Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Chronicles 24

Now these are the divisions. —Literally, And for the sons of Aaron, their divisions (were as follows). The sentence forms a superscription to the section (1 Chronicles 24:1–19).

The sons of Aaron are named above (1 Chronicles 6:3). (Compare to Exodus 6:23.) As usual, the writer starts from the very beginning.

But Nadab and Abihu died before their father. —Leviticus 10:1–2 tells why: namely, because they offered strange fire before the Lord. (See also Numbers 3:4, from which our text appears to be derived.)

And had no children. — Literally, and sons had not come to be to them (that is, had not been born to them).

Therefore Eleazar and Ithamar. — And Eleazar and Ithamar acted as priests; Numbers adds, before the face of Aaron their father. It is implied that the office of the priesthood remained with the two lines, or houses, of Eleazar and Ithamar.

And David distributed them. —The same phrase as at 1 Chronicles 13:3. (See Note there.)

Both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar. —This expression forms part of the subject of the Hebrew sentence. The construction is like that in 1 Chronicles 24:2, And Nadab died, and Abihu. Thus, “And David divided them, and Zadok and Ahimelech,” i.e., “And David, with Zadok and Ahimelech, divided them.” The meaning is that Zadok and Ahimelech, the heads of the houses of Eleazar and Ithamar, assisted David in the classification of the priests.

According to their offices. —Rather, According to their official class (1 Chronicles 23:11).

And there were more chief men found. —Literally, And the sons of Eleazar were found more numerous regarding the heads of the men than the sons of Ithamar. The basis of division was not the individual members of the different families, but the heads of them. There were more head men, or heads of households, deriving from Eleazar than from Ithamar.

Chief men. —Heb., heads of the men, that is, heads of single families or households; just as “heads of the fathers” denotes heads of groups of fathers or clans. (Joshua 7:16–18.) Of course, as the heads of households were more numerous, the total number of priests claiming descent from Eleazar must likewise have been more numerous than their kinsmen the Ithamarites.

And thus were they divided ... fathers. —Rather, And they divided them: to the sons of Eleazar, heads of father-houses, sixteen, and to the sons of Ithamar, to their father-houses, eight (heads). They (that is, David and the two high priests) divided them (1 Chronicles 24:3).

Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another. —Literally, And they divided them by lots, these with those: i.e., the sons of Eleazar with those of Ithamar, the clans of each standing together, apart from those of the other, and the lots being drawn for each alternately. The object was to decide the question of precedence in the order of ministration (Luke 1:8–9), the liturgical functions being, of course, the same for all.

For the governors of the sanctuary ... —Better, for there had arisen holy princes (“lords spiritual”) and princes of God (both) from among the sons of Eleazar, and from among the sons of Ithamar. The decision was referred to the impartial judgment of the lot, because there had been, and were, distinguished heads of priestly houses belonging to both lines of descent. “Princes of the sanctuary” (Isaiah 43:28)—the phrase is equivalent to “princes of the priests” (2 Chronicles 36:14). “Princes of God”—an expression (sârê ’ĕlôhîm) not found elsewhere; it is either synonymous with the last, or perhaps denotes the high priests. (Compare Notes on 1 Chronicles 6:4–6.) The term “Prince of God” (nĕsî ’ĕlôhîm) is applied to Abraham (Genesis 23:6), apparently in the sense of mighty prince, which may be the meaning here.