Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Nehemiah 13:28

And [one] of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, [was] son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me.

28. one of the sons of Joiada ] We should gather that Eliashib the grandfather was still alive, since the emphasis lies on the relationship of the offender to the high-priest. ‘Joiada.’ Cf. Neh 12:10. On Eliashib see note on Neh 13:4.

son in law to Sanballat the Horonite ] For Sanballat, cf. Neh 2:10, Neh 3:33, Neh 4:1, Neh 6:1. The marriage of the high-priest’s grandson with Sanballat’s daughter was an offence in every way. (1) It showed treasonable alliance with Israel’s bitterest foe, (2) it violated the rule laid down in Ezra’s time against mixed marriages, (3) it compromised the purity of the high-priestly house (Lev 21:6 ff.).

therefore I chased him from me ] LXX. . Obviously because he was contumacious, and refused to put away his wife. Rashi’s explanation that Nehemiah chased him away for fear of his playing the spy and reporting the means of entering and leaving the city, is strangely inadequate. Josephus relates a story so similar to this that it should probably be referred to the same events, although he must have obtained it from some other source. According to Josephus ( Ant. xi. 7, 8) a certain Manasse, the brother of Jaddua and son of John or Johanan (and therefore grandson not son of Joiada) took to wife Nikaso, the daughter of the Cuthaean Sanballat. Refusing to put her away, he was expelled from Jerusalem by the Jewish nobles, and took refuge with the Samaritans, among whom, as a member of the high-priestly family, he set up upon Mt Gerizim a rival temple and priesthood. It will be seen that Josephus assigns this to the period of Alexander the Great. But there it is probable that Josephus is at fault; for he completely fails to realize the interval of time between the Return from the Exile and the Age of Alexander; and it is to this chronological confusion rather than to a mistake of ‘Jaddua’ for ‘Joiada’ that we should ascribe the cause of his principal variation from the Memoirs of Nehemiah. For (1) in Alexander’s time the organization of the Samaritan worship had long been fully established, (2) it is very improbable that a repetition of such a striking incident should occur just a century after Nehemiah’s time.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 28. One of the sons of Joiada] This was Manasseh, brother of Jaddua, son of Joiada, and grandson of Eliashib the high priest.

I chased him from me.] Struck him off the list of the priests, and deemed him utterly unworthy of all connection and intercourse with truly religious people.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Joiada; said by Josephus to be that Manasses who by Sanballats interest procured liberty to build the Samaritan temple in Mount Gerizim; to which those priests who had married strange wives, or been otherwise criminal, betook themselves, and with or after them others of the people in the same or like circumstances.

I chased him from me, i.e. from my presence and court, and from the city and temple, and all the privileges of the priesthood, and from the whole congregation and church of Israel, whereof I am a member.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest,…. A grandson of the high priest; for the high priest here is Eliashib, according to our version, and not Joiada his son, according to Dr. Prideaux i; the person designed, Josephus k makes to be Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua the high priest: was

son in law to Sanballat the Horonite; married a daughter of his, who was the avowed enemy of the Jewish nation; and for whom, according to the same writer, Sanballat obtained leave of Alexander to build a temple on Mount Gerizim; but this is to protract the age of Nehemiah and Sanballat to too great a length; besides, Eliashib seems to have been now high priest, and not even his son Joiada, and much less Jaddua, a grandson of Joiada:

therefore I chased him from me; drove him from his court, suffered him not to minister at the altar; banished him from the city, as Jarchi, and even from the land of Judea.

i Connect. par. 1. p. 412. k Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. sect. 2, 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Nehemiah acted with greater severity towards one of the sons of Joiada the high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat. He drove him from him ( , that he might not be a burden to me). The reason for this is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanballat, i.e., had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 2:10), who was so hostile to Nehemiah and to the Jewish community in general, and would not comply with the demand of Nehemiah that he should dismiss this wife. In this case, Nehemiah was obliged to interfere with authority. For this marriage was a pollution of the priesthood, and a breach of the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Hence he closes the narrative of this occurrence with the wish, Neh 13:29, that God would be mindful of them ( , of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc., i.e., would punish or chastise them for it. , stat. constr. pl. from , pollution ( plurale tant.). It was a pollution of the priesthood to marry a heathen woman, such marriage being opposed to the sacredness of the priestly office, which a priest was to consider even in the choice of a wife, and because of which he might marry neither a whore, nor a feeble nor a divorced woman, while the high priest mighty marry only a virgin of his own people ( Lev 21:7, Lev 21:14). The son of Joiada who had married a daughter of Sanballat was not indeed his presumptive successor (Johanan, Neh 12:11), for then he would have been spoken of by name, but a younger son, and therefore a simple priest; he was, however, so nearly related to the high priest, that by his marriage with a heathen woman the holiness of the high-priestly house was polluted, and therewith also “the covenant of the priesthood,” i.e., not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God granted to Phinehas for his zeal (Num 25:13), but the covenant which God concluded with the tribe of Levi, the priesthood, and the Levites, by choosing the tribe of Levi, and of that tribe Aaron and his descendants, to be His priest ( , Exo 28:1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be “holy to the Lord” (Lev 21:6, Lev 21:8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace.

Josephus ( Ant. xi. 7. 2) relates the similar fact, that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Cuthite; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excluded him from the priesthood, he established, by the assistant of his father-in-law, the temple and worship on Mount Gerizim (xi. 8. 2-4), and that many priests made common cause with him. Now, though Josephus calls this Manasseh a brother of Jaddua, thus making him a grandson of Joiada, and transposing the establishment of the Samaritan worship on Gerizim to the last years of Darius Codomannus and the first of Alexander of Macedon, it can scarcely be misunderstood that, notwithstanding these discrepancies, the same occurrence which Nehemiah relates in the present verses is intended by Josephus. The view of older theologians, to which also Petermann (art. Samaria in Herzog’s Realenc. xiii. p. 366f.) assents, that there were two Sanballats, one in the days of Nehemiah, the other in the time of Alexander the Great, and that both had sons-in-law belonging to the high-priestly family, is very improbable; and the transposition of the fact by Josephus to the times of Darius Codomannus and Alexander accords with the usual and universally acknowledged incorrectness of his chronological combinations. He makes, e.g., Nehemiah arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes, instead of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, while Xerxes reigned only twenty years.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

(28) I chased him from me.Eliashib himself was allied by marriage to Tobiah, and one of his grandsons was now brought into prominence as married to Sanballat. Him Nehemiah drove into exile.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

28. One of the sons of Joiada Not Jonathan or Johanan, (Neh 12:11; Neh 12:22,) but a younger and less prominent member of the high priest’s family. The fact, however, that he was a son of the high priest made the matter of his foreign marriage the more notorious, and called for the greater severity on the part of the governor.

Sanballat See on chapter Neh 2:10.

I chased him from me Expelled and banished him from the province of Judea. Josephus ( Antiq., Neh 11:7 ; Neh 11:2) relates this incident of Manasseh, a brother of Jaddua, and places it in the reign of Darius Codomannus the last king of Persia. In this, as in some other things, he seems to have fallen into a confusion of names and dates. He also relates how the excommunicated priest went over to Sanballat and became high priest of the Samaritan temple which was built upon Mount Gerizim.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Banishment Of A Member Of The High Priest’s Family For Marrying A Non-Israelite Woman And Thus Disobeying God’s Law And Defiling The Priesthood ( Neh 13:28-29 ).

Neh 13:28

‘And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite. Therefore I chased him from me.’

It may here have been Joiada, the son of Eliashib, who was High Priest, or it may at this stage have been the Elisashib who was still High Priest, the Hebrew could mean either. But the important point is that the High Priest had condoned the marriage of Joiada’s son to the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, something forbidden in Scripture. For the Law was quite clear on the fact that a member of the High Priest’s family, who could at some stage act as High Priest, could only marry a woman who was a trueborn Israelite virgin (Lev 21:14). This was why he was seen as having ‘defiled the priesthood’ (Neh 13:29) by marrying a syncretistic Yahwist who was not a true born Israelite.

The fact that this meant that Sanballat, Nehemiah’s arch-enemy, had thereby gained considerable political influence in Israel, being able to influence the High Priest himself (the marriage would not have happened without the High Priest’s approval), explains Nehemiah’s harsh action. The son, together with his wife, had to be removed from any sphere where he could exercise influence. He was thus expelled from Jerusalem, presumably taking shelter with Sanballat in Samaria. And thereby Jerusalem was cleansed and kept holy.

Neh 13:29

‘Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.’

This is the second time that Nehemiah has called on God to remember the evil things that others have done, contrary to the covenant. The first was in Neh 6:14 where he called on God to remember what Sanballat, Tobiah, and the current Hebrew prophets, had done to try to entrap him into being afraid and as a consequence breaching the covenant. Here he calls on God to ‘remember’ those who have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. The plural ‘them’ can only mean the High Priest’s family, for it was they who had caused the priesthood to be defiled.

The ‘covenant of the priesthood and the Levites’ presumably refers to the covenant that they entered into, based on the Law, when they came of age to enter the priesthood and levitical service. For the priests it would include the provisions of Leviticus 21, but would especially have reference to them keeping themselves ritually clean. The Levites also were expected to keep themselves ritually clean, otherwise they would not be able to serve in the Temple. Nothing ritually unclean was to enter the Temple area.

This covenant is mentioned in Mal 2:4-8. It was a covenant which offered the priests and Levites life and peace, because they feared YHWH and sought to do His will. In consequence the law of truth was in their mouth, and they walked rightly and sought to turn people from their iniquity. But now by corrupting the Law they had caused many to stumble, who no doubt followed the High Priest’s example, and would themselves produce ‘profane seed’. Thus they had defiled the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites.

Neh 13:30-31

‘Thus I cleansed them from all foreigners, and appointed charges (ordinances, offices) for the priests and for the Levites, every one in his work; and for the wood-offering, at times appointed, and for the first-fruits. Remember me, O my God, for good.’

A comparison of these verses with the covenant promises in chapter 10 is interesting.

I cleansed them from all foreigners, compare Neh 10:30

I appointed charges (ordinances, offices) for the priests and for the Levites everyone in his work, compare Neh 10:32-33; Neh 10:38-39.

For the wood offering at the time appointed, compare Neh 10:34.

For the firstruits, compare Neh 10:35-37.

The preciseness of order (apart from omission of the Sabbath observance laws) would not appear to be a coincidence and suggests that Nehemiah is pointing out to God that he has ensured the fulfilment of the sure agreement that Israel had made. He had already asked God to remember him for ensuring the observance of the Sabbath (Neh 13:15-22, compare Neh 10:31). For this he wanted ‘his God’ to remember him, for good. It is noteworthy that he does not seek that God will remember him as the wallbuilder, but rather as the one who has ensured the fulfilment of God’s covenant and the proper maintenance of Temple worship. And in view of his seeing Jerusalem as the holy city, and as the city which must be kept pure at all costs, he may well be asking to be remembered so that God would through him introduce the eschatological kingdom, which in essence was his prayer in Neh 1:9.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett