The ca])turc of the ark by the Philistines did not en- tirely interrupt the worship of the Israelites, and the ministrations of the Levites went on, first at Shiloh (1 Sam. xiv, o), then for a time at Nob (1 Sam. xxii, 11), afterwards at (Jilieon (1 Kings iii, 2; 1 Chron. x-vi, 39). The history <>f the return of the ark to Beth-shemesh after its capture by the Philistines, and its subsequent removal to Kirjath-jearim, points apparently to some strange complications rising out of the anomalies of this period, and affecting, in some measure, the position of
the tribe of Lc\-i. Beth-shemesh was, bj' the original assignment of the conciuered countrj', one of the cities of the priests (Josh, xxi, IG). They, however, do not appear in tlie narrative, unless we assume, against all probability, that the men of Beth-shemesh who wore guilty of the act of profanation were themselves of the priestly order. Levites, indeed, are mentioned as doing their appointed work (1 Sam. vi, 15), but the sacrifices and burnt-offerings are offered by the men of the city, as though the special function of the priesthood had been usurped by others, and on this supposition it is easier to mtderstand how those who had set aside the law of Jloses liy one offence should defy it also by an- other. The singidar reading of the Sept. in 1 Sam. vi, 19 {icai oi/K i)cii'ivi(7av o\ v'loi 'lt\oviov tv roiq dv?.paai BaiOaafivg vri fiSov Kif3wTuv Ki'p/of) mdicates, if we assume that it rests upon some corresponding Hebrew text, a struggle between two opposed parties, one guilty of the profanation, the other — possibly the Levites who had been before mentioned — zealous in their remon- strances against it. Then comes, either as the result of this collision, or by direct supernatural infliction, the great slaughter of the Beth-shemites, and they shrink from retaining the ark any longer among them. The great Eben (stone) becomes, by a slight paronomastic change in its form, the ''great Abel" (lamentation), and the name remains as a memorial of the sin and of its punishment. See Eetii-shemesh. We are left en- tirely in the dark as to the reasons which led them, after this, to send the ark of Jehovah, not to Hebron or some other priestly city, but to Kirjath-jearim, round which, so far as we know, there gathered legitimately no sacred associations. It has been commonly assumed, indeed, that Abinadab, under whose guardianship it rc- mamed for twenty years, must iieces;arily have been of the tribe of Levi. See Abinadab. Of this, however, there is not the slightest direct evidence, and against it there is the language of David in 1 Chron. xv, 2, " None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them hath Jehovah chosen," which would lose half its force if it were not meant ns a protest against a recent inno- vation, and the ground of a return to the more ancient order. So far as one can see one's way through these perplexities of a dark period, the most probable explana- tion— already suggested under Kirjath-jearui — seems to be the following : The old names of Baaleh (.Josh, xv, 9) and Kirjath-baal (Josh, xv, GO) suggest there had been of old some special sanctity attached to the place as the centre of a Canaaniiish local worship. The fact that the ark was taken to the house of Abinadab in the hill (1 Sam. vii, 1), the Gibeah of 2 Sam. vi, 3, connects itself with that old Canaanitlsh reverence for high places which, through the whole history of the Israelites, con- tinued to have such strong attractions for them. These may have seemed to the panic-stricken inhabitants of that district, mingling old things and new, the worship of Jehovah with the lingering superstitions of the con- quered people, sufficient grounds to determine their choice of a locality. The consecration (the word used is the special sacerdotal term) of Eleazar as the guar- dian of the ark is, on this hypothesis, analogous in its way to the otlier irregular assumptions which charac- terize this period, though here the offence was less fla- grant, and did not involve, apparently, the performance of any sacrificial acts. While, however, this aspect of the religious conditi<in of the people brings the Levit- ical and priestly orders before us as having lost the po- sition they had previously occupied, there were other influences at work tending to ninstate them.
II. Jhtriiif) the Mnmnrhy. — Tlie dcplorablj' disorgan- ized condition of the Levitical order was not much improved in the reign of the first Hebrew monarch. The rule of Samuel and his sons, and the prophetical character now connected with the tribe, tended to give them the position of a ruling caste. In the strong de- sire of the people for a king wc may perhaps trace a protest against the assumption by the Levites of a higher
LEVITE
397
LEVITE
position than that originally assigned them. The reign of Saul, in its later period, was at any rate the assertion of a self-willed power against the priestly order. The assnmption of the saeridcial office, the massacre of the priests at Nob, the slaughter of the (iibeonites who were attached to their service, were parts of the same policy, and the narrative of the cojidemnation of Saul for the two former sins, no less than of the expiation required for the latter (2 Sam. xxi ), shows by what strong meas- ures the truth, of which that pohcy was a subversion, had to be impressed on the minds of the Israelites. The reign of David, however, brought the change from per- secution to honor. The Levites ^verc ready to welcome a king who, though not of their tribe, had been brought up under their training, was skilled in their arts, pre- parctl to share even in some of their ministrations, and to array himself in their apparel (2 Sara, vi, 14) ; and 4C00 of their number, with 3700 priests, waited upon Da- vid at Hebron — itself, it should be remembered, one of the priestly cities — to tender their allegiance (1 Chron. xii, 26). When his kingdom was established, there came a fuller organization of the whole tribe. Its position in relation to the priesthood was once again definitely rec- ognised. When the. ark was carried up to its new rest- ing-place in Jerusalem, their claim to be the bearers of it was publicly acknowledged (1 Chron. xv, 2). When the sin of Uzza stopped the procession, it was placed for a time under the care of Obed-edom of Gath — prob- ably Gath-rimmon — as one of the chiefs of the Kohath- ites (1 Chron. xiii, 13, .Josh, xxi, 24; 1 Chron. xv, 18). In the procession which attended the ultimate convey- ance of tlie ark to its new resting-] jlace the Levites were conspicuous, wearing their linen ephods, and appearing in their new character as minstrels (1 Chron. xv, 27, 28). The Levites engaged in conveying the ark to Jerusalem were divided into six father's houses, headed by six chiefs, four belonging to Kohath, one to Gershon, and one to INIerari (1 Chron. xv, .5, etc.). The most remark- able feature in the Levitical duties of this period is their being employed for the first time in choral service (1 Chron. xv, 16-24 ; xvi, 4-36) ; others, again, were ap- pointed as door-keepers (xv, 23, 24). Still the thorough reorganization of the whole tribe was effected by the shepherd-king in the last days of his eventful life, that the Levites might be able at the erection of the Tem- ple '-to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Jehovah, in the courts and the chambers, and the purifj-ing of all holj^ things, and the work of the service of the house of God" (1 Chron. xxiii, 28). This reorganization may be described as follows: