Commentary on 1 Chronicles 9:17–27 (Summary)

The lengthy recording of the gatekeepers is in stark contrast to the minimal naming and comments associated with the categories of returnees thus far. This paragraph also marks a substantial addition to the single-verse reference to gatekeepers in Nehemiah 11:19 and Nehemiah 12:25. Their Levitical status and roles are affirmed as longstanding and essential.¹ They were also referred to as porters or doorkeepers. The term for gatekeeper comes to light especially in the books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.² The gatekeepers are numbered with the Levites, although they form a separate group in the listing of priests, Levites, and other temple ministers and servants.

Four chief gatekeepers are mentioned, namely, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, who were placed at each of the gates on the four sides, east, west, north, and south (1 Chronicles 9:24), the east gate being the most important. Shallum is designated the leader of the group, which is indicated by his being stationed at the east gate. That gate was in the postexilic period called the King’s Gate. It faced the entrance to the temple sanctuary, and was the gate where the king would enter the temple precincts (1 Chronicles 9:18; Ezekiel 46:2). This was an important governmental position, as well as one that involved guarding the very doors of the sanctuary (1 Chronicles 9:19).

The question naturally arises as to why this group is given such lengthy coverage. A few clues can be found in the text itself. It is quite clear that this relatively small group had authority that was based on two very important grounds. First, their genealogical descent. These four families each trace their descent through Shallum back to Korah, a descendant of Kohath, the son of Levi. Second, their spiritual heritage, which could be traced back to Phinehas, the priest (1 Chronicles 9:20), who dramatically defended the holiness of the sanctuary (Numbers 25:7–13). During the days of Moses, Phinehas was responsible for the supervision of these Levitical orders.³ Further, it is stated that the Lord was with him (that is, Phinehas), which indicates that the Lord was also with those gatekeepers of the Chronicler’s day who followed in the same living tradition of divine service. They had entered into positions of trust (1 Chronicles 9:22, 1 Chronicles 9:26, 1 Chronicles 9:31), which translates a word also meaning faithfulness or trustworthiness, important concepts in the Chronicler’s vocabulary.⁴

Additionally, however, the Chronicler makes it plain that their office of trust as gatekeepers had been assigned by the likes of David and Samuel the seer (1 Chronicles 9:22), who himself was a Levite (1 Chronicles 6:33). Samuel died before David came to the throne (1 Samuel 25:1; 1 Samuel 28:3), so the statement cannot be understood in a time-specific sense, but should be understood in general terms. Samuel’s influence was far-reaching because he strove to guard the purity of Israel’s worship in his day, and this influence extended to the time of David’s kingship. These duties were binding on those living in David’s day, but they and their descendants were obligated to fulfill their proper roles (1 Chronicles 9:23).⁵

In referring to both David and Samuel, the Chronicler consistently describes the service of the gatekeepers in both the tabernacle (the tent in the wilderness and at Shiloh; 1 Chronicles 9:19, 1 Chronicles 9:21, 1 Chronicles 9:23) and the temple in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:23, 1 Chronicles 9:26, 1 Chronicles 9:27, 1 Chronicles 9:33), so as to confirm unbroken continuity between the two systems. Part of Samuel’s service to the Lord as a young man under Eli the priest was to open the doors of the house of Yahweh at Shiloh (1 Samuel 3:15).⁶ David was the figure who, in the eyes of the Chronicler, was instrumental in moving Israel’s worship from the tabernacle to the temple.

The vocabulary of the wilderness period is much in evidence in these verses. The use of ancient language heightens the sense of institutional continuity back into the distant past.⁷ Both camp (machaneh, 1 Chronicles 9:18–19) and tent or tabernacle (’ohel; 1 Chronicles 9:19–23) occur twice, and the term entrance to the Tent of Meeting (1 Chronicles 9:21) is taken straight from the story of Phinehas (Numbers 25:6). Interestingly, the term “tabernacle “or tent is applied both to the sanctuaries of the David-Solomon period as well as to the postexilic temple (1 Chronicles 9:19, 1 Chronicles 9:23). The Chronicler also uses the phrase the camp of Yahweh (1 Chronicles 9:19) to refer to the temple courts (2 Chronicles 31:2). Interestingly, the postexilic temple, which is called the house of Yahweh, is in the same breath described uniquely as the house of the tent (1 Chronicles 9:23). This again emphasizes the continuity of the sanctuary from the ancient times of Moses all the way through to the postexilic period, thus settling once and for all the legitimacy of the postexilic temple as well as the validity of the gatekeepers’ office.

The authority of the gatekeepers, therefore, rests on a rich heritage; it is priestly (Phinehas), royal (David), and prophetic (Samuel). This kind of legitimization may indicate that the role of the gatekeepers in the postexilic period may have been suspect.⁸ The authority of David will continue to be key to the Chronicler’s bolstering of the function of the Levites in his narrative section (1 Chronicles 10:1–29:30; 2 Chronicles 1:1–36:23).

The four principal gatekeepers, named earlier (1 Chronicles 9:17), had the responsibility of guarding each of the gates leading into the temple area, one for each point of the compass (1 Chronicles 9:33). It is stressed that these four chief gatekeepers were Levites (1 Chronicles 9:26), probably to distinguish them from other high-ranking temple staff in pre-exilic times (2 Kings 25:18; Jeremiah 52:24). Oversight extended to the various chambers and treasuries (1 Chronicles 9:26–27; see 1 Chronicles 26:15, 1 Chronicles 26:17, 1 Chronicles 26:20–22). The four leaders remained permanently in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:24); their kinsmen/brothers lived in their surrounding villages and came on a rotational basis on the Sabbath to take up duties for seven-day periods (1 Chronicles 9:25). Another important function assigned to the gatekeepers was being in charge of opening it every morning or literally in charge over the key. The word for key is used elsewhere only in Judges 3:25 and Isaiah 22:22. As such they were security guards entrusted with locking up at night and opening first thing in the morning. Their settlements surrounded the sacred courts, adding to the security. The danger was not so much from foes without. Rather, according to Johnstone, it came from those within the sacred community itself who were suffering from some ritual impurity that ought to have barred them from entry. The safeguarding of the holiness of the temple lay within the gatekeepers' responsibility: to restrict access to the different areas of the temple to those with the required degree of sanctification and purity (2 Chronicles 23:19).⁹