Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Nehemiah 12:22
The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, [were] recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian.
22. were recorded chief of the fathers ] R.V. were recorded heads of fathers’ houses. The language is obscure on account of the abruptness with which the statement is introduced. The meaning seems to be that during the four high-priesthoods mentioned, a full register of the heads of fathers’ houses among the Levites was kept.
to the reign of Darius the Persian ] R.V. in (marg. Or, to) the reign. The preposition (literally ‘upon’) concerning which the doubt is expressed in the alternative rendering of the R.V. is rendered in the LXX. and the Vulg. ‘in regno.’ It may be considered very questionable whether the rendering ‘to’ is admissible; ‘in’ is certainly preferable.
Darius the Persian ] That this Darius is Darius III. Codomannus (336 331) is the most obvious explanation. And if the Jaddua mentioned in this verse be, as there is really no reason to doubt, the high-priest of Alexander’s time, the mention of Darius III. Codomannus, the contemporary Persian king, presents no difficulty. On the title ‘the Persian,’ see the Introduction.
The alternative preferred by some commentators, viz. that Darius Nothus (424 404 b.c.), the successor of Artaxerxes, is intended, is improbable after the mention of Jaddua’s enrolment, unless it be maintained that this Jaddua is not the high-priest of Alexander’s time. But it must also be evident that the reference to Jaddua is to his tenure of the high-priesthood. The attempt to reconcile the mention of Jaddua with the allusion to Darius Nothus, by the suggestion that Darius Nothus was king when Jaddua was born, only arises from the presupposition that none but Nehemiah could have written this chapter.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
These verses interrupt the account of the church officers in the time of Joiakim, resumed in Neh 12:24. They appear to be an addition to the original text, made about the time of Alexander the Great, when the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah would seem to have first taken their existing shape. The same writer who introduced these verses, probably also added Neh 12:11 to the original text.
Darius the Persian – Probably Darius Codomannus (336-331 B.C.), the antagonist of Alexander the Great. See the introduction of the Book of Nehemiah.
This passage shows that the practice of keeping a record of public events in state archives was continued after the return from the captivity, at least to the time of Johanan, the son, i. e., the grandson, of Eliasbib.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Jaddua] This was probably the high priest who went in his pontifical robes, accompanied by his brethren, to meet Alexander the Great, when he was advancing towards Jerusalem, with the purpose to destroy it, after having conquered Tyre and Gaza. Alexander was so struck with the appearance of the priest, that he forbore all hostilities against Jerusalem, prostrated himself before Jaddua, worshipped the Lord at the temple, and granted many privileges to the Jews. See Josephus, ANT. lib. xi., c. 3, and Prideaux’s Connections, lib. 7, p. 695.
To the reign of Darius the Persian.] Calmet maintains that this must have been Darius Codomanus, who was defeated by Alexander the Great: but Archbishop Usher understands it of Darius Nothus, in whose reign he thinks Jaddua was born, who was high priest under Darius Codomanus.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Either Darius Codomanus, and then what was said concerning Jaddua, Neh 12:11, must be in part repeated and applied here: or Darius Nothus; and so this Jaddua might be father to him who was in the days of Darius Codomanus, and of Alexander the Great.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
The Levites, in the days of Eliashib,…. The third priest of the second temple:
Joiada; he was the son of Eliashib, and the fourth high priest:
and Johanan; the same with Jonathan, Ne 12:11 and whom Josephus o also calls Joannes:
and Jaddua; the same as in Ne 12:10 in the days of each of these were
recorded chief of the fathers; the principal men among the Levites:
also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian; thought to be Darius Codomannus, the last king of the Persian monarchy, whom Alexander conquered; and if so, this verse must be inserted after the death of Nehemiah, and as the next verse also seems to be; for these two verses interrupt the natural order of the relation: an account is given of the priests in the times of Joiakim, Ne 12:12, these verses being inserted, the account goes on, Ne 12:24, &c. of the chief of the Levites in the times of Joiakim only.
o Antiqu. l. 11. c. 7. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“With respect to the Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were recorded the heads of the houses, and also (those) of the priests during the reign of Darius the Persian.” To judge from the with which it commences, this verse seems to be the title of the list of Levites following, while the rest of its contents rather seems adapted for the subscription of the preceding list of priests (Neh 12:12-21). , under the reign. The use of with reference to time is to be explained by the circumstance that the time, and here therefore the reign of Darius, is regarded as the ground and soil of that which is done in it, as e.g., , upon night = at night-time. Darius is Darius Nothus, the second Persian monarch of that name; where also the meaning of this verse has been already discussed. In Neh 12:23, the original document in which the list of Levites was originally included, is alluded to as the book of the daily occurrences or events of the time, i.e., the public chronicle, a continuation of the former annals of the kingdom. , and also to the days of Johanan, the son of Eliashib. So far did the official records of the chronicle extend. That Nehemiah may have been still living in the days of Johanan, i.e., in the time of his high-priesthood, has been already shown, p. 95. The statements in Neh 12:22 and Neh 12:23 are aphoristic, and of the nature of supplementary and occasional remarks.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
4. Levites are listed from the time of Joiakim.
TEXT, Neh. 12:22-26
22
As for the Levites, the heads of fathers households were registered in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua; so were the priests in the reign of Darius the Persian.
23
The sons of Levi, the heads of fathers households, were registered in the Book of the Chronicles up to the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib.
24
And the heads of the Levites were Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brothers opposite them, to praise and give thanks, as prescribed by David the man of God, division corresponding to division.
25
Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, and Akkub were gatekeepers keeping watch at the storehouses of the gates.
26
These served in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest and scribe.
COMMENT
According to Neh. 12:22, records were kept of the Levites from the time of the second high priest after the Return from Captivity until into the fourth century B.C. (cf. Neh. 12:10-11); Jaddua may have lived to the time of Alexander the Great. Similar records for the priests covered a like time span, according to many who identify Darius the Persian as Darius III, Codomannus, 336331 B.C. Because of the late date, Dr. Ironside also calls this a later insertion: cf. comments on Neh. 12:10-11. The later hand is only verifying that the records were still being kept in his day.
Neh. 12:23 says these records were in the Book of the Chronicles: not the Bible book, but apparently a register kept in the Temple. Johanan may be another spelling for Jonathan, who was a (grand-) son of Eliashib.
Neh. 12:24 again describes antiphonal arrangement of choirs.
In Neh. 12:25, the gatekeepers would be on duty at the Temple storehouses, not the gates of the city.
Neh. 12:26 dates the above list of Levites to the time of Joiakim, a generation later than the previous list of Levites (Neh. 12:8-9), and contemporaneous with Nehemiah and Ezra.
WORD STUDIES
PURIFY (Neh. 12:27): the basic idea of the Hebrew word is brightness or splendor; i.e. it causes something to shine or be bright. It signifies to be or become clean or pure: to cleanse or purify. It can be done for three reasons. (1) Of physical purity: Eze. 39:12 describes the cleansing of the land from corpses. Num. 8:6-7 speaks of washing and completely shaving the Levites to prepare them for Gods service. (2) Of ceremonial purity: Eze. 43:26 speaks of cleansing the altar for the new Temple of which Ezekiel had a vision, A leper who had been healed would be purified in a ceremony administered by a priest: Lev. 14:11. (3) Of moral purity: Mal. 3:3 uses the figure of purifying metal from dross as a parallel of a persons moral cleansing. Jer. 33:8 speaks of cleansing through Gods forgiveness.
DEDICATION (Neh. 12:30 : Hanukkah): Sometimes a study of word derivations leads one down some strange and unexpected paths. There are three words formed from the same base, all of which have one common meaning: to choke. Apparently from this come the ideas of being narrow or of closing. A collar is placed around the neck of an animal and it is strangled down so that it can be initiated into mans service and trained for usefulness: thus it becomes dedicated, or consecrated to certain purposes. Each of the italicized words is a translation of one of the forms of this word. Our English word, neck, is derived from this same base (note the N and K, also in Hanukkah). So a wall was collared for mans service.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(22, 23) The Levites.Here is an evident interpolation. The writer says that the records of the heads of courses was continued down to Jaddua and Darius Codomannus.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. The Levites to the reign of Darius the Persian The grammatical connexion of the parts of this verse it is difficult to determine. The whole verse seems to be the heading or superscription of a list of names, and, indeed, the whole passage (Neh 12:22-26) has a fragmentary aspect, like disconnected parts of some more extensive document. It is evident from this verse that a register of the chief fathers of the priests and Levites was kept until the reign of Darius. But who was this Darius the Persian? According to Josephus, ( Ant., Neh 11:8 ; Neh 11:4-5,) Jaddua was the name of the high-priest who was contemporary with Alexander the Great, the conqueror of Darius Codomannus. This Darius was the last king of Persia, and must have reigned so long after the time of Nehemiah, that if the Jaddua of this verse was his contemporary, this passage must have been written later than the age of the supposed author of this book.
There are three methods of obviating these difficulties: 1.) This verse may have been inserted by a later hand. Into a passage so aphoristic as this, such an interpolation might have easily crept. This supposition is favoured by the insertion of “and” before the name of Johanan, as if that name had originally ended the list; and also by the mention, in the next verse, of Chronicles that were continued to “the days of Johanan.” 2.) The Jaddua of this verse may have been a different person from the one mentioned by Josephus as contemporary with Alexander. 3.) Most interpreters identify this Darius the Persian with Darius Nothus, who, after a few months of anarchy in the royal family, succeeded his father, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and reigned nineteen years. Nehemiah might easily have been living in his day, and the Jaddua of Josephus might have been then a young man. For, according to Neh 13:28, Joiada had in Nehemiah’s time a son who was married, and, therefore, the oldest son. Johanan might have begotten Jaddua some years before this. Accordingly in bringing down these registers to his own time, Nehemiah recorded the name of Jaddua as then living and prospectively high priest, though not yet in office.
If these representatives of four successive generations in the high priest’s family were all living at one time, we may see a reason for thus recording their names even though one or more of them had not yet entered upon his office. One of the sons of the high priest had married Sanballat’s daughter, and erected a false worship on Mount Gerizim; and such a pollution in the priesthood may have shaken the faith of many a pious Jew. But it would restore confidence to note the remarkable providence of God in preserving at such a time four generations of high priests to look each other in the face at once.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Levites Who Were Heads Of Fathers’ Houses In The Days Of Joiakim the Son of Jeshua And Of Nehemiah The Governor And Of Ezra The Priest ( Neh 12:22-26 ).
It is now pointed out by the writer that the information concerning the chiefs of the Levites in the time of Joiakim, necessary to complete the full picture, was obtained from subsequent records. This would serve to confirm that the previous information supplied was obtained from contemporary records.
Neh 12:22
‘As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers’ (houses), also the priests, in the reign of Darius the Persian.’
This rather complex statement can be seen as explaining that in order to complete the pattern ‘priests/Levites of the first generation, priests/Levites of the subsequent generation’, resort had to be made to records which were not contemporary for details concerning the Levites, although such contemporary records were available for the priests. The writer is thus honest enough to inform us that, unlike the previous information, the details concerning these Levites in the days of Joiakim (Neh 12:26) were not obtained from contemporary records, but from records made in subsequent generations, namely in the time of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan and Jaddua, whilst the records concerning the priests were made in the days of Darius the Persian.
To deal with the last first. The description ‘the Persian’ is comparatively rare, and Darius the Persian is probably called such here in order to distinguish him from Darius the Mede (Dan 5:31). Compare Dan 6:28 where Cyrus is called ‘the Persian’ in order to distinguish him from Darius the Mede. Thus reference here is to Darius I (522-486 BC), who, as the writer indicates, was not Darius the Mede, but Darius the Persian. This would make the records concerning the priests contemporary.
With regard to ‘the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan and Jaddua’, this phrase suggests that the records from which the material concerning the Levites was taken, were made in subsequent generations. This is the one incontrovertible fact (if such can be said to exist). And this is especially so as Neh 12:26 suggests that Joiakim, Eliashib’s father, continued on until the days of Nehemiah. What is not clear is the period covered by ‘the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan and Jaddua’.
At first glance it might appear that these names were simply repeating the information given in the above genealogy of Jeshua the High Priest, but that this is not so is evident from the fact that Jonathan is not mentioned here, while a Johanan is introduced. There is no good reason for suggesting that Johanan is simply an alternative name for Jonathan. On the other hand we do know that a Johanan did become High Priest at a date early enough to enable him to be in authority when in 407 BC letters were written from the unorthodox Jewish community in Elephantine concerning the destruction of their Temple. Johanan may thus have been Jonathan’s uncle, for it may be he who is elsewhere called ‘Johanan the son of Eliashib’ (Neh 12:23; Ezr 10:6). It may be that he became High Priest because Jonathan suffered from some deficiency, and Jaddua was not yet of age.
On the other hand Neh 12:23 limits the writing of these records as ‘even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib’. Taken at face value this would exclude the idea that the Jaddua here mentioned was subsequent to Johanan, and would confirm that Johanan was Joiada’s brother, for Joiada was also the son of Eliashib (Neh 13:28). It may thus be that Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were brothers.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that Eliashib also appears to have had a brother named Johanan (1Ch 3:24), whilst on top of this there may also have been another Eliashib connected with the Temple who was ‘over the chambers of the house of God’ (Neh 13:4), so that the Johanan of Ezr 10:6 may have been the son of this Eliashib. And just to add to the complications there was also an Eliashib who was one of the singers in Ezr 10:24, so that it is just possible that the Johanan in Neh 12:23, in a verse referring to Levites, was his son.
It would appear to us that the most likely solution is that Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were brothers, and all sons of Eliashib. But it is no more than that. What is certain is that for the present nothing reliable can now be built on the mention of these names, other than the indication that the records were made after the days of Joiakim, Eliashib’s father.
Neh 12:23
‘The sons of Levi, heads of fathers’ (houses), were written in the book of the chronicles, even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib.’
This would appear to be confirming that the information concerning the Levites now to be described was obtained from records made up to the time of Johanan, the son of Eliashib, which may mean up until the time of his High Priesthood, for the writer’s contemporaries would have known that Johanan became High Priest. This would serve to confirm our solution suggested above.
The phrase ‘the sons of Levi, heads of fathers’ is interesting. In Ezra/Nehemiah the phrase ‘sons of Levi’ only elsewhere occurs in Ezr 8:15, where it continues the idea of ‘sons of –’ from the previous verses. The usual designation is ‘the Levites’. Here, however, it may simply be used precisely because ‘the Levites’ had already headed the previous sentence. The phrase as a whole parallels ‘priests, heads of fathers’ in Neh 12:12. Both these facts suggest (although not conclusively) that Neh 12:23 was part of the original passage from Neh 12:12 to Neh 12:24, rather than being an insertion.
Neh 12:24
‘And the chiefs of the Levites:
The names of the chiefs of the Levites in the days of Joiakim are now given.
Neh 12:24
‘Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brothers over against them, to praise and give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, watch next to watch.’
The names of the chiefs of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel were ‘Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, Mattaniah, who was over the thanksgiving, he and his brothers’ (Neh 12:8). This may be their given names or they may have taken their ancestral names in view of the new beginning. The names of the leading chiefs of the Levites who signed the covenant (or their ancestral names) were ‘Jeshua, the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel’ (Neh 10:9), who were possibly third generation. They were the leading Levite chiefs in the time of Nehemiah. This verse may therefore be seen as indicating that, of the three chiefs mentioned here in the time of Joiakim, Hashabiah was Jeshua’s son, Sherebiah was Binnui’s son, and, as stated, Jeshua was Kadmiel’s son. ‘Sherebiah, Judah and Mattaniah who was over the thanksgiving, he and his brothers’ were now seen in terms of ‘their brothers over against them’ who ‘praise and give thanks’.
This suggestion takes into account both the confirmed order of the chiefs of the Levites (why should Jeshua otherwise have slipped to third) and the unexpected ‘son of Kadmiel’, and makes perfect sense.
Some have suggested that ‘ben-Kadmiel’ is a copying error for ‘Binnui, Kadmiel’. But the ‘and’ before Joshua supports the MT text, for ‘and’ regularly appears before the last name in a list. Furthermore where Jeshua the son of Azaniah (Neh 10:9) is spoken of he regularly heads such lists, whereas here this Jeshua comes last. In view of these facts we accept the text as it stands. And we should note that under the alteration theory the absence in Neh 12:24 of the name of Binnui is equally striking. If he is constantly of the three why is he not mentioned there? Furthermore the relegation of Jeshua to third place would be equally striking if he were not stated to rather be a Jeshua who was the son of Kadmiel. Elsewhere the name Jeshua always heads Levite lists (e.g. Neh 8:7; Neh 10:9; Neh 12:8).
The truth is that the names are in fact all common Hebrew names which were regularly given (we can compare John and Peter in my day), which is why when the father’s name is lacking the names can be easily confused. For example, in Ezr 8:24 ‘Hashabiah and Sherebiah’ were the names of chiefs of priests who returned with Ezra, whereas in Ezr 8:18-19 we have reference to Levites named Sherebiah and Hashabiah. There are no good grounds, apart from the coincidence of the names, for connecting those priests with these leading Levites. Nor are there good grounds for connecting them with the two mentioned here. Thus we see these coincidences as simply an indication of the popularity of certain names among the descendants of Levi. Indeed, the names Hashabiah and Sherebiah also appear as leading Levites (among a number of other names) at the signing of the covenant, but clearly as inferior to Jeshua (Neh 10:11-12). It would, of course, have been helpful if the writer had given their fathers’ names in order to identify them. But unfortunately he did not.
For the phrase “to praise (and) to give thanks according to the commandment of David the man of God” as connected with Levites see 1Ch 16:4; 1Ch 23:30 ; 2Ch 5:12-13. or the phrase ‘watch next to watch’ compare 1Ch 26:16 where it is used of gatekeepers. There is clearly an attempt here to confirm that all now goes on as it did in the time of David. It is a new beginning, recreating the old ideal. It may also indicate an expectancy that shortly a new ‘kingdom of David’ would arise as anticipated by the prophets (e.g. Hos 3:5; Jer 30:9 Eze 34:23; Eze 37:24).
The description of David as ‘the man of God’ is rare in Scripture (here, Neh 12:36 and 2Ch 8:14) and always occurs in connection with the worship of the Temple. It brings out that David’s great prophetic inspiration expressed itself in musical worship. It was in the Psalms that his prophetic inspiration was revealed (compare Mar 12:36).
Neh 12:25
‘Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were gatekeepers keeping the watch at the store-houses of the gates.’
It is an open question here as to whether we should see the first two or three names as to be tacked on to Neh 12:24 as named singers, with a full stop coming after Obadiah (or even after Meshullam), with Meshullam, Talmon and Akkub then being seen as the gatekeepers. Compare how in Neh 11:17 we have mention of Mattaniah, Bakbukiah and Abda (Obadiah) as worship leaders, although at a different time. But in view of the constant proliferation of the same names for different people it can only be a conjecture. Compare how Meshullam occurs regularly as referring to different people (Neh 3:4; Neh 3:6; Neh 8:4; Neh 10:7; Neh 10:20; Neh 11:7; Neh 11:11; Neh 12:13; Neh 12:16; Neh 12:33; Ezr 8:16; Ezr 8:25). Talmon and Akkub are the names of different generations of gatekeepers in Neh 7:45; with Ezr 2:42; and Neh 11:19; with 1Ch 9:17.
Neh 12:26
‘These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and Ezra the priest the scribe.’
‘These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak.’ This is emphasising the end of an inclusio which began at Neh 12:12. Note the assumption that Ezra and Nehemiah operated alongside each other.
The peoples mentioned in the passage from Neh 12:12 onwards, played their part in the days of Joiakim, the son of Jeshua, in other words in the next generation after the return. This coincided with the arrival of Ezra and Nehemiah, although by that time they would be old, and the third generation would be coming through as depicted in the signing of the covenant. There is no real substance in the argument that ‘in the days of Nehemiah’ signifies that Nehemiah was dead. It is simply a reminder that the days of Joiakim (who was dead), coincided with the days of Nehemiah. The writer, whether Nehemiah or someone else, is simply repeating the pattern.
The writer has thus demonstrated that, from the return onwards, Israel has been served by a genuine priesthood, whose genealogy was known, which operated in accordance with the Law of Moses, something especially brought out in chapter 7 where those who could prove their genealogy were the ones who alone could conduct the worship of the Temple.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Neh 12:22. Also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian This verse, wherein mention is made of Darius Codomanus, and the high-priest Jaddua, affords us a proof, says Mr. Le Clerc, that Nehemiah did not put the finishing hand to this book. For Nehemiah, to be able to speak of Darius, must have lived, according to Huet, at least one hundred and thirty-one years, and at that age have written or enlarged his book; which is not probable. We may therefore conclude, that the book of Nehemiah could not have been published such as it is, till the reign of Darius Codomanus at least; and since one chapter of the book of Nehemiah has been put into that of Ezra, we may very probably suppose, that it did not appear in its present form till about the same time. So that these two books have been collected from the memoirs of three different authors; to which have been added several things for the illustration of the history. See Le Clerc’s “Sentimens de “quelques Theologiens,” &c. and Houbigant’s note on the place.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Neh 12:22 The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, [were] recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian.
Ver. 22. To the reign of Darius the Persian ] viz. Darius Codomannus, the last Persian king.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Neh 12:22-26
22As for the Levites, the heads of fathers’ households were registered in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan and Jaddua; so were the priests in the reign of Darius the Persian. 23The sons of Levi, the heads of fathers’ households, were registered in the Book of the Chronicles up to the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. 24The heads of the Levites were Hashabiah, Sherebiah and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brothers opposite them, to praise and give thanks, as prescribed by David the man of God, division corresponding to division. 25Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon and Akkub were gatekeepers keeping watch at the storehouses of the gates. 26These served in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest and scribe.
Neh 12:22 Darius This either refers to the reign of Darius II (423-404 B.C., i.e., Josephus is inaccurate so Derek Kidner, Tyndale Commentary, pp. 143-146) or to the reign of Darius III (336-331 B.C., if Josephus’ identifications are correct). Apparently, Jewish scribes had added to the genealogies unto their day
Neh 12:23 the book of the Chronicles This does not refer to the biblical book of I & 2 Chr., but to the temple records which Ezra and Nehemiah draw from freely.
Neh 12:24 the son of Kadmiel This is preferable to KJV Binnui.
as prescribed by David See 1Ch 23:6.
the man of God This is a title used of Moses (cf. Deu 33:1; Jos 14:6). It was used of the prophets. In Hebrew theology one must be a prophet to write Scripture. Moses is called a prophet in Deuteronomy 18. David was considered to be the author of numerous Psalms; therefore, he too must be a prophet, a man of God (ish Elohim).
Neh 12:25 the storehouses of the gates There were storehouses in the temple in several locations.
1. small rooms off of the central building
2. small rooms at the gates
Neh 12:26 in the days of Nehemiah. . .Ezra Those who assume that Ezr 7:7 is inaccurate and place Ezra after Nehemiah usually change or delete this verse and Neh 12:36; Neh 12:38. This debate grows out of three theories concerning Ezr 7:7, seventh year of King Artaxerxes. The traditional view has been to date this in 457 B.C. in the reign of Artaxerxes I. A second theory has been to suppose a scribal error, which should have been twenty-seventh year of King Artaxerxes. The third theory supposes it to refer to Artaxerxes II which would be 398 B.C. I like the first!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Darius = Darius Hystaspis. See App-57and App-58.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Neh 12:22-26
Neh 12:22-26
LIST OF THE LEVITES IN THE DAYS OF THE LAST FOUR HIGH PRIESTS MENTIONED IN Neh 12:10-11
“As for the Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers’ houses; also the priests until the reign of Darius the Persian. The sons of Levi, heads of fathers’ houses, were written in the book of the Chronicles until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. And the chiefs of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, watch corresponding to watch. Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, and Akkub were gatekeepers standing guard at the storehouses of the gates. These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest the scribe.”
“In the days of Joiakim” (Neh 12:26). That entire list of six High Priests in Neh 12:10-11, raises the question of why four were named in Neh 12:22, whereas, here (Neh 12:26), all of the names in this paragraph are identified as those who lived in the days of Joiakim. This makes it a certainty that the Darius the Persian mentioned here was none other than, “Darius Nothus, the second Persian king of that name.” “This is proved by the Elephantine papyri.” It appears that the best explanation of why four High Priests are named in Neh 12:21 is that all four generations of them were living at the same time, which would mean that Jaddua was indeed quite a young child at the time. The text nowhere states that the names given were those of people living throughout the administrations of all four of those High Priests.
E.M. Zerr:
Neh 12:22. Chief of the fathers is not an official title for these Levites. They had no extra classification under the law except that of having the execution of the law. But in the eyes of the nation in which they were living they were considered in the light of this phrase. That estimate was had of them down to the time of Darius the Persian. If the reader will consult the chart (see suggestions for chart at Ezr 3:8) he will see that this king was reigning from 521 to 484 B. c. This will give us a good view of the light in which the Levites were held by the secular governments.
Neh 12:23. See comments at 1Ki 14:19 for explanation of chronicles.
Neh 12:24. This special song and praise service was instituted by David, and the account of it is in 1 Chronicles 25. Ward over against ward means they took their turns.
Neh 12:25. The porters were stationed at the gates, whence the name of their occupation. But the special task of the porters named in this verse was to guard the treasures coming in through the gate. Thresholds is from a word meaning “a collection of offerings,” according to Strong’s lexicon.
Neh 12:26. This verse is a statement showing that the various kinds of works described in the preceding verses were performed for several years prior to the time of the writing. The reader is requested to consult again my comments in the latter part of the first paragraph in this chapter. The activities covered the days of Nehemiah and Ezra, the most outstanding men in this part of the narrative.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Eliashib: Neh 12:10, Neh 12:11
recorded: Neh 12:12, Neh 12:13
Reciprocal: Num 1:50 – thou shalt Ezr 10:6 – Johanan Neh 3:20 – Eliashib Neh 13:28 – Joiada
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Neh 12:22. Also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persians This verse, observes Dr. Dodd, after Le Clerc, wherein mention is made of Darius Codomanus, and the high-priest Jaddua, affords us proof that Nehemiah did not put the finishing hand to this book. For Nehemiah, to be able to speak of Darius, must have lived, according to Huet, at least one hundred and thirty-one years, and at that age have written or enlarged his book, which is not probable. We may therefore conclude, that the book of Nehemiah could not have been published, such as it is, till the reign of Darius Codomanus at least; and since one chapter of the book of Nehemiah has been put into that of Ezra, we may very probably suppose that it did not appear in its present form till about the same time. So that these two books have been collected from the memoirs of three different authors, to which have been added several things for the illustration of the history. Le Clerc, and Houbigants note on the place.