).
50 These were the descendants of Aaron:
Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son,
Abishua his son,
BARNES, "The sons of Aaron - This list, a mere repetition of that in 1Ch_6:3-8,
came, probably, from a different source - a source belonging to the time of David, with
whom Ahimaaz (the last name on the list) was contemporary. The other list 1Ch_6:4-15
63

64. came, no doubt, from a document belonging to the time of the captivity (see 1Ch_6:15).
CLARKE, "These are the sons of Aaron - We have already had a list of these,
(see 1Ch_6:3-16); this is a second, but less extensive, and is a proof that the writer of this
book had several lists before him, from which he borrowed as he judged proper.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:50. These are the sons of Aaron — Having mentioned the
work of the high-priests, he here briefly rehearseth the names of the persons who
successively performed it.
ELLICOTT, "(50-53) If the chronicler, and not his source, be held responsible for
this repetition of the Aaronite line, we may regard it as an instance of his inartificial
method of making a new start. He is about to pass from the Levitical genealogies to
their cities and domains, and he first partially recapitulates the line of Aaron’s sons,
because their seats are to be described first. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:1-2 with 16, 18.)
He stops at Ahimaaz, who lived in the age of David and Solomon, because,
apparently, the preceding section was mainly concerned with the Levites of that
epoch.
PULPIT, "Eleazar. The third son of Aaron (by Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab,
and descended from Judah through Pharez) is the sea whose descendants are given
here, inasmuch as he was appointed chief of the Levites (Numbers 3:32); ministered
as a priest with his brother Ithamar, even before the death of Aaron; and succeeded
him as high priest (Numbers 20:28). It was in Eleazar's family that the high
priesthood remained (as above) till the time of Eli, who was descended from
Ithamar, and it returned again to the line of Eleazar in Zadok, fulfilling the
intimation of 1 Samuel 2:30.
51 Bukki his son,
64

65. Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son,
52 Meraioth his son, Amariah his son,
Ahitub his son,
53 Zadok his son and Ahimaaz his son.
54 These were the locations of their settlements
allotted as their territory (they were assigned to
the descendants of Aaron who were from the
Kohathite clan, because the first lot was for
them):
BARNES, "Their’s was the lot - i. e. “the first lot.” The Kohathites had the first lot
among the Levitical families, as being the family whereto the high priesthood was
attached (compare Jos_21:10).
CLARKE, "Theirs was the lot - All the tribes and families obtained their
respective inheritances by lot, but to the sons of Aaron was the first lot; and so the Syriac
and Arabic have understood this place. The first lot, says Jarchi, fell to Judah, that they
might give to the priests and the Levites the cities marked below. See an account of the
possessions of the priests and Levites, Jos_20:1-9, 21.
GILL 54-81, "Now these are their dwelling places,.... The dwelling places of the
65

66. priests and Levites, assigned and given to them in the several tribes of Israel; and the
account of them agrees with that in Jos_21:1 with some few variations of names of
places, which have been there observed: see the notes there; only in 1Ch_6:57 two cities
are omitted, Juttah and Gibeon, through want of care in transcribing, since they are said
to be "thirteen", as they should be, whereas eleven only are mentioned. The Jews say (h),
the cities of the suburbs (those here mentioned) ceased from the time the first temple
was destroyed; and yet Ezra, who lived after the captivity, and the building the second
temple, here gives a very particular account of them; the suburbs belonging to every city,
which he particularly mentions, were 2000 cubits, both to the cities of refuge, and the
rest, Num_35:5 Hebron, the first city mentioned in the next verse, was a city of refuge,
and had suburbs of such a space; and it is remarkable, that some of the temples with the
Heathens, which were asylums, or places of refuge, had the space of 2000 paces assigned
them for the same sanctity and privilege (i).
HENRY 54-81, "We have here an account of the Levites' cities. They are here called
their castles (1Ch_6:54), not only because walled and fortified, and well guarded by the
country (for it is the interest of every nation to protect its ministers), but because they
and their possessions were, in a particular manner, the care of the divine providence: as
God was their portion, so God was their protection; and a cottage will be a castle to those
that abide under the shadow of the Almighty. This account is much the same with that
which we had, Jos. 21. We need not be critical in comparing them (what good will it do
us?) nor will it do any hurt to the credit of the holy scripture if the names of some of the
places be not spelt just the same here as they were there. We know it is common for
cities to have several names. Sarum and Salisbury, Salop and Shrewsbury, are more
unlike than Hilen (1Ch_6:58) and Holon (Jos_21:15), Ashan (1Ch_6:59) and Ain (Jos_
21:16), Alemeth (1Ch_6:60) and Almon (Jos_21:18); and time changes names. We are
only to observe that in this appointment of cities for the Levites God took care, 1. For the
accomplishment of dying Jacob's prediction concerning this tribe, that it should be
scattered in Israel, Gen_49:7. 2. For the diffusing of the knowledge of himself and his
law to all parts of the land of Israel. Every tribe had Levites' cities in it; and so every
room was furnished with a candle, so that none could be ignorant of his duty but it was
either his own fault or the Levites'. 3. For a comfortable maintenance for those that
ministered in holy things. Besides their tithes and offerings, they had glebe-lands and
cities of their own to dwell in. Some of the most considerable cities of Israel fell to the
Levites' lot. Every tribe had benefit by the Levites, and therefore every tribe must
contribute to their support. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that
teacheth, and do it cheerfully.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:54. Throughout their castles — So called, not only
because walled and well guarded by the country, but because they and their
possessions were in a particular manner the care of Divine Providence. As God was
their portion, so God was their protector. And a cottage will be a castle to those that
abide under the shadow of the Almighty. Theirs was the lot — Or, the first lot.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:54 Now these [are] their dwelling places throughout their
castles in their coasts, of the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites: for
66

67. theirs was the lot.
Ver. 54. Throughout their castles.] Or, Palaces. The priests dwelt not in poor
cottages, but in fair and fitting houses.
WHEDON, "54. Throughout their castles — Rather, according to their castles, or
encampments. These “castles” are thought by some to have been some kind of
watchtower, from which the trumpets were sounded — a use similar to that made
by the Moslems of their minarets. But most expositors, as Gesenius, Furst, Keil,
Zochler, take the word in the sense of hamlet, district, or circle of dwellings, such as
were assigned to the Levites among the several tribes.
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:54. For theirs was the lot— The first lot. Syriac and
Houbigant. See Joshua 21:10.
ELLICOTT, " (54) Render, “And these were their seats according to their
encampments within their border.” This, as the heading to all that follows, should
be stopped off therefrom. It does not occur in Joshua 21, and may indicate an
intermediate source used by the chronicler. The variant spellings of proper names,
many of which are not mere copyists’ blunders, point in the same direction.
Of the sons of Aaron.—Rather, “to the sons of Aaron, of the clan of the
Kohathites—for to them had fallen the lot—they gave to them Hebron,” &c. Joshua
21:10 has, “for to them the lot had fallen first.”
(54-81) The Levitical cities, beginning with those of the Aavonites, the principal
branch of the Kohathite clan. This list deals with the same topic as Joshua 21:3-40,
with which, upon the whole, it is in substantial agreement. 1 Chronicles 6:54-60 are
parallel to Joshua 21:10-19.
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:54-81
The writer returns upon his steps to give the cities and dwelling-places of the
67

68. Levites, beginning with the priestly members of the Kohathite line (1 Chronicles
6:54-61), then taking those of the Gershomite (1 Chronicles 6:62) and Merarite lines
(1 Chronicles 6:63-65) in order; and again in the same order disposing of the
members not priestly (1 Chronicles 6:66-70; 71-76; 77-81) of the same three
branches.
1 Chronicles 6:54-61, 1 Chronicles 6:64-70
And these are their dwellings according to their enclosures in their territories,
‫ם‬ ָ‫ירוֹת‬ ִ‫ט‬ means the settlements of whatever people in question, surrounded and
protected by whatever fence or defence customary. For theirs was the lot is more
intelligible with the addition of the word "first," supplied in Jos 31:10, i.e. theirs
was the first lot. The whole drift of the present passage, with the remainder of the
chapter, is made entirely plain by Numbers 8-35:1 and Joshua 10-21:1 . But the
omission and the alteration of individual names of places occasion some delay. Our
verse 55 is given somewhat more fully in Joshua 21:11; our verse 56 is identical with
Joshua 21:12; and our verses 60-57 correspond substantially with Joshua 19-21:13 ,
but from this latter source we are glad to supply the two names Juttah and Gibeon,
without which we cannot add up correctly the thirteen cities of verse 60. Also in
Joshua, our Hilen, Ashan, and Alemsth appear as Holon, Ain, and Almon
respectively, although in regard to the intermediate name of these three the places
cannot be accepted as identical, for they are mentioned side by side in Joshua 19:7
and in 1 Chronicles 4:32, but we must admit an error involved. Verse 56 (see Joshua
14:14; Joshua 21:12). Verse 61 seems to be an anticipation of verses 70-66 , with
which verses, if we incorporate it, we shall obtain substantially the same results as
are found in Joshua 21:5, Joshua 26-21:20 ; but again we are glad of the latter
source to supply for us the two places, Eltekeh and Gibbethon, necessary to enable
us to count up the ten cities of our verse 61, while our Jokmeam, Aner, and Bileam
appear as probably the corrected readings of Kibzaim, Tanach, and Gath-rimmon
respectively in Joshua. The sons of Kohath, left (verse 61), the residue (Authorized
Version, verse 66), the remnant (verse 70), point (as above) to the non-priestly
descendants in the Kohath line. Summing up, we see that the Kohathite priests had
thirteen cities from the allotments of Judah and Simeon and Benjamin, and the Ko-
hathite non-priests had ten, from Ephraim, Dan, and West Manasseh. One might
detect in all this some germ of the more modern parochial system, so far at least as
regards the distributed residence of a clerical and ministerial order, though not with
68

69. sacred buildings similarly distributed.
55 They were given Hebron in Judah with its
surrounding pasturelands.
TRAPP, "1 Chronicles 6:55 And they gave them Hebron in the land of Judah, and
the suburbs thereof round about it.
Ver. 55. Hebron, the city of refuge.] The six cities of refuge were cities of the Levites,
where guilty persons might be instructed and comforted, King James was wont to
say, that if God did allow him to kill a man by any means, he should think God did
not love him.
ELLICOTT, " (55) Hebron.—Josh., “the city of Arba, the father of the Anak, that
is, Hebron.”
In the land of Judah.—Josh., “hill-country” (har for ha’areç).
Suburbs.—The Hebrew migrashîm, pastures or commons, as opposed to arable land
(Authorised version, “fields;” Heb., sadeh). Numbers 35:3-5 defines the extent of the
Levitical domain round the cities where they dwelt.
Verse 55-56
(55, 56) Closely answering to Joshua 21:11-12.
69

70. 56 But the fields and villages around the city were
given to Caleb son of Jephunneh.
BARNES, "The writer evidently had before him Josh. 21, which he followed, as to its
matter, closely. In some cases he perhaps modernised the ancient names (1Ch_6:58,
1Ch_6:60, 1Ch_6:72, etc.); in a few he substituted for the old an entirely new name, the
modern apellation, probably, of the ancient site 1Ch_6:70, 1Ch_6:77. At one time, it
would seem, his intention was to give the cities of the priests only, and to content
himself with stating the mere number of the rest. His account of the matter was then
brought to a conclusion, and summed up, in 1Ch_6:64. But, afterward, either he or a
later writer thought it best to add to the list of the priestly cities the information
contained in Judges as to those which were not priestly, but merely Levitical. The
passage 1 Chr. 6:65-81 was then added.
The entire account has suffered much from corruption. In the first list two names,
those of Juttah and Gideon, have dropped out. It is necessary to restore them in order to
complete the number of thirteen cities 1Ch_6:60. In the second list 1Ch_6:67-70 there is
likewise an omission of two cities, Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which are wanted to make up
the number ten 1Ch_6:61. The third list is complete, though some of the names are very
different from these of Joshua. In the fourth, two names are again wanting, those of
Jokneam and Kartah.
57 So the descendants of Aaron were given
Hebron (a city of refuge), and Libnah,[h] Jattir,
Eshtemoa,
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:57. The cities of Judah— The author of this book, as well as
the author of the book of Joshua, (chap. 1 Chronicles 21:19.) expressly asserts, that
the cities given to the Levites were thirteen. In the catalogue before us, two of the
70

71. names are omitted, and only five of them written as they are in Joshua. The
differences in the 4th, 5th, and 6th names are very immaterial. The transposition of
the two last names shews no want of correctness in either catalogue. See Pilkington,
p. 30. Houbigant translates the beginning of this verse, moreover to the sons of
Aaron they gave for a city of refuge, Hebron with her suburbs, and Libna, &c.
ELLICOTT, " (57) They gave the cities of Judah.—Heb. text, the cities of refuge,
Hebron and Libnah, and her pastures. Of the cities mentioned only Hebron was an
asylum for the manslayer. The other cities of refuge were Kedesh-Naphtali,
Shechem, Bezer, Ramoth-Gilead, and Golan. (See Joshua 20:7-8.). Here our
translators have adopted the Hebrew marginal correction of the text. (Comp.
Joshua 21:13, which reads. “The manslayer’s city of refuge, Hebron.”) The same
inaccuracy recurs in 1 Chronicles 6:67, below.
With her suburbs.—With her pastures. The phrase has been omitted after Jattir
(Joshua 21:13).
58 Hilen, Debir,
ELLICOTT, " (58) Hilen.—Holon, which twice occurs in Joshua 15:51; Joshua
21:15, is a more natural form.
Debir.—Oracle, the inmost sanctuary; anciently, Kirjath-sepher (Book Town).
59 Ashan, Juttah[i] and Beth Shemesh, together
with their pasturelands.
ELLICOTT, "(59) Ashan (smoke); in Joshua, Ain (fountain). The place may have
71

72. had both names, from a fountain rising like a column of smoke. “Juttah and her
pastures” has fallen out here (Joshua 21:16). At the end of the verse Joshua adds,
“Nine cities out of these two tribes,” viz., Judah and Simeon.
60 And from the tribe of Benjamin they were
given Gibeon,[j] Geba, Alemeth and Anathoth,
together with their pasturelands.
The total number of towns distributed among the
Kohathite clans came to thirteen.
clarke, "All their cities - were thirteen - But there are only eleven reckoned here,
Gibeon and Juttah being omitted, and the names of some of the others changed. None of
the versions give the full number of names, although they all give the whole sum
thirteen.
JAMISON, "thirteen cities — No more than eleven are named here; but two
additional ones are mentioned (Jos_21:16, Jos_21:17), which makes up the thirteen.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:60. All their cities were thirteen — Of which eleven are
here numbered, and two more are mentioned Joshua 21:16-17, namely, Jattah and
Gibeon; which, perhaps, were in ruins when this book was written.
ELLICOTT, " (60) “Gibeon and her pastures” is omitted; probably an oversight,
due to the similarity of sound and form between Gibeon and Geba. Alemeth and
Almôn are each valid formations, and perhaps represent an older and younger
name of the place.
Thirteen cities.—The list in its present shape contains eleven. This proves that
72

73. Juttah and Gibeon should be restored to the text.
61 The rest of Kohath’s descendants were allotted
ten towns from the clans of half the tribe of
Manasseh.
JAMISON, "unto the sons of Kohath, which were left — that is, in addition to
the priests belonging to the same family and tribe of Levi.
by lot, ten cities — (Jos_21:26). The sacred historian gives an explanation (1Ch_
6:66). Eight of these are mentioned, but only two of them are taken out of the half tribe
of Manasseh (1Ch_6:70). The names of the other two are given (Jos_21:21), where full
and detailed notices of these arrangements may be found.
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:61. And unto the sons of Kohath—were given, &c.— And to
the rest of the sons of Kohath from the families of the tribe of Ephraim, and the
tribe of Dan, and the half tribe of Manasseh, were given by lot ten cities.
ELLICOTT, " (61) And unto the sons of Kohath, which were left of the family of
that tribe.—A comparison with Joshua 21:5 shows that the text is again mutilated.
That passage reads (Heb.), “And unto the sons of Kohath which were left, out of the
families [clans] of the tribe of Ephraim, and out of the tribe of Dan, and out of the
half of the tribe of Manasseh, by the lot, ten cities.” The curious redundancy of the
present text of 1 Chronicles 6:61, “Out of the half of the tribe of the half of
Manasseh”—a phrase which occurs nowhere else—suggests bad emendation of a
corrupt reading. The passage from Joshua undoubtedly gives the meaning here.
(Comp. 1 Chronicles 6:66-67, below.)
Verses 61-63
73

74. (61-63) These verses correspond to Joshua 21:5-7. They supply short statements of
the number of cities in the various tribes assigned to the non-Aaronic Kohathites, to
the Gershonites, and the Merarites.
62 The descendants of Gershon, clan by clan, were
allotted thirteen towns from the tribes of Issachar,
Asher and Naphtali, and from the part of the tribe
of Manasseh that is in Bashan.
ELLICOTT, " (62) Gershom (Josh., Gershon) throughout their families.—Heb., to
[i.e., with regard to, after] their clans (so 1 Chronicles 6:63). In 1 Chronicles 6:60,
“throughout their families” represents Heb. in their clans.
Tribe of Manasseh in Bashan.—Joshua, “half- tribe.”
JAMISON, "to the sons of Gershom — Supply “the children of Israel gave.”
PULPIT, "1 Chronicles 6:62
The twenty-three cities that belonged to the sons of Kohath are now followed by the
thirteen due to the sons of Gershom, taken from the tribes of Issachar, Asher,
Naphtali, and half Manasseh. The fact only is stated here, the details being supplied
in verses 71-76. And it is easily to be seen that, as from the most important tribes
were levied the cities for Levites first in precedence, so the same principle is
observed to the end.
63 The descendants of Merari, clan by clan, were
74

75. allotted twelve towns from the tribes of Reuben,
Gad and Zebulun.
ELLICOTT, "(63) This verse is word for word the same as Joshua 21:7, omitting
the one term “by lot.”
PULPIT."The distribution of cities to the third branch of Levi's family, that of
Merari, now follows. They are selected, four from each of the tribes of Reuben, Gad,
Zebulun (Joshua 21:7, Joshua 21:34-40).
64 So the Israelites gave the Levites these towns
and their pasturelands.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 64-65
(64, 65) “So the sons of Israel gave to the Levites the cities and their pastures. And
they gave by the lot, out of the tribe of the sons of Judah, and out of the tribe of the
sons of Simeon, and out of the tribe of the sons of Benjamin, those cities which are
called by names;” named, that is, in the list of 1 Chronicles 6:55-60, above. This is
clearly a summing up of the whole account so far. The eleven tribes have all been
mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:61-65.
The “cities” of 1 Chronicles 6:64 are those included in 1 Chronicles 6:61-63. So the
parallel verse (Joshua 21:8) refers back to Joshua 21:5-7, which is parallel to our 1
Chronicles 6:61-63. Joshua 21:9 (=our 1 Chronicles 6:65) introduces the names of
the cities which fell to the Aaronites. But there is no real divergence between that
account and this; because 1 Chronicles 6:65 also refers back to the list of the same
75

76. cities in 1 Chronicles 6:55-60. The chronicler adds Benjamin, with reference to 1
Chronicles 6:60, to make his tribal list complete.
(66–81) The names of the cities numbered in 1 Chronicles 6:61-64. (Comp. Joshua
21:20-26.)
65 From the tribes of Judah, Simeon and
Benjamin they allotted the previously named
towns.
CLARKE, "Which are called by their names - Probably each family gave its own
name to the city that fell to its lot.
66 Some of the Kohathite clans were given as their
territory towns from the tribe of Ephraim.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:66. Had cities of their coasts — Or, of their borders, that
is, of their country contained within its borders: these cities were assigned the
families of the sons of Kohath, though they were not priests, for their support in a
lower ministry.
ELLICOTT, "(66) And the residue of the families.—The Hebrew text can hardly
mean this; and Joshua 21:20 shows that it is incorrect. The original text must have
been, “And to the families of the sons of Kohath:—and the cities of their border
were of the tribe of Ephraim.” The construction breaks off, and a new start is made
76

77. by the words “and the cities,” &c. The verse is abridged as compared with Joshua,
50100
67 In the hill country of Ephraim they were given
Shechem (a city of refuge), and Gezer,[k]
JAMISON 67-81, "they gave unto them of the cities of refuge — The names of
the cities given here are considerably different from those applied to them (Jos_
21:13-19). In the lapse of centuries, and from the revolutions of society, changes might
have been expected to take place in the form or dialectic pronunciation of the names of
those cities; and this will sufficiently account for the variations that are found in the lists
as enumerated here and in an earlier book. As to these cities themselves that were
assigned to the Levites, they were widely remote and separated - partly in fulfillment of
Jacob’s prophecy (Gen_49:7), and partly that the various districts of the country might
obtain a competent supply of teachers who might instruct the people in the knowledge,
and animate them to the observance, of a law which had so important a bearing on the
promotion both of their private happiness and their national prosperity.
BENSON, "1 Chronicles 6:67. They gave unto them of the cities of refuge — That is, the children of
Israel, as it is expressed 1 Chronicles 6:64, gave to the residue of the Kohathites the following cities,
part out of Ephraim, and part out of the half-tribe of Manasseh. As to the names of these cities,
divers of them differ from those mentioned as given to them Joshua 21:15. Nor is it strange that the
names of places should be changed in so many hundreds of years as had intervened between Joshua
and this time. And as to the cities themselves, it is further to be observed, that they were dispersed
among all the tribes, partly that Jacob’s prophecy might be fulfilled concerning the scattering of the
tribe of Levi, Genesis 49:7; and partly that every tribe might have teachers among them by whom
they might be directed in, and quickened to, the observation of God’s laws, upon which their safety
and happiness wholly depended.
ELLICOTT, " (67) And they gave unto them, of the cities of refuge . . .—The correct version of the
Hebrew text is, “And they gave unto them the cities of refuge, Shechem and her pastures, in the hill-
country of Ephraim; and Gezer and her pastures.” Perhaps both here and in 1 Chronicles 6:57 above
“city” (‘iyr), and not “cities” (‘arey), is the original reading. We have already noticed many
77

78. indications of textual corruption in this and the former section. Gezer was not a city of refuge. (See
Note on 1 Chronicles 6:57.) Joshua 21:21 has the singular.
68 Jokmeam, Beth Horon,
ELLICOTT, "(68) Jokmeam.—Joshua has Kibzaim, a name omitted by the LXX.
Vatic. Jokmeam is probably right. The other might easily be a misreading of it,
owing to confusion of similar letters. The site is unknown. The four cities of 1
Chronicles 6:67-68 lay in Ephraim. Beth-horon, Gibeon, and Aijalon, the scenes of
the great and providentially determined overthrow of the five kings of the Amorites,
were appropriately assigned to the sacred tribe of Levi.
69 Aijalon and Gath Rimmon, together with their
pasturelands.
CLARKE, "Aijalon with her suburbs - There are the two cities wanting here,
Eltekeh and Gibethon. See Jos_21:23.
ELLICOTT, "(69) Aijalon with her suburbs . . .—Joshua 21:23-24, “And out of the
tribe of Dan, Eltekeh and her pastures, Gibbethon and her pastures, Aijalon and
her pastures, Gath-rimmon and her pastures; four cities.” Clearly there is a lacuna
in our text between 1 Chronicles 6:68-69. It has been supposed that the chronicler
omits mention of the tribe of Dan, here and elsewhere, owing to a religious
prejudice, because of the illicit form of worship of which the city Dan was the
centre. It is more likely that such omissions are not chargeable to the chronicler, but
78

79. either to the imperfection of his sources, or to the carelessness, and perhaps
malpractice, of his copyists and editors. (See further Note on 1 Chronicles 7:12.)
70 And from half the tribe of Manasseh the
Israelites gave Aner and Bileam, together with
their pasturelands, to the rest of the Kohathite
clans.
ELLICOTT, " (70) Aner . . . Bileam.—Joshua 21:25 reads, “Taa-nach [see Joshua
17:11] and Gath-rimmon.” The latter is a mere repetition from the preceding verse.
Bileam is a man’s name, being the Hebrew spelling of Balaam. It should be Ibleam
(Joshua 17:11). So the LXX. Aner (Genesis 14:13) is also a man, one of Abraham’s
allies. Taanach is probably right, the last three letters of the Hebrew word closely
resembling those of Aner.
For the family.—Better, unto the family of the sons of Kohath who were left. This
depends on the idea of giving (1 Chronicles 6:67). The phrase is a sort of
subscription to the whole list of 1 Chronicles 6:67-70. For “family” the plural should
be read, as in Joshua 21:26.
71 The Gershonites received the following:
From the clan of the half-tribe of Manasseh
they received Golan in Bashan and also
Ashtaroth, together with their pasturelands;
79

80. CLARKE 71-77, "We shall see from Jos_21:28, etc., that several of these cities have
different names.
How barren to us is this register, both of incident and interest! and yet, as barren
rocks and sandy deserts make integral and necessary parts of the globe; so do these
genealogical tables make necessary parts of the history of providence and grace in the
maintenance of truth, and the establishment of the Church of Christ. Therefore no one
that fears God will either despise or lightly esteem them.
PULPIT, "Golan was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan (Joshua
20:8), the other two being Bezer, of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead, of
the tribe of Gad. Ashtaroth, in its previous history, had been closely connected with
Og King of Bashan (Deuteronomy 1:4; Joshua 9:9, Joshua 9:10; Joshua 12:4,
Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:12). It is called Beeshterah in Joshua 21:27.
72 from the tribe of Issachar
they received Kedesh, Daberath,
PULPIT, "Kedesh. There were three places of this name.
1. Kedesh, at the extreme south of Judah (Joshua 15:23; Joshua 19:20, Joshua
19:21), perhaps the same with Kadesh-barnea (Joshua 15:3).
2. The Kedesh of this verse, perhaps the same with the Kedesh of Joshua 13:22; it is
called Kishon in Joshua 21:28.
3. The Kedesh of verse 76, i.e. Kedesh in Galilee, one of the cities of refuge in the
80

81. tribe of Naphtali (Joshua 19:37; Joshua 20:7; Joshua 21:32; 4:6-10). Daberath
(Authorized Version, Dabaroh, Joshua 21:28); mentioned as on the boundary of
Zebulun in Joshua 19:12.
73 Ramoth and Anem, together with their
pasturelands;
PULPIT, "Ramoth; called in Joshua 21:28, Joshua 21:29, Jarmuth; a place of which
nothing else is known, but possibly one with Remeth (Joshua 19:21). Ahem;
probably the En-gannim of Joshua 19:21 and Joshua 21:29, and perhaps a
contraction of the name.
74 from the tribe of Asher
they received Mashal, Abdon,
PULPIT 74-76, "Mashal, Hukok, Hammon, Kirjathaim, are found as Mishal,
Helkath, Hammoth-dor, Kartan, in Joshua 21:30, Joshua 21:31, Joshua 21:32;
Joshua 19:35.
75 Hukok and Rehob, together with their
pasturelands;
76 and from the tribe of Naphtali
they received Kedesh in Galilee, Hammon and
81

82. Kiriathaim, together with their pasturelands.
77 The Merarites (the rest of the Levites) received
the following:
From the tribe of Zebulun
they received Jokneam, Kartah,[l] Rimmono and
Tabor, together with their pasturelands;
COFFMAN, "By far the greater space was devoted to the genealogies of the Levites.
"The reason for this, of course, was the importance of the priestly tribe in the
religious life of Israel."[1]
An amazing feature of these is the use of the same names over and over from
generation to generation. The time covered by these genealogies reaches all the way
back to Israel (Jacob); and many of the names encountered here remind us of
historical events centered around those names throughout the Old Testament. My
comments on some of those occurrences are in Exodus 6; 1Sam. 1,1 Samuel 8, and in
Joshua 21.
"Nadab and Abihu" (1 Chronicles 6:3). Their offering strange fire before Jehovah
and their untimely death are recorded in Leviticus 20:1-2, and in Numbers 3:4.
They left no children.
A most significant fact that appears in this chapter is that all of the services of the
tabernacle are presented as reaching all the way back to the Exodus; and the
Chronicler tells us that their ceremonies were observed, "According to all that
Moses the servant of God had commanded." (1 Chronicles 6:49). Elmslie, speaking
of this verse, declared it to be "emphatically stated."[2] The sacred author of
Chronicles had evidently never heard of that fairy tale regarding that "D"
82

83. Document allegedly discovered by Hilkiah in the days of Josiah. What is stated here
could never have been written if that `discovery' had been anything other than the
Pentateuch (every single word of it).
"All their cities were thirteen" (1 Chronicles 6:60). "Eleven of these are given here,
and the other two are supplied in Joshua 21."[3]
The importance of these genealogies for the returning Israelites from their captivity
in Babylon was stressed by Simmons: "It was important for them to realize that
their captivity had been only an interruption of their religious and national life.
These genealogies gave them a most significant link with their past. They created a
continuity between the pre-exilic and post-exilic Israel."[4]
COKE, "1 Chronicles 6:77. Out of the tribe of Zebulun— Here are some names
changed, and some omitted; for in Joshua 21:34-35 four cities are assigned to the
Merarites out of the tribe of Zebulun; whereas two only are mentioned here, the
names of which are not the same. See and compare the places.
REFLECTIONS.—The Levites were distributed throughout the tribes, that the
people might be better taught; taken off all worldly employments, that they might
give themselves up to the work of the ministry; and liberally provided with cities to
dwell in, and the tithes for their maintenance. The names of the cities are much the
same as Joshua 21 except some trivial differences, which time may be supposed to
have made. Note; (1.) They deserve a liberal provision, who labour in the word and
doctrine. (2.) They who neglect the Levite's work, to eat the bread of the church in
idleness, not only rob their brethren, but rob God also.
PULPIT, "Unto the rest of the children of Merari. Since none have yet been spoken
of as having received their cities, we find the explanation of these words in their
order in Joshua 21:34, "Unto the families of the children of Merari, the rest of the
Levites." To our list here, Jokneam and Kartah (Joshua 21:34) need to be supplied,
and Rimmon and Tabor here appear (Joshua 21:35), there as Dimnah and Nahalai.
83

84. 78 from the tribe of Reuben across the Jordan
east of Jericho
they received Bezer in the wilderness, Jahzah,
PULPIT, "Bezer. The full description of the place is "Bezer in the wilderness, in the
land of the Mishor" (Deuteronomy 4:43), and "Bezer in the wilderness, in the
Mishor," i.e. "the plain," or as some, "the downs" (Joshua 20:8). This, as mentioned
above, was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan. Jahzah (Authorized
Version, Joshua 21:36, Jahazah).
79 Kedemoth and Mephaath, together with their
pasturelands;
PULPIT, "The two names of this verse, with the two of the preceding, i.e. all the
four names of the cities of Reuben, are absent from their proper place in the list in
Joshua 21:1-45. in the Hebrew Textus Receptus and the Vulgate, though found in
Joshua 13:18.
80 and from the tribe of Gad
they received Ramoth in Gilead, Mahanaim,
81 Heshbon and
84

85. Jazer, together with their pasturelands.
Footnotes:
1 Chronicles 6:1 In Hebrew texts 6:1-15 is
numbered 5:27-41, and 6:16-81 is numbered
6:1-66.
1 Chronicles 6:14 Hebrew Jehozadak, a variant
of Jozadak; also in verse 15
1 Chronicles 6:16 Hebrew Gershom, a variant
of Gershon; also in verses 17, 20, 43, 62 and 71
1 Chronicles 6:26 Some Hebrew manuscripts,
Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts
Ahimoth 26 and Elkanah. The sons of Elkanah:
1 Chronicles 6:27 Some Septuagint manuscripts
(see also 1 Samuel 1:19,20 and 1 Chron. 6:33,34);
Hebrew does not have and Samuel his son.
1 Chronicles 6:28 Some Septuagint manuscripts
and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 8:2 and 1 Chron.
85

86. 6:33); Hebrew does not have Joel.
1 Chronicles 6:40 Most Hebrew manuscripts;
some Hebrew manuscripts, one Septuagint
manuscript and Syriac Maaseiah
1 Chronicles 6:57 See Joshua 21:13; Hebrew
given the cities of refuge: Hebron, Libnah.
1 Chronicles 6:59 Syriac (see also Septuagint
and Joshua 21:16); Hebrew does not have Juttah.
1 Chronicles 6:60 See Joshua 21:17; Hebrew
does not have Gibeon.
1 Chronicles 6:67 See Joshua 21:21; Hebrew
given the cities of refuge: Shechem, Gezer.
1 Chronicles 6:77 See Septuagint and Joshua
21:34; Hebrew does not have Jokneam, Kartah.
86