Every week, one Greek or Hebrew word changes how you read a familiar passage. Subscribe free →
BibleWord.ai iconBibleWord.ai

Attributed commentary excerpt

John Gill's Exposition on Luke 1:5

A historical reference excerpt for this verse. Read it alongside the biblical text and other available sources.

Exposition of the Old and New Testament
John Gill (1697–1771) · 18th-century historical commentary
Source: BibleWord.ai's local reference edition of this named work.
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, etc.] This was Herod, the son of Antipater, sometimes called Herod the Great, and is rightly here said to be the king of Judea; for, by deputation from the Roman emperor, he had the government of all Judea, which upon his death was divided among his sons. The phrase, “in the days of”, is an eastern way, of speaking; (see <011401>Genesis 14:1 <080101>Ruth 1:1 <091712>1 Samuel 17:12); and intends the time of his reign; in which there was a certain priest named Zacharias: a name famous among the Jews, for an high priest, who was slain by them the court of the temple, (<142420>2 Chronicles 24:20,21), and for one of the later prophets, (<380101>Zechariah 1:1), who were of this name. This man, the father of John the Baptist, was not an high priest, as this character of him, and the work afterwards ascribed to him, show; though he has been thought to be so by some; and John himself is so called by the Jews f13: he was of the course of Abia. The Ethiopic version reads, “in the days of Abia”: and it has been the opinion of some, that Zacharias and Abia were two priests, who performed their ministry in succession, one after another; one ministered one time, and another at another time; but such betray their ignorance both of Scripture, and of Jewish affairs. In David's time, there was a division of the sons of Aaron into “twenty four” orders, or courses; and this of Abia was one, and the “eighth” of them; (see <132401>1 Chronicles 24:1,4,10). The account the Jews f14 give of this matter, and in which they are not agreed, is this; “says Rab Chama bar Guria, says Rab, Moses ordered for the Israelites eight courses, four from Eleazar, and four from Ithamar; Samuel came and made them “sixteen”; David came and made them twenty four. — It is a tradition, that Moses ordered for the Israelites sixteen courses, eight from Eleazar, and eight from Ithamar; and when the children of Eleazar increased above the children of Ithamar, they divided them, and appointed them twenty four.” The account, as given by Maimonides f15, is as follows: “Moses, our master, divided the priests into eight courses, four from Eleazar, and four from Ithamar, and so they were until Samuel the prophet; and in the days of Samuel, he and David, the king, divided them into twenty four courses; and over every course one head was appointed, and they went up to Jerusalem to the service of the course every week; and from sabbath to sabbath they changed; one course went out, and another came in, till they finished, and returned again.” Now of these there were but four courses returned from the Babylonish captivity, as appears from (<150236>Ezra 2:36-39) and with this the Jewish accounts agree f16. “The Rabbins teach, that four courses came up from the captivity, Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer; the prophets that were among them stood up, and divided them, and appointed four and twenty lots, and put them into a box: Jedaiah came and took his lot, and the lot of his companions, six; Harim came and took his lot, and the lot of his companions, six; and so Pashur and Immer: and so the prophets that were among them taught, that if Jehoiarib, the first course, came up from captivity, he should not drive away Jedaiah out of his place; but Jedaiah should be the principal, and Jehoiarib an appendix to him.” Now, though the course of Abia did not return from captivity, yet its order and name were retained as the rest of the courses, being divided…

This public page shows a contextual excerpt from the locally available source text.

How to use this source
This excerpt is attributed to its named commentary. It is included as a historical study resource and should be evaluated in light of Scripture and other relevant evidence.