_took them_ to wife] i.e. in accordance with the law stated in Numbers xxvii. 4, compare Numbers xxxvi. 6, whereby daughters had a right of inheritance in hope of perpetuating the name of him who died without male heirs. Thus Eleazar, by his family through the female line, may be reckoned one of the heads of fathers’ houses. If this view be correct, the list contains not twenty-two but twenty-three “heads”; and it may be conjectured that the one name more required to make up the desired total of twenty-four has been lost in the transmission of the text. ²³The sons of Mushi; Mahli, and Eder, and Jeremoth, three. =23.= _The sons of Mushi_] Compare xxiv. 30. =24‒27.= ORGANISATION OF THE LEVITES (second account). ²⁴These were the sons of Levi after their fathers’ houses, even the heads of the fathers’ _houses_ of those of them that were counted, in the number of names by their polls, who did the work for the service of the house of the LORD, from twenty years old and upward. ²⁵For David said, The LORD, the God of Israel, hath given rest unto his people; and he dwelleth in Jerusalem for ever: ²⁶and also the Levites shall no more have need to carry the tabernacle and all the vessels of it for the service thereof. ²⁷For by the last words¹ of David the sons of Levi were numbered, from twenty years old and upward. ¹ Or, _in the last acts_. =24.= _from twenty years old and upward_] The striking divergence between this verse and verse 3, where _thirty_ is given as the minimum age for service as a Levite, has given rise to much discussion――see the note to verse 3. No doubt the concluding remarks of that note are true historically: a change in the inferior age limit of the Levites _did_ take place at some time on account of the need for larger numbers in office. But neither that fact, nor the theory (which is hardly borne out by other considerations) that the Chronicler has used varying traditions from two different sources, suffices to explain why he left the evident contradiction in his narrative. The desirability of explaining this circumstance strongly favours the view urged by Curtis, that in verses 3 ff. the Chronicler meant to describe the Levitical organisation during and for the purpose of the preparation and erection of the Temple, whilst verses 24 ff. relate to the period when the Temple was completed and the duties of the Levites, being both more numerous and at the same time of a more mechanical nature, might well seem to call for an increase in the number of those officiating. When the reduction of the age limit to _twenty_ actually took place is of course immaterial; but it is quite in keeping with the manner of the Chronicler that he should thus carry both arrangements back to the time of David. =28‒32.= DUTIES OF THE LEVITES.