Scripture Daily

Context No. 1230 of 4322 · 1 Chronicles

Context · Reflection

1 Chronicles 24:1-6: in context

1These were the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 2But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests. 3David, with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service. 4There were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and they were divided like this: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight. 5Thus they were divided impartially by drawing lots; for there were princes of the sanctuary and princes of God, both of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar. 6Shemaiah the son of Nethanel the scribe, who was of the Levites, wrote them in the presence of the king, the princes, Zadok the priest, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the priests and of the Levites; one fathers’ house being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar.

David organizes the priests, the descendants of Aaron, into divisions for temple service. Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu had died without children, so the priestly line ran through the other two, Eleazar and Ithamar. There were more heads of families among Eleazar's descendants than Ithamar's, sixteen to eight, and the passage stresses how the divisions were assigned: impartially, by casting lots, so that both lines had officials of the sanctuary, and a scribe recorded it all in the presence of the king and the priests.

The detail the passage underlines is that the assignments were made by lot, impartially. There were more families in one line than the other, and rather than let human preference, seniority, or politics decide who served when, they drew lots, treating the larger and smaller lines alike, so that no family could claim it had been favored or slighted. The lot took the decision out of human hands and, in Israel's understanding, put it in God's; the roles were distributed as he assigned them, not as men jockeyed for them. There is a wisdom in that for any community dividing up honor and responsibility. When roles are assigned by lot rather than by lobbying, the door is closed to favoritism and to the resentment that comes when people feel positions were handed out by influence. Everyone receives their place as from God, and no one can boast that they earned the better slot or complain that they were cheated of it. The impartial lot dignifies the small line as much as the large, and lets each family serve its appointed turn as a gift rather than a prize won by maneuvering. Received as assignment from God, a role breeds gratitude; won by human jockeying, it breeds pride and envy.

Do I receive my place and role as an assignment from God, held without boasting or resentment, or do I jockey for position and envy those who seem to have been favored?

Sources