There is a discrepancy between the total number of the Levites, which is given in Numb, iii, 39 as 22,000, and the separate number of the three divisions which is given in verses 22, 28, and 34, as follows : Gershon- ites,7500-|-Kohathites, 8G00 + Merarites, 6200 =^ 22,30_0. Compare also verse 46, where it is said that the 22,273 first-born exceeded the total number of Levites by 273. The Talmud (Bechnroth, 5, a) and the Jewish commen- tators, who are followed by most Christian expositors, submit that the 300 surplus Levites were the fir^t-born of this tribe, who, as such, could not be substituted for the first-born of the other tribes, and therefore were omitted from the total. To this, however, it is objected that if such an exemption of first-born had been intend- ed, the text would have contained some intimation of it, whereas there is nothing whatever in the context to indi- cate it, Iloubigant therefore suggests that a h has drop- ped out of the word 'db^ in verse 28, making it T:j':i, and that by retaining the former word we obtain 8300 instead of 8600, which removes all the difficulty, Philippson, Keil, and others adopt this explanation. The number of the first-born appears disproportionately small as com- pared with the population. It must be remembered, however, that the conditions to be fulfilled were that they should be at once (1) the first child of the father, (2) "the first child of the mother, and (3) males. (Com- pare on this question, and on that of the difference of numbers, Kurtz, History of-the Old Covenant, iii, 201.)
2. Division of the Tribe of Levi. — As different fmtctions were assigned to the separate houses of the Levitical branch of the tribe, to ivhich frequent references are made, wc subjoin the following table from Exod. vi, 16- 25, italicizing the Aaronic or priestly branch in order to facilitate these references.
«-"--{Sei.
TAmram ~
(.4f
LEVI { KouATu
(Moses. nCorah. < NeriheK
jEIcazar. \Ithainar.
Izhar ,-^, ---, (Zithri. Hebron.
jMishael. iUzzicl -^Elzapliau.
(Zithri. (Mahali. ■\Mushi.
N B.— Those mentioned in the above list are by no means the only descendants of Levi iu tlieir respective generations, as is evident from the fact that, though no
Merari
LEVITE
392
LEVITE
sons of Libui, Shiniei, Hebron, etc., are here given, yet meulion is made in Numb, iii, 21, of "the family of the Libuitesaiid the family of the 8himeites;" in Numb, xxvi, 2S, of " the family of the Libuites ;" and in Numb, iii, 2T ; xxvi, 5S, of "the family of the Ilebronites;" whilst in 1 Chrou. xxlii, several sous of these men are mentioned by name. Again, no sons of Mahali and Mushi are given, and yet they appear in Numb, iii as fathers of families of the Levites. The design of the genealogy in question is simply to give the pedigrees of Moses and Aaron, and some other principal heads of the family of Levi, as is ex- pressly stated in Exod.vi, 25: "These are the heads ofthe fathers of the Levites according to their families." In these heads all the other members of their families were included, according to the principle laid down in 1 Chron. xxiii, 11 : "Therefore they were in one reckoning, accord- ing to their father's house." ISome names are also men- tioned for a special purpose, e. g. the sons of Izhar, on ac- count of Ivorah, who was the leader ofthe rebellion against liloses. These observations afford an answer to a consid- erable extent to the conclusions of bishop Coleuso upon the number of the Levites (The Pentateuch and tlie Hook of Joshua critically examined, i, lOT-11'2).
It will thus be seen that the Levitical order comprises the whole of the descendants of Gershon and Merari, and those of Kohath tlirough Izhar and Uzziel, as well as through Amram's second son, Moses ; whilst Aaron, Amram's first son, and his issue, constitute the priestly order. It must here be remarked that, though Kohath is the second in point of age and order, yet his family ■will be found to occupy the first position, because they are the nearest of kin to the priests.
3. A^e and Qucdljicatwns for Levitical Service The
only qualification for active service specitied in the Mo- saic law is mature age, which in Numb, iv, 3, 23, 30, 39, 43. 47 is said to be from thirty to fift)-, whilst m Numb, viii, 24, 25 it is said to commence at ticenty-five. Vari- ous attempts have been made to reconcile these two ap- parently contradictory injunctions. The Talmud {Choi. 24, a), Kashi {Comment, ad loc), and Maimonides {Joel Ha-Chezaha, iii, 7, 3), who are followed by some Chris- tian commentators, affirm that from twenty-five to thirty the Levites attended in order to be instructed in their duties, but did not enter upon actual duties until they were full thirty years of age. But this explanation, as Abrabanel rightly remarks, "is at variance with the plain declaration ofthe text, that the Levites were called at twenty-five years of age to wait vpon the service of the tahernacle, which clearly denotes not instruction for their ministry, but the ministry itself" {Commentar. on Numh. viii, 24). Besides, the text itself does not give the slightest intimation that any period of the Levitical life was devoted to instruction. Hence Kashbam, Aben- Ezra, and Abrabanel, who are followed by most modern expositors, submit that the twenty-five years of age re- fers to the Levites' entering upon the lighter part of their service, such as keeping watch and performing the lighter duties in the tabernacle, whilst the thirty years of age refers to their entering upon the more onerous duties, such as carrying heavy weights, when the taber- nacle was moved about from place to jilace, which re- (piired the full strength of a man, maintaining that this distinction is indicated in the text by the words 1125Jb Nw^?:bl,yb?- labor and burdens, when the thirty years' work is spoken of (Numb, iv, 30, 31), and by the omission of the word Xw"^, burden, when the twenty-five years' work is spoken of (Xnmb. viii, 24, etc."). But it maj' fairly be ([uestioned whctlior man is more fitted for ar- (hious work from thirty to thirty-five than from twenty- live to thirty. Besides, the (iershonitcs and the Mera- riies, who had the charge of the heavier burdens, did not carry them at all (coni|i. Numb, vii, 3-0, and sec. 4 be- low). According to another ancient .lewisli interpreta- tion adojited by Biihr {Symbol, ii, 41) and others, Numb, iv treats of the necessary age of the l.,evites for the im- mediate rctiuircments in the tcilderness, whilst Numb, viii gives their His.fi for the promised land, wlien they shall be di\-idcd among the tribes arrd a larger number shall be wanted (Siphri on Numb. riii). Somewhat similar is Philippson's explanation, wlio aflirms that at the first election of the Levitical order the required age for ser-