Bible Commentaries

Lists of Priests and Levites. Dedication of the Wall of Jerusalem - Nehemiah 12:1-43

The list of the inhabitants of the province, Neh 11, is followed by lists ofthe priests and Levites (Neh 12:1-26). These different lists are, in point offact, all connected with the genealogical register of the Israelite populationof the whole province, taken by Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:5) for the purpose ofenlarging the population of Jerusalem, though the lists of the orders ofpriests and Levites in the present chapter were made partly at an earlier,and partly at a subsequent period. It is because of this actual connectionthat they are inserted in the history of the building of the wall ofJerusalem, which terminates with the narrative of the solemn dedication ofthe completed wall in vv. 27-43.

Lists of the orders of priests and Levites. - Nehemiah 12:1-9 contain alist of the heads of the priests and Levites who returned from Babylonwith Zerubbabel and Joshua. The high priests during five generations arenext mentioned by name, Nehemiah 12:10, Nehemiah 12:11. Then follow the names of the headsof the priestly houses in the days of Joiakim the high priest; and finally,Nehemiah 12:22-26, the names of the heads of the Levites at the same period, withtitles and subscriptions.

Nehemiah 12:1-7

Nehemiah 12:1 contains the title of the first list, Nehemiah 12:1-9. “These are thepriests and Levites who went up with Zerubbabel … and Joshua;” comp. Ezra 2:1-2. Then follow, Nehemiah 12:1, the names of the priests, with thesubscription: “These are the heads of the priests and of their brethren, inthe days of Joshua.” ואחיהם still depends on ראשׁי. The brethren of the priests are the Levites, as being their fellow-tribesmen and assistants. Two-and-twenty names of such heads areenumerated, and these reappear, with but slight variations attributable toclerical errors, as names of priestly houses in Nehemiah 12:12-21, where they aregiven in conjunction with the names of those priests who, in the days ofJoiakim, either represented these houses, or occupied as heads the firstposition in them. The greater number, viz., 15, of these have already beenmentioned as among those who, together with Nehemiah, sealed as headsof their respective houses the agreement to observe the law, Neh 10. Hencethe present chapter appears to be the most appropriate place forcomparing with each other the several statements given in the books ofNehemiah and Ezra, concerning the divisions or orders of priests in theperiod immediately following the return from the captivity, and fordiscussing the question how the heads and houses of priests enumerated inNeh 10 and 12 stand related on the one hand to the list of the priestlyraces who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and on the other to thetwenty-four orders of priests instituted by David. For the purpose ofgiving an intelligible answer to this question, we first place in juxtapositionthe three lists given in Nehemiah, chs. 10 and 12.

d Nehemiah 10:3-9; Nehemiah 12:1-7 Nehemiah 12:12-21
d
d Priests who sealed the CovenantPriests who were Heads of their HousesPriestly Housesandtheir respective Heads
d
d 1. Seraiah1. Seraiah*SeraiahMeraiah
d
d 2. Azariah2. Jeremiah*JeremiahHananiah
d
d 3. Jeremiah3. Ezra*EzraMeshullam
d
d 4. Pashur4. Amariah*AmariahJehohanan
d
d 5. Amariah5. Malluch*MeluchiJonathan
d
d 6. Malchijah6. Hattush*
d
d 7. Hattush7. Shecaniah*ShebaniahJoseph
d
d 8. Shebaniah8. Rehum*HarimAdna
d
d 9. Malluch9. Meremoth*MeraiothHelkai
d
d 10. Harim10. IddoIdiahZecariah
d
d 11. Meremoth11. Ginnethon*GinnethonMeshullam
d
d 12. Obadiah12. Abijah*AbijahZichri
d
d 13. Daniel13. Miamin*Miniamin
d
d 14. Ginnethon14. Maadiah*MoadiahPiltai
d
d 15. Baruch15. Bilgah*BilgahShammua
d
d 16. Meshullam16. Shemaiah*ShemaiahJehonathan
d
d 17. Abijah17. JoiaribJoiaribMathnai
d
d 18. Mijamin18. JedaiahJedaiahUzzi
d
d 19. Maaziah19. SalluSallaiKallai
d
d 20. Bilgai20. AmokAmokEber
d
d 21. Shemaiah21. HilkiahHilkiahHashabiah
d
d 22. Jedaiah22. JedaiahNethaneel
d
d When, in the first place, we compare the two series in Neh 12, we find thename of the head of the house of Minjamin, and the names both of thehouse and the head, Hattush, between Meluchi and Shebaniah, omitted. Inother respects the two lists agree both in the order and number of thenames, with the exception of unimportant variations in the names, asמלוּכי (Chethiv, Nehemiah 12:14) for מלּוּך (Nehemiah 12:2); שׁכניה (Nehemiah 12:3) for שׁבניה (Nehemiah 12:14, Nehemiah 10:6); רחם (Nehemiah 12:3), atransposition of חרם (Nehemiah 12:15, Nehemiah 10:6); מריות (Nehemiah 12:15)instead of מרמות (Nehemiah 12:3, Nehemiah 10:6); עדיא (Chethiv, Nehemiah 12:16) instead ofעדּוא (Nehemiah 12:4); מיּמין (Nehemiah 12:5) for מנימין (Nehemiah 12:17); מועדיה (Nehemiah 12:17) for מעדיה (Nehemiah 12:4), or, accordingto a different pronunciation, מעזיה (Nehemiah 10:9); סלּי (Nehemiah 12:20)for סלּוּ (Nehemiah 12:7). - If we next compare the two lists in Neh 12 withthat in Neh 10, we find that of the twenty-two names given (Neh 12), thefifteen marked thus * occur also in Neh 10; עזריה, Nehemiah 10:4, beingevidently a clerical error, or another form of עזרא, Nehemiah 12:2, Nehemiah 12:13. Of the names enumerated in Neh 10, Pashur, Malchiah, Obadiah, Daniel,Baruch, and Meshullam are wanting in Neh 12, and are replaced by Iddoand the six last: Joiarib, Jedaiah, Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, and Jedaiah. Thename of Eliashib the high priest being also absent, Bertheau seeks toexplain this difference by supposing that a portion of the priests refusedtheir signatures because they did not concur in the strict measures of Ezraand Nehemiah. This conjecture would be conceivable, if we found in Neh 10that only thirteen orders or heads of priests had signed instead of twenty-two. Since, however, instead of the seven missing names, six others signedthe covenant, this cannot be the reason for the difference between thenames in the two documents (Neh 10, 12), which is probably to be found inthe time that elapsed between the making of these lists. The date of thelist, Nehemiah 12:1-7, is that of Zerubbabel and Joshua (b.c. 536); that of theother in Neh 12, the times of the high priest Joiakim the son of Joshua, i.e.,at the earliest, the latter part of the reign of Darius Hystaspis, perhapseven the reign of Xerxes.

How, then, are the two lists in Neh 12 and that in Neh 10, agreeing as theydo in names, related to the list of the priests who, according to Ezra 2:36-39 and Nehemiah 7:39-42, returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua?The traditional view, founded on the statements of the Talmud,

(Note: In Hieros. Taanith, f. 68a; Tosafta Taanith, c. 11, in Babyl. Erachin, f. 12b. The last statement is, according to Herzfeld, Gesch. i. p. 393, as follows: “Four divisions of priests returned from captivity,viz., Jedaiah, Charim, Paschur, and Immer. These the prophets of thereturned captives again divided into twenty-four; whereupon theirnames were written upon tickets and put in an urn, from whichJedaiah drew five, and each of the other three before-named divisionsas many: it was then ordained by those prophets, that even if thedivision Joiarib (probably the first division before the captivity)should return, Jedaiah should nevertheless retain his position, andJoiarib should be טפל לו (associated with him, belonging to him).”Comp. Bertheau on Neh. p. 230, and Oehler in Herzog's Realencycl. xii. p. 185, who, though refusing this tradition the value ofindependent historical testimony, still give it more weight than itdeserves.)

is, that the four divisions given in Ezra 2 and Neh 7, “thesons of Jedaiah, the sons of Immer, the sons of Pashur and Harim,”were the priests of the four (Davidic) orders of Jedaiah, Immer,Malchijah, and Harim (the second, sixteenth, fifth, and third orders of1 Chron 24). For the sake of restoring, according to the ancient institution, a greaternumber of priestly orders, the twenty-two orders enumerated in Neh 12were formed from these four divisions; and the full number of twenty-fourwas not immediately completed, only because, according to Ezra 2:61 andNehemiah 7:63., three families of priests who could not find their registersreturned, as well as those before named, and room was therefore left fortheir insertion in the twenty-four orders: the first of these three families,viz., Habaiah, being probably identical with the eighth class, Abia; thesecond, Hakkoz, with the seventh class of the same name. See Oehler'sbefore-cited work. p. 184f. But this view is decidedly erroneous, and theerror lies in the identification of the four races of Ezra 2:36, on account ofthe similarity of the names Jedaiah, Immer, and Harim, with those of thesecond, sixteenth, and third classes of the Davidic division, - thus regardingpriestly races as Davidic priestly classes, through mere similarity of name,without reflecting that even the number 4487, given in Ezra 2:36., isincompatible with this assumption. For if these four races were only four orders of priests, each order musthave numbered about 1120 males, and the twenty-four orders of thepriesthood before the captivity would have yielded the colossal sum offrom 24,000 to 26,000 priests. It is true that we have no statement of thenumbers of the priesthood; but if the numbering of the Levites in David'stimes gave the amount of 38,000 males, the priests of that time could atthe most have been 3800, and each of the twenty-four orders would haveincluded in all 150 persons, or at most seventy-five priests of the properage for officiating. Now, if this number had doubled in the interval of timeextending to the close of the captivity, the 4487 who returned withZerubbabel would have formed more than half of the whole number ofpriests then living, and not merely the amount of four classes. Hence wecannot but regard Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim, of Ezra 2:36, asnames not of priestly orders, but of great priestly races, and explain theoccurrence of three of these names as those of certain of the orders ofpriests formed by David, by the consideration, that the Davidic orderswere names after heads of priestly families of the days of David, and thatseveral of these heads, according to the custom of bestowing upon sons,grandsons, etc., the names of renowned ancestors, bore the names of thefounders and heads of the greater races and houses. The classification of the priests in Ezra 2:36. is genealogical, i.e., itfollows not the division into orders made by David for the service of thetemple, but the genealogical ramification into races and houses. The sonsof Jedaiah, Immer, etc., are not the priests belonging to the official ordersof Jedaiah, Immer, etc., but the priestly races descended from Jedaiah, etc. The four races (mentioned Ezra 2:36, etc.), each of which averagedupwards of 1000 men, were, as appears from Nehemiah 12:1-7 and Nehemiah 12:12, dividedinto twenty-two houses. From this number of houses, it was easy torestore the old division into twenty-four official orders. That it was not,however, considered necessary to make this artificial restoration of thetwenty-four classes immediately, is seen from the circumstances that bothunder Joiakim, i.e., a generation after Zerubbabel's return (Nehemiah 12:12-21), onlytwenty-two houses are enumerated, and under Nehemiah, i.e., after Ezra'sreturn (in Neh 10), only twenty-one heads of priestly houses sealed thedocument. Whether, and how the full number of twenty-four wascompleted, cannot, for want of information, be determined. The statementof Joseph. Ant. vii. 14. 7, that David's division into orders continues tothis day, affords no sufficient testimony to the fact.

According, then, to what has been said, the difference between the namesin the two lists of Neh 10 and 12 is to be explained simply by the fact, thatthe names of those who sealed the covenant, Neh 10, are names neither oforders nor houses, but of heads of houses living in the days of Ezra andNehemiah. Of these names, a portion coincides indeed with the names ofthe orders and houses, while the rest are different. The coincidence orsameness of the names does not, however, prove that the individualsbelonged to the house whose name they bore. On the contrary, it appearsfrom Nehemiah 12:13 and Nehemiah 12:16, that of two Meshullams, one was the head of thehouse of Ezra, the other of the house of Ginnethon; and hence, in Neh 10,Amariah may have belonged to the house of Malluch, Hattush to thehouse of Shebaniah, Malluch to the house of Meremoth, etc. In thismanner, both the variation and coincidence of the names in Neh 10 and 12may be easily explained; the only remaining difficulty being, that in Neh 10only twenty-one, not twenty-two, heads of houses are said to have sealed. This discrepancy seems, indeed, to have arisen from the omission of aname in transcription. For the other possible explanation, viz., that in theinterval between Joiakim and Nehemiah, the contemporary of Eliashib, onehouse had died out, is very far-fetched.

Nehemiah 12:8-9

The heads of Levitical houses in the time of Jeshua the highpriest. - Of these names we meet, Nehemiah 10:10., with those of Jeshua,Binnui, Kadmiel, and Sherebiah, as of heads who sealed the covenant;while those of Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son (?) of Kadmiel, are again citedin Nehemiah 12:24 as heads of Levites, i.e., of Levitical divisions. The nameיהוּדה does not occur in the other lists of Levites in the booksof Ezra and Nehemiah, and is perhaps miswritten for הודיּה (Nehemiah 10:10; Nehemiah 13:7). Mattaniah is probably Mattaniah the Asaphite, the son ofMicah, the son of Zabdi, head of the first band of singers (Nehemiah 11:17); for hewas היּדות על, over the singing of praise. The formהיּדות, which should probably be read according to the Keriהיּדוּת, is a peculiar formation of an abstract noun; comp. Ewald, §165, b.

Nehemiah 12:9

Bakbukiah and Unni (Chethiv ענּו), their brethren, were beforethem (opposite them) למשׁמרות, at the posts of service, i.e.,forming in service the opposite choir. Nehemiah 12:24 forbids us to understandמשׁמרות as watch-posts, though the omission of thedoorkeepers (comp. Ezra 2:42) is remarkable. Bakbukiah recurs Nehemiah 12:24; thename Unni is not again met with, though there is no occasion, on thisaccount, for the inapt conjecture of Bertheau, that the reading should beוענוּ or ויּענוּ.

A note on the genealogy of the high-priestly line from Jeshua to Jaddua isinserted, so to speak, as a connecting link between the lists of Levites, toexplain the statements concerning the dates of their composition, - datesdefined by the name of the respective high priests. The lists given Nehemiah 12:1 were of the time of Jeshua; those from Nehemiah 12:12 and onwards, of the days ofJoiakim and his successors. The name יונתן, as is obviousfrom Nehemiah 12:22 and Nehemiah 12:23, is a clerical error for יוחנן, Johanan,Greek Ἰωάννης , of whom we are told, Joseph. Ant. xi. 7. 1, that hemurdered his brother Jesus, and thus gave Bagoses, the general ofArtaxerxes Mnemon, an opportunity for taking severe measures againstthe Jews.

Nehemiah 12:12-21 contains the list of the priestly houses and their heads, whichhas been already explained in conjunction with that in Nehemiah 12:1-7. Nehemiah 12:22-26. The list of the heads of the Levites, Nehemiah 12:22 and Nehemiah 12:24, is, according to Nehemiah 12:26,that of the days of Joiakim, and of the days of Nehemiah and Ezra. Whence it follows, that it does not apply only to the time of Joiakim; forthough Ezra might indeed have come to Jerusalem in the latter days ofJoiakim's high-priesthood, yet Nehemiah's arrival found his successorEliashib already in office, and the statements of Nehemiah 12:22 and Nehemiah 12:23 must beunderstood accordingly.

“With respect to the Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, andJaddua were recorded the heads of the houses, and also (those) of thepriests during the reign of Darius the Persian.” To judge from theהלויּם with which it commences, this verse seems to be the titleof the list of Levites following, while the rest of its contents rather seemsadapted for the subscription of the preceding list of priests (Nehemiah 12:12-21). מלכוּת על, under the reign. The use of על withreference to time is to be explained by the circumstance that the time, andhere therefore the reign of Darius, is regarded as the ground and soil of thatwhich is done in it, as e.g., ἐπὶ νυκτί , 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 alreadydiscussed. In Nehemiah 12:23, the original document in which the list of Levites wasoriginally included, is alluded to as the book of the daily occurrences orevents of the time, i.e., the public chronicle, a continuation of the formerannals of the kingdom. ימי ועד, and also to the days ofJohanan, the son of Eliashib. So far did the official records of the chronicleextend. 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. Thestatements in Nehemiah 12:22 and Nehemiah 12:23 are aphoristic, and of the nature ofsupplementary and occasional remarks.

The names Hashabiah, Sherebiah, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, frequently occur asthose of heads of Levitical orders: the two first in Nehemiah 10:12., Ezra 8:18.;the two last in Nehemiah 12:8, Nehemiah 10:10, and Ezra 2:40; and the comparison of thesepassages obliges us to regard and expunge as a gloss the בּן beforeKadmiel. Opposite to these four are placed their brethren, whose office itwas “to praise (and) to give thanks according to the commandment ofDavid,” etc.: comp. 1 Chronicles 16:4; 1 Chronicles 23:30; 2 Chronicles 5:13; and בּמצות ד, 2 Chronicles 29:25. משׁמר לעמּת משׁמר,ward opposite ward, elsewhere used of the gatekeepers, 1 Chronicles 26:16, ishere applied to the position of the companies of singers in divine worship. The names of the brethren, i.e., of the Levitical singers, follow, Nehemiah 12:25,where the first three names must be separated from those which follow,and combined with Nehemiah 12:24. This is obvious from the consideration, that Mattaniah and Bakbukiah arementioned in Nehemiah 11:17 as presidents of two companies of singers, andwith them Abda the Jeduthunite, whence we are constrained to supposethat עבדיה is only another form for עבדּא of Nehemiah 11:17. According, then, to what has been said, the division into verses must bechanged, and Nehemiah 12:25 should begin with the name משׁלּם. Meshullam, Talmon, and Akkub are chiefs of the doorkeepers; the twolast names occur as such both in Nehemiah 11:19 and Ezra 2:42, and even so early as1 Chronicles 9:17, whence we perceive that these were ancient names of racesof Levitical doorkeepers. In Ezra 2:42 and 1 Chronicles 9:17, שׁלוּם,answering to משׁלּם of the present verse, is also named withthem. The combination משׁמר שׁוערים שׁמרים is striking: we should at least have expected משׁמר שׁמרים שׁוערים, because, while שׁוערים cannot be combined with משׁמר, שׁמרים may well beso; hence we must either transpose the words as above, or read accordingto Nehemiah 11:19, בּשּׁערים שׁמרים. In the latter case,בּשּׁערים is more closely defined by the appositionהשּׁערים בּאספּי: at the doors, viz., at the treasure-chambers of the doors. On 'acupiym, see rem. on 1 Chronicles 26:15, 1 Chronicles 26:17.

Nehemiah 12:26 is the final subscription of the two lists in Nehemiah 12:12-21 and Nehemiah 12:24, Nehemiah 12:25.

The dedication of the wall of Jerusalem. - The measures proposed forincreasing the numbers of the inhabitants of Jerusalem having now beenexecuted (Nehemiah 7:5 and Nehemiah 11:1.), the restored wall of circumvallation wassolemnly dedicated. Nehemiah 12:27-29 treat of the preparations for this solemnity.

Nehemiah 12:27

At the dedication (i.e., at the time of, בּ denoting nearness oftime) they sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them toJerusalem to keep the dedication. Only a portion of the Levites dwelt inJerusalem (Nehemiah 11:15-18); the rest dwelt in places in the neighbourhood,as is more expressly stated in Nehemiah 12:28 and Nehemiah 12:29. ושׂמחה, to keepthe dedication and joy, is not suitable, chiefly on account of the followingוּבתודות, and with songs of praise. We must either readבּשׂמחה, dedication with joy (comp. Ezra 6:16), or expunge,with the lxx and Vulgate, the ו before בּתודות. בּ must berepeated before מצלתּים from the preceding words. On thesubject, comp. 1 Chronicles 13:8; 1 Chronicles 15:16, and elsewhere.

Nehemiah 12:28-29

And the sons of the singers, i.e., the members of the threeLevitical companies of singers (comp. Nehemiah 12:25 and Nehemiah 11:17), gatheredthemselves together, both out of the Jordan valley round about Jerusalem,and the villages (or fields, חצרים, comp. Leviticus 25:31) ofNetophathi, and from Beth-gilgal, etc. הכּכּר does not mean thedistrict round Jerusalem, the immediate neighbourhood of the city(Bertheau). For, according to established usage, הכּכּר is used todesignate the Jordan valley (see rem. on Nehemiah 3:22); and ירוּשׁלים סביבות is here added to limit the כּכּר, - the wholeextent of the valley of the Jordan from the Dead Sea to the Sea of Galileenot being intended, but only its southern portion in the neighbourhood ofJericho, where it widens considerably westward, and which might be saidto be round about Jerusalem. The villages of Netophathi (comp. 1 Chronicles 9:16) are the villages or fields in the vicinity of Netopha, i.e., probably themodern village of Beit Nettif, about thirteen miles south-west ofJerusalem: comp. Rob. Palestine; Tobler, dritte Wand. p. 117, etc.; and V. de Velde, Mem. p. 336. Bertheau regards Beth-gilgal as the present Jiljilia,also called Gilgal, situate somewhat to the west of the road from Jerusalemto Nablous (Sichem), about seventeen miles north of the former town. This view, is, however, questionable, Jiljilia being apparently too distantto be reckoned among the סביבות of Jerusalem. “And from thefields of Geba and Azmaveth.” With respect to Geba, see rem. on Nehemiah 11:31. The situation of Azmaveth is unknown; see rem. on Ezra 2:24. For the singers had built them villages in the neighbourhood ofJerusalem, and dwelt, therefore, not in the before-named towns, but invillages near them.

Nehemiah 12:30

The dedication began with the purification of the people, thegates, and the wall, by the priests and Levites, after they had purifiedthemselves. This was probably done, judging from the analogy of 2 Chronicles 29:20, by the offering of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, according tosome special ritual unknown to us, as sacrifices of purification anddedication. This was followed by the central-point of the solemnity, aprocession of two bands of singers upon the wall (Nehemiah 12:31-42).

Nehemiah 12:31-34

Nehemiah brought up the princes of Judah upon the wall,and appointed two great companies of those who gave thanks, and twoprocessions. These went each upon the wall in different directions, andstopped opposite each other at the house of God. The princes of Judahare the princes of the whole community, - Judah being used in the sense ofיהוּדים, Nehemiah 4:2. לחומה מעל, upwards tothe wall, so that they stood upon the wall. העמיד, to place, i.e.,to cause to take up a position, so that those assembled formed twocompanies or processions. תודה, acknowledgement, praise,thanks, and then thankofferings, accompanied by the singing of psalms andthanksgivings. Hence is derived the meaning: companies of those who gavethanks, in Nehemiah 12:31, Nehemiah 12:38, Nehemiah 12:40. ותהלכת, et processiones, solemnprocessions, is added more closely to define תודה. The company of those who gave thanks consisted of a number of Leviticalsingers, behind whom walked the princes of the people, the priests, andLevites. At the head of one procession went Ezra the scribe (Nehemiah 12:36), withone half of the nobles; at the head of the second, Nehemiah with the otherhalf (Nehemiah 12:38). The one company and procession went to the right upon thewall. Before ליּמין we must supply, “one band went”(הולכת האחת התּודה), as is evident partly from the context of thepresent verse, partly from Nehemiah 12:38. These words were probably omitted by aclerical error caused by the similarity of תּהלכת to הולכת. Thus the first procession went to the right, i.e., in a southerly direction,upon the wall towards the dung-gate (see rem. on Nehemiah 3:14); the second, Nehemiah 12:38, went over against the first (למאל), i.e., in an opposite direction,and therefore northwards, past the tower of the furnaces, etc. The starting-point of both companies and processions is not expresslystated, but may be easily inferred from the points mentioned, and can havebeen none other than the valley-gate, the present Jaffa gate (see rem. onNehemiah 2:13). Before a further description of the route taken by the firstcompany, the individuals composing the procession which followed it areenumerated in Nehemiah 12:32-36. After them, i.e., after the first company of themthat gave thanks, went Hoshaiah and half of the princes of Judah. Hoshaiah was probably the chief of the one half of these princes. Theseven names in Nehemiah 12:33 and Nehemiah 12:34 are undoubtedly the names of the princes,and the ו before עזריה is explicative: even, namely. Bertheau'sremark, “After the princes came the orders of priests, Azariah,” etc., isincorrect. It is true that of these seven names, five occur as names ofpriests, and heads of priestly houses, viz.: Azariah, Nehemiah 10:2; Nehemiah 12:1;Meshullam, Nehemiah 10:7; Shemaiah, Nehemiah 10:8 and Nehemiah 12:6; and Jeremiah, Nehemiah 12:1. But even if these individuals were heads of priestly orders, their names donot here stand for their orders. Still less do Judah and Benjamin denote thehalf of the laity of Judah and Benjamin, as Bertheau supposes, and thenceinfers that first after the princes came two or three orders of priests, thenhalf of the laity of Judah and Benjamin, and then two more orders ofpriests. Nehemiah 12:38, which is said to give rise to this view, by no meansconfirms it. It is true that in this verse העם חצי,besides Nehemiah, are stated to have followed the company of those whogave thanks; but that העם in this verse is not used to designatethe people as such, but is only a general expression for the individualsfollowing the company of singers, is placed beyond doubt by Nehemiah 12:40, whereהעם is replaced by הסּגנים חצי; while,beside the half of the rulers, with Nehemiah, only priests with trumpetsand Levites with stringed instruments (Nehemiah 12:41) are enumerated as composingthe second procession. Since, then, the priests with trumpets and Levites with musicalinstruments are mentioned in the first procession (Nehemiah 12:35 and Nehemiah 12:36), thenames enumerated in Nehemiah 12:33 and Nehemiah 12:34 can be only those of the one half of theסגנים of the people, i.e., the one half of the princes of Judah. The princes of Judah, i.e., of the Jewish community, consisted not only oflaymen, but included also the princes, i.e., heads of priestly and Leviticalorders; and hence priestly and Levitical princes might also be among theseven whose names are given in Nehemiah 12:33 and Nehemiah 12:34. A strict severance,moreover, between lay and priestly princes cannot be made by the namesalone; for these five names, which may designate priestly orders, pertain inother passages to laymen, viz.: Azariah, in Nehemiah 3:23; Ezra, as of the tribeof Judah, 1 Chronicles 4:17; Meshullam, Nehemiah 3:4; Nehemiah 10:21, and elsewhere;Shemaiah, Ezra 6:13; Ezra 10:31; 1 Chronicles 3:22; 1 Chronicles 4:37 (of Judah), 1 Chronicles 5:4 (aReubenite), and other passages (this name being very usual; comp. SimonisOnomast. p. 546); Jeremiah, 1 Chronicles 5:24 (a Manassite), Nehemiah 12:4 (aBenjamite), Nehemiah 12:10 (a Gadite). Even the name Judah is met with among thepriests (Nehemiah 12:36), and among the Levites, Nehemiah 12:8, comp. also Nehemiah 11:9, and thatof Benjamin, Nehemiah 3:23 and Ezra 10:32. In the present verses, the two names arenot those of tribes, but of individuals, nomina duorum principum (R. Sal.).

Nehemiah 12:35-36

The princes of the congregation were followed by certain “ofthe sons of the priests” (seven in number, to judge from Nehemiah 12:41) withtrumpets; also by Jonathan the son of Zechariah, who, as appears fromthe subsequent ואחיו, was at the head of the Leviticalmusicians, i.e., the section of them that followed this procession. Hisbrethren, i.e., the musicians of his section, are enumerated in Nehemiah 12:36, - eightnames being given, among which are a Shemaiah and a Judah. “With themusical instruments of David, the man of God:” comp. 2 Chronicles 29:26; 1 Chronicles 15:16; 1 Chronicles 23:5; Ezra 3:10. “And Ezra the scribe before them,” viz.,before the individuals enumerated from Nehemiah 12:32, immediately after thecompany of those who gave thanks, and before the princes, like Nehemiah,Nehemiah 12:38.

Nehemiah 12:37-42

After this insertion of the names of the persons whocomposed the procession, the description of the route it took is continued. From “upon the wall, towards the dung-gate (Nehemiah 12:31), it passed on” to thefountain-gate; and נגדּם, before them (i.e., going straightforwards; comp. Joshua 6:5, Joshua 6:20; Amos 4:3), they went up by the stairs ofthe city of David, the ascent of the wall, up over the house of David, evenunto the water-gate eastward. These statements are not quite intelligible tous. The stairs of the city of David are undoubtedly “the stairs that leaddown from the city of David” (Nehemiah 3:15). These lay on the eastern slopeof Zion, above the fountain-gate and the Pool of Siloam. לחומה המּעלה might be literally translated “the ascent to the wall,” as byBertheau, who takes the sense as follows: (The procession) went up uponthe wall by the ascent formed by these steps at the northern part of theeastern side of Zion. According to this, the procession would have left thewall by the stairs at the eastern declivity of Zion, to go up upon the wallagain by this ascent. There is, however, no reason for this leaving of the wall, and that whichBertheau adduces is connected with his erroneous transposition of thefountain-gate to the place of the present dung-gate. לחומה המּעלה seems to be the part of the wall which, according to Nehemiah 3:19, layopposite the המּקצוע הנּשׁק עלת, a place onthe eastern edge of Zion, where the wall was carried over an elevation ofthe ground, and where consequently was an ascent in the wall. Certainlythis cannot be insisted upon, because the further statement דויד לבית מעל is obscure, the preposition ל מעל admitting of various interpretations, and the situation of the houseof David being uncertain. Bertheau, indeed, says: “ועד in thefollowing words corresponds with מעל before דויד לבית: a wall over the house of David is not intended; and themeaning is rather, that after they were come as far as the wall, they thenpassed over the house of David, i.e., the place called the house of David,even to the water-gate.”But the separation of מעל from דויד לבית isdecidedly incorrect, ל מעל being in the preceding and followingpassages always used in combination, and forming one idea: comp. Nehemiah 12:31 (twice) and Nehemiah 12:38 and Nehemiah 12:39. Hence it could scarcely be taken here in Nehemiah 12:37 ina different sense from that which it has in Nehemiah 12:31 and Nehemiah 12:38. Not lessobjectionable is the notion that the house of David is here put for a placecalled the house of David, on which a palace of David formerly stood, andwhere perhaps the remains of an ancient royal building might still havebeen in existence. By the house of David is meant, either the royal palacebuilt (according to Thenius) by Solomon at the north-eastern corner ofZion, opposite the temple, or some other building of David, situate southof this palace, on the east side of Zion. The former view is more probablethan the latter. We translate לבית ד מעל, past the house of David. For,though לחומה מעל must undoubtedly be sounderstood as to express that the procession went upon the wall (whichmust be conceived of as tolerably broad), yet למגדּל מעל, Nehemiah 12:38, can scarcely mean that the procession also went up over thetower which stood near the wall. In the case of the gates, too, ל מעל cannot mean over upon; for it is inconceivable that this solemnprocession should have gone over the roof of the gates; and we conclude,on the contrary, that it passed beside the gates and towers. Whether theroute taken by the procession from the house of David to the water-gate inthe east were straight over the ridge of Ophel, which ran from about thehorse-gate to the water-gate, or upon the wall round Ophel, cannot bedetermined, the description being incomplete. After the house of David, nofurther information as to its course is given; its halting-place, the water-gate, being alone mentioned.

The route taken by the second company is more particularly described. - Nehemiah 12:38 and Nehemiah 12:39. “And the second company of them that gave thanks, whichwent over against, and which I and the (other) half of the people followed,(went) upon the wall past the tower of the furnaces, as far as the broadwall; and past the gate of Ephraim, and past the gate of the old (wall), andpast the fish-gate, and past the tower Hananeel and the tower Hammeah,even to the sheep-gate: and then took up its station at the prison-gate.”למואל (in the form with א only here; elsewhere מול, Deuteronomy 1:1, or מוּל), over against, opposite, sc. the firstprocession, therefore towards the opposite side, i.e., to the left; the firsthaving gone to the right, viz., from the valley-gate northwards upon thenorthern wall. וגו אחריה ואני (and I behind them)is a circumstantial clause, which we may take relatively. The order of the towers, the lengths of wall, and the gates, exactly answerto the description in Nehemiah 3:1-12, with these differences: - a. The descriptionproceeds from the sheep-gate in the east to the valley-gate in the west;while the procession moved in the opposite direction, viz., from thevalley-gate to the sheep-gate. b. In the description of the building of thewall, Neh 3, the gate of Ephraim is omitted (see rem. on Nehemiah 3:8). c. Inthe description, the prison-gate at which the procession halted is alsounmentioned, undoubtedly for the same reason as that the gate of Ephraimis omitted, viz., that not having been destroyed, there was no need torebuild it. המּטּרה שׁער is translated, gate of theprison or watch: its position is disputed; but it can scarcely be doubtedthat המּטּרה is the court of the prison mentioned Nehemiah 3:25 (המּטּרה חצר), by or near the king's house. Starting from the assumption that the two companies halted or took uppositions opposite each other, Hupfeld (in his before-cited work, p. 321)transposes both the court of the prison and the king's house to the northof the temple area, where the citadel. בּירה, βᾶρις , wassubsequently situated. But “this being forbidden,” as Arnold objects (inhis before-cited work, p. 628), “by the order in the description of thebuilding of the wall, Nehemiah 3:25, which brings us absolutely to the southernside,” Bertheau supposes that the two processions which would arrive atthe same moment at the temple, - the one from the north-east, the otherfrom the south-east, - here passed each other, and afterwards haltedopposite each other in such wise, that the procession advancing from thesouth-west stood on the northern side, and that from the north-west at thesouthern side of the temple area. This notion, however, having not the slightest support from the text, norany reason appearing why the one procession should pass the other, itmust be regarded as a mere expedient. In Nehemiah 12:40 it is merely said, the twocompanies stood in the house of God; and not even that they stoodopposite each other, the one on the north, the other on the south side ofthe temple. Thus they may have stood side by side, and together havepraised the Lord. Hence we place the prison-gate also on the south-easterncorner of the temple area, and explain the name from the circumstance thata street ran from this gate over Ophel to the court of the prison near theking's house upon Zion, which, together with the gate to which it led,received its name from the court of the prison. Not far from the prison-gate lay the water-gate in the east, near which was an open space in thedirection of the temple area (Nehemiah 8:1). On this open space the two companies met, and took the directiontowards the temple, entering the temple area from this open space, thatthey might offer their thank-offerings before the altar of burnt-offering (Nehemiah 12:43). Besides, the remark upon the position of the two companies (Nehemiah 12:40)anticipates the course of events, the procession following the secondcompany being first described in Nehemiah 12:40-42. At the end of Nehemiah 12:40 thestatement of Nehemiah 12:38 - I and the half of the people behind - is again taken up inthe words: I and the half of the rulers with me. The סגנים are,as in Nehemiah 12:32, the princes of the congregation, who, with Nehemiah, headedthe procession that followed the company of those who gave thanks. Thenfollowed (Nehemiah 12:41) seven priests with trumpets, whose names are given,answering to the sons of the priests with trumpets (Nehemiah 12:36 ) in the firstprocession. These names are all met with elsewhere of other persons. These were succeeded, as in Nehemiah 12:36, by eight Levites - eight individuals, andnot eight divisions (Bertheau). And the singers gave forth sound, i.e., ofvoices and instruments, - whether during the circuit or after the twocompanies had take their places at the temple, is doubtful. The presidentof the Levitical singers was Jezrahiah.

Nehemiah 12:43

The solemnity terminated with the offering of great sacrificesand a general festival of rejoicing. In the matter of sacrificing, the person ofNehemiah would necessarily recede; hence he relates the close of theproceedings objectively, and speaks in the third person, as he had donewhen speaking of the preparations for them, Nehemiah 12:27, etc., only using thefirst (Nehemiah 12:31, Nehemiah 12:38, Nehemiah 12:40) person when speaking of what was appointed byhimself, or of his own position. The זבהים were chieflythank-offerings which, terminating in feasting upon the sacrifices, - and thesefeasts in which the women and children participated, - contributed to theenhancement of the general joy, the joy which God had given them by thesuccess He had accorded to their work of building their wall. For adescription of their rejoicing, comp. 2 Chronicles 20:27; Ezra 6:22, and Nehemiah 3:13.

The joint efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra succeeded both in restoring theenactments of the law for the performance and maintenance of the publicworship, and in carrying out the separation of the community fromstrangers, especially by the dissolution of unlawful marriages (Neh 12:44-13:3). When Nehemiah, however, returned to the king at Babylon, in thethirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and remained there some time, theabuses which had been abolished were again allowed by the people. DuringNehemiah's absence, Eliashib the priest prepared a chamber in the fore-court of the temple, as a dwelling for his son-in-law Tobiah the Ammonite. The delivery of their dues to the Levites (the first-fruits and tenths) wasomitted, and the Sabbath desecrated by field-work and by buying andselling in Jerusalem; Jews married Ashdodite, Ammonitish, and Moabitishwives; even a son of the high priest Joiada allying himself by marriage withSanballat the Horonite. All these illegal acts were energetically opposed byNehemiah at his return to Jerusalem, when he strove both to purify thecongregation from foreigners, and to restore the appointments of the lawwith respect to divine worship (13:4-31).

The narration of these events and of the proceedings of Nehemiah in thelast section of this book, is introduced by a brief summary (in Neh 12:44-13:3) of what was done for the ordering of divine worship, and for theseparation of Israel from strangers; and this introduction is so annexed towhat precedes, not only by the formula ההוּא בּיּום (Nehemiah 12:33 and Nehemiah 13:1), but also by its contents, that it might be regarded as asummary of what Nehemiah had effected during his first stay at Jerusalem. It is not till the connective מזּה ולפני, “and beforethis” (Nehemiah 13:4), with which the recital of what occurred during Nehemiah'sabsence from Jerusalem, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, beings,that we perceive that this description of the restored legal appointmentsrelates not only to the time before the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes,but applies also to that of Nehemiah's second stay at Jerusalem, and bearsonly the appearance of an introduction, being in fact a brief summary of allthat Nehemiah effected both before and after the thirty-second year ofArtaxerxes. This is a form of statement which,is to be explained by the circumstance that Nehemiah did not compile thisnarrative of his operations till the evening of his days.

Nehemiah 12:44