THE SONS OF Levi:
Gershon, Kohath and Merari.
2The sons of Kohath:
Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.
3The children of Amram:
Aaron, Moses and Miriam.
The sons of Aaron:
Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
4Eleazar was the father of Phinehas,
Phinehas the father of Abishua,
5Abishua the father of Bukki,
Bukki the father of Uzzi,
6Uzzi the father of Zerahiah,
Zerahiah the father of Meraioth,
7Meraioth the father of Amariah,
Amariah the father of Ahitub,
8Ahitub the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Ahimaaz,
9Ahimaaz the father of Azariah,
Azariah the father of Johanan,
10Johanan the father of Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the temple Solomon built in Jerusalem),
11Azariah the father of Amariah,
Amariah the father of Ahitub,
12Ahitub the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Shallum,
13Shallum the father of Hilkiah,
Hilkiah the father of Azariah,
14Azariah the father of Seraiah,
and Seraiah the father of Jehozadak.
15Jehozadak was deported when the LORD sent Judah and
Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.
16The sons of Levi:
Gershon, Kohath and Merari.
17These are the names of the sons of Gershon:
Libni and Shimei.
Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.
19The sons of Merari:
Mahli and Mushi.
These are the clans of the Levites listed according to their fathers:
20Of Gershon:
Libni his son, Jehath his son,
Zimmah his son, 21Joah his son,
Iddo his son, Zerah his son
and Jeatherai his son.
22The descendants of Kohath:
Amminadab his son, Korah his son,
Assir his son, 23Elkanah his son,
Ebiasaph his son, Assir his son,
24Tahath his son, Uriel his son,
Uzziah his son and Shaul his son.
25The descendants of Elkanah:
Amasai, Ahimoth,
26Elkanah his son, Zophai his son,
Nahath his son, 27Eliab his son,
Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son
and Samuel his son.
28The sons of Samuel:
Joel the firstborn
and Abijah the second son.
29The descendants of Merari:
Mahli, Libni his son,
Shimei his son, Uzzah his son,
30Shimea his son, Haggiah his son
and Asaiah his son.
31These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the LORD after the ark came to rest there. 32They 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.
33Here are the men who served, together with their sons:
From the Kohathites:
Heman, the musician,
the son of Joel, the son of Samuel,
34the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham,
the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,
35the son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah,
the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,
36the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel,
the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,
37the son of Tahath, the son of Assir,
the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,
38the son of Izhar,
the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel;
39and Heman’s associate Asaph, who served at his right hand:
Asaph son of Berekiah, the son of Shimea,
40the son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah,
the son of Malkijah, 41the son of Ethni,
the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah,
42the son of Ethan,
the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimei, 43the son of Jahath,
the son of Gershon, the son of Levi;
44and from their associates, the Merarites, at his left hand:
Ethan son of Kishi, the son of Abdi,
the son of Malluch, 45the son of Hashabiah,
the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah,
46the son of Amzi, the son of Bani,
the son of Shemer,
47the son of Mahli,
the son of Mushi, the son of Merari,
the son of Levi.
48Their fellow Levites were assigned to all the other duties of the tabernacle, the house of God. 49But 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.
50These were the descendants of Aaron:
Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son,
Abishua his son, 51Bukki his son,
Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son,
52Meraioth his son, Amariah his son,
Ahitub his son, 53Zadok his son
and Ahimaaz his son.
54These 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):
55They were given Hebron in Judah with its surrounding pasturelands. 56But the fields and villages around the city were given to Caleb son of Jephunneh.
57So the descendants of Aaron were given Hebron (a city of refuge), and Libnah, Jattir, Eshtemoa, 58Hilen, Debir, 59Ashan, Juttah and Beth Shemesh, together with their pasturelands. 60And from the tribe of Benjamin they were given Gibeon, Geba, Alemeth and Anathoth, together with their pasturelands.
These towns, which were distributed among the Kohathite clans, were thirteen in all.
61The rest of Kohath’s descendants were allotted ten towns from the clans of half the tribe of Manasseh.
62The 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.
63The descendants of Merari, clan by clan, were allotted twelve towns from the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Zebulun.
64So the Israelites gave the Levites these towns and their pasturelands. 65From the tribes of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin they allotted the previously named towns.
66Some of the Kohathite clans were given as their territory towns from the tribe of Ephraim.
67In the hill country of Ephraim they were given Shechem (a city of refuge), and Gezer, 68Jokmeam, Beth Horon, 69Aijalon and Gath Rimmon, together with their pasturelands.
70And from half the tribe of Manasseh the Israelites gave Aner and Bileam, together with their pasturelands, to the rest of the Kohathite clans.
71The 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;
72from the tribe of Issachar
they received Kedesh, Daberath, 73Ramoth and Anem,
together with their pasturelands;
they received Mashal, Abdon, 75Hukok and Rehob, together with their pasturelands;
76and from the tribe of Naphtali
they received Kedesh in Galilee, Hammon and Kiriathaim, together with their pasturelands.
77The Merarites (the rest of the Levites) received the following:
From the tribe of Zebulun
they received Jokneam, Kartah, Rimmono and Tabor, together with their pasturelands;
78from the tribe of Reuben across the Jordan east of Jericho
they received Bezer in the desert, Jahzah, 79Kedemoth and Mephaath, together with their pasturelands;
80and from the tribe of Gad
they received Ramoth in Gilead, Mahanaim, 81Heshbon and Jazer, together with their pasturelands.
Original Meaning
ALONG WITH JUDAH and Benjamin, Levi was one of the three prominent tribes in the Chronicler’s retelling of Israelite history. The importance of Levi is attested both by its central position in the tribal genealogies and its length, second only to the register of Judah (2:3–4:23). It has been suggested that the overall design of the Chronicler’s genealogical preface was patterned after the layout of the camp of the Hebrew tribes following the Exodus.1 This not only helps explain the centrality of the family tree of Levi in the genealogical records of Chronicles but also underscores the theological significance of that tribe for all Israel. According to the instructions of Moses, Levi encamped in the very midst of the Hebrew tribes, and centered among the priests and clans of Levites was the tabernacle and the sacred ark (Num. 1:47–2:34).
The genealogy may be divided into two sections: Levitical genealogies (6:1–53) and the settlement of the priests and Levites (6:54–81). Each section treats the priests and Levites separately: the genealogy of the high priests (6:1–15), the genealogies of the three Levitical orders (6:16–30), the Levitical singers (6:31–47), priestly duties (6:48–53), the settlement of the priests (6:54–60), and the settlement of the Levites (6:61–81).
The genealogical trees of Levi are segmented in that they contain lists of names representing both breadth (i.e., a list of a single generation of descendants from a common ancestor, e.g., 6:1–3) and depth (a listing of successive generations, e.g., 6:4–15). Some of the genealogies are descending, listing names from parent to child (e.g., 6:1–15); others are ascending, listing names from child to parent (e.g., 6:33–47). Williamson has helpfully diagrammed a sevenfold pattern that accents the high priests:2
Fig 5. Genealogy Trees of Levi
We have already learned that genealogical lists serve a number of theological purposes in the biblical narrative, especially legitimizing an individual or a family in an office or enhancing the stature of an individual, clan, or tribe by linkage to an important figure of the past.3 Such is the case with the descendants of Levi as they mediate the worship of God for all Israel through the priesthood. As Wilcock has noted, “Levi thus provides religious leadership which acts as a binding force through the length of Israel’s history and the breadth of its territory.”4
More specifically, central to the religious leadership provided by the tribe of Levi was “making atonement for Israel” (6:49). Selman has observed that out of all the families of the tribal lists, only the lines of David and Aaron trace their lineage from the patriarchs to the Exile. In both cases these genealogies are preceded by examples of Israelite unfaithfulness resulting in national catastrophe. Selman concludes that the tribes of Judah and Levi “seem to be the means through which even covenant-breaking sins could be atoned for (6:49; cf. 2 Chron. 36:22–23).”5
The Priestly Line of Levi (5:1–15)
THE SONS OF LEVI (Gershon, Kohath, and Merari) are always ordered according to age (cf. Gen. 46:11; Ex. 6:16; Num. 3:17). The focus of the initial genealogy of Levi, however, is Kohath (1 Chron. 6:2) since he was the ancestor of the Aaronite high priests (6:3). The listing of the Aaronite high priests preserves twenty-one generations from Eleazar to Jehozadak, but it is not a complete genealogical record (e.g., Eli [1 Sam. 14:3] and Jehoiada [2 Kings 11:9] are missing). The first six generations of the register (Levi to Phineas) have been extracted from the family record of Moses and Aaron (Ex. 6:16–25).
The genealogy highlights two priests with anecdotes: Azariah, who served as priest in Solomon’s temple (6:10), and Jehozadak, who was deported to Babylonia at the time of Jerusalem’s exile (6:15). Both events were watersheds in Israelite history. The erection of a permanent sanctuary for the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem redefined the Levitical priesthood, while the Babylonian exile indelibly marked Israelite history and theology.
Critics have challenged the authenticity of the Chronicler’s Levitical genealogy, citing among other problems the “artificial” linkage of Zadok (6:8) to the Aaronite priesthood. Outside of the names of his father Ahitub (2 Sam. 8:17), his son Ahimaaz (2 Sam. 15:36), and his grandson Azariah (1 Kings 4:2), we know nothing of Zadok apart from the Chronicler’s record. Given this lack of external verification, Selman has charged that it is arbitrary to disparage the genealogical records of Chronicles as confused or inaccurate.6 In fact, the Chronicler’s genealogy agrees precisely with Ezra’s listing of the Levitical family tree from the generations of Aaron to Meraioth (6:3–6) and Azariah to Seraiah (6:11–14; cf. Ezra 7:5; Neh. 11:11). Many of the other names cited by the Chronicler are attested elsewhere in the biblical record (e.g., Azariah, cf. 1 Kings 4:2; Amariah, cf. Ezra 7:3; Shallum, cf. Ezra 7:2).
When the integrity of Chronicles is challenged, we must insist, like Myers, that “the Chronicler’s story is accurate wherever it can be checked, though the method of presentation is homiletical.”7 Stated more simply, Chronicles is reliable biblical history preached as a sermon.
No doubt the Chronicler’s list of priestly names elicits a variety of responses from his audience as they replay the biblical stories connected with each character. For example, the tragic account of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu (6:3) for violating the order of sacrifice in their drunkenness is a sober reminder of God’s holiness and the dire consequences of covenant disobedience (cf. Lev. 10:1–11). Phinehas (6:4) distinguished himself as a champion of faithfulness to Yahweh in his righteous response to Israel’s idolatry at Baal Peor (Num. 25:7–9). His zeal for the Lord’s honor resulted in a covenant of peace and everlasting priesthood for his descendants (Num. 25:10–13). The high priest Hilkiah (1 Chron. 6:13) found the Book of the Law that precipitated the social and religious reforms of King Josiah (2 Chron. 34:14).
The horrific onslaught of Nebuchadnezzar against the kingdom of Judah included the priesthood, for the chief priest Seraiah (6:14) was among those Hebrew officials executed by the king of Babylon after the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:18–21). Yet it was his son Jehozadak who was father to the high priest Jeshua, leader of the Hebrew repatriation of Judah after the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 3:2; 5:2).
The story of triumph or tragedy attached to each name of the Levitical genealogy serves to exhort and admonish the Chronicler’s audience. More than that, they plant seeds of hope for the imminent installation of the kingdom of that royal priest after the order of Melchizedek, who will destroy the enemies of the Israelites (Ps. 110:4).
The Sons of Levi (6:16–30)
THIS SECTION OF the genealogy introduces the three sons of Levi, each one as a founding ancestor of a major division of the Levitical corps: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.8 The Chronicler’s source for the listing is the record of the Levitical clans found in Numbers 3:17–20 (cf. Ex. 6:16–19). The genealogies of Levi’s descendants demonstrate breadth (or horizontal relationship of offspring from a common ancestor) for two successive generations for each of Levi’s three sons (1 Chron. 6:16–19). Furthermore, they demonstrate depth (or the listing of successive generations) in recording seven generations of Gershonites (6:20) and Merarites (6:29). The clan genealogies appear to descend (i.e., arranged from father to son) to the time of Saul and David (given the reference to Samuel’s sons in 6:28 [cf. 1 Sam. 8:2–3] and the reference to Asaiah in 1 Chron. 6:30 [cf. 15:6]).
The genealogy of the Kohathite clan presents numerous problems. Amminadab is listed as a fifth son of Kohath (6:22), but his name is not found in any of the other family trees of Levi. In addition, the lengthy and intricate roster of descendants of Kohath includes five Elkanahs (6:23, 25, 26 [2×], 27).9 Most biblical scholars assume Amminadab is another name for one of Kohath’s other four sons (perhaps Ishar?).10 Scholars also tend to assume that the relationships for the descendants of Korah are horizontal rather than vertical (6:22–23), thus compressing the descending genealogy of Kohath into seven generations like those of Gershon and Merari.11 The hypothetical reconstruction is speculative and proves unconvincing. It seems better to recognize the integrity of each genealogical record, harmonize the data where possible given parallel sources, but acknowledge our understanding of all the horizontal and vertical relationships in the extensive lists of names in Chronicles may be only partial in some cases.
The family tree of Samuel (6:26–28) has been added to the clan of Kohath’s genealogy in basic agreement with 1 Samuel 1:1 and 8:2.12 The name of Samuel’s firstborn son, Joel, has been rightly added to the NIV text of Chronicles on the basis of the parallel passages (see NIV textual note on 1 Chron. 6:28). The tragic record of the unfaithfulness of Samuel’s sons to the commands of the Mosaic covenant and their heritage as priests is found in 1 Samuel 8:2–3. As a result of their corrupt leadership, the Israelites requested a king to rule the tribes (1 Sam. 8:4–5). Another descendant of Samuel, his grandson Heman, was a temple music director (1 Chron. 6:33). Perhaps the Chronicler is seeking to call to mind the era of Samuel, an era that parallels his own in that prior to Samuel, “the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions” (1 Sam. 3:1).
The Temple Musicians (6:31–47)
KING DAVID’S PREPARATIONS for a permanent sanctuary for the worship of Yahweh necessitated a reorganization of the nonpriestly Levites, whose services were no longer required as porters, assemblers, and custodians of the portable sanctuary. The Chronicler summarizes the reassignment of Levitical duties under the dual headings of music for the house of God (6:31–32) and duties related to the tabernacle (6:48). The families of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, each representing one of the three sons of Levi, were appointed as music directors for temple worship. Apparently the Levitical musicians split the duties of the music ministry between the “house of the LORD” in Jerusalem where “the ark came to rest” (6:31; cf. 15:1–3) and the tabernacle in Gibeon (cf. 16:39–42) until the completion of Solomon’s temple (6:32).
Heman (6:33) oversaw the ministry of music in the house of the Lord (6:31; cf. 15:16–17). He was among those charged to sound the bronze cymbals when the ark of the Lord entered Jerusalem (15:19). Elsewhere we learn his responsibilities included the accompaniment of sacred songs with both trumpets and cymbals (16:42). The superscription of Psalm 88 credits the composition to Heman. Finally, Heman and the other musicians were given the expanded role of “prophesying” to musical accompaniment (1 Chron. 25:1). The context there (25:2–3) suggests that the combined activity of singing and playing an instrument is construed in some technical sense as “prophesying” (esp. since the musicians are composing temple psalmody).13
The genealogy of Heman is traced through twenty-two generations of the clan of Kohath of the tribe of Levi (6:33–38). This impressive family tree is both a statement of the authority vested in the musical guild of Heman and the continuity of his leadership extending back to the origins of the Mosaic covenant. The list of Heman’s ancestors is essentially the same register of Kohathite descendants found earlier in 6:22–28 (except it is arranged in ascending order instead of descending order). Neither genealogy is comprehensive since Assir son of Korah and Elkanah son of Assir (6:22–23) are omitted in the latter register. Although certain names may be interchangeable (e.g., Uzziah [6:24] and Azariah [6:36]; cf. 2 Kings 15:1 with 2 Chron. 26:1), the variations between the genealogies suggest the word “son” (Heb. ben) should be broadened in certain cases to imply “descendant” or “relative” (cf. Zephaniah son of Tahath [1 Chron. 6:36–37] with Uriel son of Tahath [6:24]).
Asaph was appointed the first associate of Heman (“served at his right hand,” 6:39); his genealogy is traced through fifteen generations of the clan of Gershon of the tribe of Levi (6:39–43). Along with Heman, Asaph sounded the bronze cymbals celebrating the arrival of the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem (15:19). In addition to the one dozen psalms accredited to the Asaph guild, the Chronicler also ascribes the psalm commemorating the entrance of the ark of the Lord into the city of David to Aspah (16:7; cf. Pss. 50; 73–83). Attempts to connect Shimei son of Jahath (1 Chron. 6:42) with Shimei son of Gershon (6:17) require textual emendations based on hypothetical reconstructions and prove unconvincing.14
Ethan headed a third musical guild as a result of the reorganization of the Levites by King David (6:44–47; cf. 15:16–17). Like Heman and Asaph, he too sounded the bronze cymbals when David paraded the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem (16:19). The superscription of Psalm 89 credits that composition to Ethan. Ethan is replaced by Jeduthun as one of three primary temple musicians in 1 Chronicles 16:42 and 25:1. Either Jeduthun and Ethan are one in the same individual, or Jeduthun has succeeded Ethan as a director of one of the Levitical musical guilds for some unknown reason.
Ethan’s genealogy is traced through Mushi, son of Merari, son of Levi (6:47). Ethan’s family tree is the briefest among the directors of the three temple musical guilds, counting only twelve generations. Unlike the genealogy of Heman, however, there is little correspondence between the line of Ethan and the previous listing of descendants of Merari since it highlights the clan of Mushi’s brother Mahli (cf. 6:19, 29–30).
Priestly Duties (6:48–49)
THE BLESSING OF the tribes of Israel highlights a twofold function for the descendants of Levi: “watching over” God’s Word through the teaching of the Mosaic law to the Israelites and guarding Yahweh’s covenant with Israel by attending to the sacrificial rituals of Hebrew worship (Deut. 33:8–11). Here the Chronicler distinguishes between the “fellow Levites” (1 Chron. 6:48) and the priesthood descended from Aaron with respect to liturgical duties. The context indicates the Chronicler differentiates between the Levitical musicians (6:31–47) and the priests assigned to perform the sacrificial liturgy of the sanctuary (6:48–49). While the Levites were called to assist the priests in numerous ways (cf. 1 Chron. 23:28–31; 2 Chron. 30:16; 35:11), the sacrificial altar was the exclusive domain of the Aaronic priesthood (cf. Num. 18:1–7).
The Chronicler summarizes the work of the Levites broadly as “all the other duties of the … house of God” (6:48; cf. Num. 3:6–9). Elsewhere the Chronicler specifies that the temple service performed by the Levites included overseeing the courtyards and side (storage) rooms, the purification of all sacred things, handling all the tasks related to grain offerings and the Table of Presence, along with their duties as temple singers and musicians (cf. 1 Chron. 23:28–31). The priests were responsible for the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense, and the work of the Most Holy Place in general, under the threat of divine wrath against all Israel should they shirk their responsibilities (6:49; cf. Num. 18:5).
The goal of the priestly sacrificial ministry was “making atonement for Israel” (6:49). The word “atonement” (Heb. kpr) essentially means “to cover.” God ordained that sin be “covered” by means of animal sacrifice, whether offered for individuals (e.g., Lev. 4:29, 31) or the entire nation of Israel on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16). The sacrificial offerings were symbolic of atonement since “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin” (Heb. 10:4). King David knew well that sin was covered by confession and repentance before a merciful God, offering sacrifices of a broken spirit and a contrite heart to God (Ps. 51:1–4, 16–17). Such confession and repentance was a “sacrifice of prayer”—hence the reference to the altar of incense in the context of the priests making atonement for Israel (Ex. 30:10; cf. Rev. 8:3). Prayer and forgiveness are vitally linked in the Chronicler’s theology of atonement (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14; 33:18–19). The section closes with special emphasis on the fact that the priesthood served in compliance with the demands of the Mosaic law (1 Chron. 6:49).
The High Priests (6:50–53)
THE LIST OF high priests is an abbreviated version of the descendants of Aaron found previously (6:3–8). The register of names completes the thought of verse 49, given the reference to Aaron and the duties associated with the high priests. Zadok was a contemporary of David (2 Sam. 15:27; 19:11), while Ahimaaz was the high priest during a portion of Solomon’s reign (1 Chron. 6:8–9). Breaking the list of high priests off at this juncture is logical because David reorganized the priesthood (6:31–32) and Solomon built the temple where divinely ordained priestly tasks were performed (6:49).
The reference to Zadok son of Ahitub (6:8; cf. 2 Sam. 8:17) is problematic since the records of his ancestry are in conflict with other genealogical records of the Israelite priesthood (cf. “Ahimelech son of Ahitub” in 1 Sam. 22:9, 20). Ackroyd regards the insertion of Zadok into the lineage of Aaron a “pious fiction” on the part of the Chronicler in an attempt to legitimize the presence of a renegade Jebusite priest in the Levitical line.15 It is entirely possible, however, that both are correct, assuming the Bible refers to two different individuals with the name Ahitub.16
The Levitical Cities (6:54–81)
THE CHRONICLER’S LIST of Levitical cities is parallel to Joshua’s allotment of towns to the Levites (Josh. 21:5–39). Scholars continue to debate whether Chronicles is dependent on Joshua or vice versa, or if both lists originate from a common source.17 The list in Chronicles tends to abridge the version found in Joshua (e.g., omitting certain of the explanatory notes [“Arba was the forefather of Anak,” Josh. 21:11] and the summary tallies of cities allotted to the Levitical clans; cf. Josh. 21:24, 25, 31, etc.). The omission of the references to Dan (1 Chron. 6:61, 69; cf. Josh. 21:5, 23) may represent the modernizing of the register by the Chronicler in an attempt to reflect the tribal realities of his own day rather than bias on his part.
Minor variations may be detected in the two lists, attributable to copyist error and the Chronicler’s inclination to both abbreviate and update earlier records. In some cases, the Joshua parallel is helpful in restoring incomplete or confusing portions of the Chronicler’s record (e.g., the NIV inserts “first” before “lot” in 6:54 on the basis of “first lot” in Josh. 21:10; it restores “Juttah” [6:59] and “Gibeon” [6:60] to the list of Kohathite settlements on the basis of Josh. 21:16–17 to bring the tally of towns from eleven to thirteen, as cited in the summary statement).
The Chronicler also reorders the Levitical settlement list from Joshua, placing the allotment of towns for the descendants of Aaron first (6:54–60; cf. Josh. 21:9–19). The emphatic position of the Aaronides no doubt calls attention to the centrality of the priestly line in postexilic Judah, given the collapse of Davidic kingship. Although the three clans of Levi are listed by birth order (Gershom/Gershon, Kohath, Merari in 6:1, 16), the roster of Levitical cities is (apparently) ordered by the fall of the lot (Kohath, Gershom/Gershon, Merari; cf. Josh. 14:2; 21:4–7).
The list of Levitical cities serves as an important reminder that the tribe of Levi received no inheritance of land when the Israelites settled Canaan. Rather, they received forty-eight cities scattered across the territorial claims of the other Hebrew tribes (Josh. 21:41–42). The Levitical cities stood as a permanent testimony to the reality that the Lord was the share and inheritance of Aaron and his descendants (Num. 18:20). In addition to the allotment of cities from the Israelite tribes among whom they lived, the inheritance of the priests and Levites included the tithes of the Israelites as their means of support in return for performing the service of worship on behalf of the nation (Num. 18:21–24).
The Chronicler has retained only two of the explanatory notes from the parallel list of Levitical cities in Joshua. Both are references to “a city of refuge” (6:57, 67), and both occur in a shortened form (cf. “a city of refuge for one accused of murder,” Josh. 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38). The city of refuge was a safe haven from the avenger of blood for a person who committed accidental manslaughter (Josh. 20:2–6). Six of the forty-eight Levitical settlements were designated as cities of refuge, three on the east side of the Jordan River (Golan, Ramoth in Gilead, and Bezer) and three on the west side of the Jordan River (Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron, cf. Josh. 20:7–9). In one sense, the city of refuge was a place where “righteousness and peace kiss each other” in a practical way (cf. Ps. 85:10). Is the Chronicler perhaps calling the priests and Levites living in the towns and villages of the postexilic province of Judah to a similar kind of ministry of reconciliation?
Bridging Contexts
SELF-PRESERVATION IS ONE of the basic instincts or impulses of a healthy self-concept. Given this fundamental human trait, Crenshaw has observed that “the urge to secure human existence through the use of reason is universal.”18 The need for people to cope with the complex realities of daily existence for the purpose of sheer survival gave rise to the idea of a sapiential or wisdom tradition. This desire to gain mastery over life through the powers of observation and analysis naturally extends to social units, whether family, clan, tribe, or nation. In fact, the wisdom tradition is one pervasive characteristic of ancient and modern societies.
The idea of wisdom as a database of accumulated knowledge necessary for the success of individuals and societies as they cope with ever-changing circumstances of ordinary life is predicated on two assumptions. (1) It assumes that the innate capacities of human beings for observation, analysis, and reflection enable people to discover what is “right and just and fair—every good path” (Prov. 2:9). It is worth noting here the emphasis on acquiring knowledge and wisdom through the discipline of learning in the prologue to Proverbs (1:1–7).
(2) The idea of wisdom also presupposes that the fundamental principles of this accrued insight into successful living can be taught to the next generation (cf. Prov. 4:1–9). It is the concept of “the fear of the LORD,” however, that distinguished Hebrew wisdom from its ancient counterparts. For Israel, wisdom could not be separated from the knowledge of God because he was the source and dispenser of insight and understanding (cf. 1:7; 2:5–6).
The Levitical priesthood was appointed to fulfill this very function as a professional class of ministers devoted to the task of perpetuating the law of Moses and facilitating the worship of the Hebrew nation as the people of God (cf. Ex. 29:44). Originally, the priests (and Levites) were but one of several classes of leaders invested with divine authority for the governing of God’s people. The king eventually became Yahweh’s anointed agent to rule the people justly, judge in righteousness, defend the poor and needy, and deliver Israel from her enemies (cf. Ps. 72). In addition, the priest, the sage, and the prophet are ascribed prominent roles in Israelite society (cf. Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26). Each one was responsible for a domain of the national life and policy of Israel: The priest oversaw the sphere of religion, the sage was influential in the political arena as adviser to the king, and the prophet functioned as the social conscience of the kingdom.
Even as kingship was linked to the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:9–10), the priesthood was the destiny for the tribe of Levi. According to the farewell blessing of Moses, the Thummim and Urim belonged to the descendants of Levi (Deut. 33:8). That is, God chose to make his will known at times through mechanical means superintended by the high priest (cf. Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21). Further, the Levites were charged to “watch over” the word of God and “guard” Yahweh’s covenant (Deut. 33:9). Finally, the Levites were authorized to “teach” God’s law to Israel and to “offer” sacrifices on Yahweh’s altars (Deut. 33:10).
The duty of teaching God’s law is implicit in the Chronicler’s recitation of the Levitical genealogies (cf. 2 Chron. 15:3). The task of offering sacrifices to make atonement for all Israel is central to the Chronicler’s understanding of the Levitical priesthood (1 Chron. 6:49). By faithfully discharging these twin duties of teaching the law and offering sacrifices to make atonement for Israel, the Levitical priesthood fulfilled their role as the keepers of Israel’s tradition and the guardians of Yahweh’s covenant.
The Chronicler well understands that by default, the priests and Levites now constitute the primary leadership office in the restoration community. The Exile brought an end to kingship in Israel. It appears that even the prophetic voice fell silent not long after the construction of the Second Temple (ca. 515 B.C.) at the prompting of Haggai and Zechariah. Naturally, the role of the sage has shifted from that of political adviser to that of scholar-teacher and scribe in the Jewish academic community. Until such a time when God will raise up another king like David, the fate of the nation of Israel lies in the hands of the descendants of Levi.
Contemporary Significance
WORSHIP EDUCATION. The Chronicler makes several theological statements to his audience in the special emphasis on the family tree of Levi. (1) The genealogical record of the tribe of Levi reminds postexilic Judah that the institution of the temple and the rituals of sacrificial worship remain central to the life of the Jewish community. For this reason the writer is careful to admonish his audience by reporting the unfaithfulness and defilement of the temple that led to the Exile (5:25; 9:1; 2 Chron. 36:14).
(2) The priests and Levites of the restoration community are the legitimate heirs of the divine commission to serve as the ministers of temple worship. As descendants of Levi, they are entitled to serve the people of Israel according to the organizational pattern established by King David in what Wilcock calls the “continuing fruit of the priesthood” (cf. 1 Chron. 23–26).19
(3) The priests and Levites rightfully play a key leadership role in post-exilic Judah, given the demise of the kingship. As members of one of the God-ordained “offices” surviving the Babylonian exile, it is imperative the Levitical corps step forward to fill the leadership vacuum. The recognition of this leadership by the people of the restoration community is demonstrated in the installation ceremony for the priests and Levites after completing the Second Temple (cf. Ezra 6:18).
The Chronicler recognizes, however, that the role of the priests and Levites as worship leaders goes beyond the sheer maintenance of the form and order of the sacrificial liturgy. The essence of their ministry is “making atonement for Israel,” mediating a right relationship with God. That the crucial task of the priests and Levites is one of spiritual formation is attested by the emphasis on the “heart” in Chronicles. For it is God who searches the heart (28:9), and it is God who grants pardon to those who set their heart on seeking him (2 Chron. 19:3).
According to the farewell blessing of Moses, Israel’s right relationship with God was to be accomplished primarily through the teaching ministry of the Levitical corps (Deut. 33:10). The curriculum for this educational initiative in “spiritual literacy” is the law of God. Only through the knowledge of and obedience to that law can a right relationship with him be established and maintained (cf. 2 Chron. 34:31).
In fact, the farewell sermon of Moses equated the “law” of God with the “precepts” of God (Deut. 33:10). This means that a right relationship with God ultimately involves the disposition of the heart and a lifestyle in agreement with the holiness of God, since precepts are defined as authoritative instructions shaping behavior. Naturally implicit in all this is turning to God in repentance and placing one’s utter confidence in him (2 Chron. 7:14; 20:20). As a sidebar, in the order of the Levitical duties cited in the blessing of Moses for the tribe of Levi, teaching precedes the ministry of offering sacrifices—perhaps testimony to the fact that “functional” worship response of obedience must enlighten the “form” of the worship ritual.
The inauguration of the new covenant in Christ has not made the Chronicler’s message obsolete. As the Dutch theologian Ridderbos has observed: “God speaks to us through the Scripture not to make us scholars, but to make us Christians.… What Scripture does intend is to place us as humans in a right position to God.”20 Neither has the basic formula changed for establishing that right relationship with God. Turning to God in repentance and faith in the word and work of Jesus Christ are still the prerequisites for entering the fellowship of God’s people (Acts 3:19; Rom. 3:22, 25). Clearly, spiritual formation is still an issue of the heart in the New Testament (cf. Rom. 10:10; Eph. 6:6). Finally, a lifestyle of obedience to the commands of God remains the litmus test of true spirituality (cf. 1 John 2:3; 5:3).
Beyond these parallels between the messages of Chronicles (and the Old Testament) and the New Testament, the two rely on the same “delivery system.” In both cases, the audience receives the message by means of instruction from a divinely ordained authority figure. In upbraiding the priests of Jerusalem in postexilic Judah, Malachi lamented that they had abandoned their ministry of “true instruction” that “turned many from sin” (Mal. 2:6). Historically, the church of Jesus Christ has promulgated his gospel in a similar manner, that of instruction by clergy invested with the office gift of pastor-teacher and by laypeople endowed with the spiritual gift of teaching (cf. Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). The goal, or “preferred outcome” educationally speaking, of this instruction is consistent with that of the priestly ministry: freeing people from bondage to sin through a knowledge of God’s truth about the human condition and his redemptive plan to remedy our plight (cf. John 8:32; 2 Tim. 3:14–16).
This logical comparison between the Old Testament priest and the New Testament pastor-teacher as educator deserves more careful examination. The Old Testament priest served the nation of Israel in numerous ways pedagogically, especially as a worship role model for the people, a teacher and interpreter of God’s law for the religious community, and a director of worship education.21 Likewise, the New Testament recognizes the pastor-teacher as a worship role model in the church (cf. Titus 1:8). Since the Reformation, the dominant role of the pastor-teacher in Protestant circles has been that of teacher and interpreter of God’s Word (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 4:3). It seems, however, the analogy breaks down when we consider worship education. Despite the growth and impact of the recent worship renewal movement, worship education is a truant subject in the Christian education curriculum of many evangelical churches.
In his classic essay on worship, Tozer has tendered the thesis that worship is the missing gem in the crown of the evangelical church.22 Tozer proposes to restore that missing jewel, in part, through the teaching of sound doctrine. Granted, the biblically based knowledge of God’s character is vital to restoring the element of mystery essential to Christian worship. And I concur fully with Tozer that “admiration, fascination, and adoration” are the natural Spirit-prompted responses of the worshiping heart to God’s work in creation and redemption.23
I would suggest, however, there is still something “missing” in Tozer’s plan for restoring worship in the evangelical church. The missing component of which I speak is worship education itself—that is, formal instruction in the history, theology, and practice of Christian worship. This may be what Tozer advocates implicitly in his emphasis on the teaching of sound biblical doctrine. Nonetheless, the implicit must be taken to the next level. Explicit and systematic worship education must complement the teaching of sound Bible doctrine.
This is hardly a revolutionary idea. The catechisms of the Middle Ages included worship instructions, and Luther’s Smaller Catechism included lessons devoted to worship education. More recently, Robert Webber has called for formal worship education as part of the Christian education in the church. In fact, worship education heads the lists of Webber’s nine proposals for worship renewal among evangelical worshipers.24 I can only echo his appeal to make a study of the biblical, historical, and theological sources of Christian worship at all age levels a matter of priority in our evangelical churches. I affirm the need for worship education because
the heart of worship renewal is a recovery of the power of the Holy Spirit Who enables the congregation to offer praise and thanksgiving to God. The value of studying the history and theology of worship is that it provides us with insights into the work of the Holy Spirit in the past and allows us to be open to His work in the present. In this way the Holy Spirit may lead us into ways of Worship.25
Perhaps this is the forgotten legacy of the tribe of Levi for the church—a ministry of worship education that prompts worship renewal.