Nehemiah 12:11
And Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat Jaddua.
Jump to: BarnesBensonBICambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsJFBKDKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWParkerPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBWESTSK
(11) Jonathan.—Should be Johanan (Nehemiah 12:22); and Jaddua” is most probably the high priest who confronted Alexander the Great.

12:1-26 It is a debt we owe to faithful ministers, to remember our guides, who have spoken to us the word of God. It is good to know what our godly predecessors were, that we may learn what we should be.The six generations of high priests covered a little more than two centuries (538-333 B.C.), or a little under thirty-five years to a generation. Jaddua was the high priest who (according to Josephus) had an interview with Alexander shortly after the battle of Issus. 11. Jaddua—It is an opinion entertained by many commentators that this person was the high priest whose dignified appearance, solemn manner, and splendid costume overawed and interested so strongly the proud mind of Alexander the Great; and if he were not this person (as some object that this Jaddua was not in office till a considerable period after the death of Nehemiah), it might probably be his father, called by the same name. Generally supposed to be the same man who was high priest in the days of Alexander the Great, as Josephus mentions; whence a great difficulty ariseth, how Nehemiah could mention this man, who seems not to have been high priest till many years after Nehemiah’s death. But it seems not necessary that this

Jaddua should be the same person, for he might be the father of that Jaddua, both being called by the same name; or, if he were the same, the blessing of a very long life might be given to this great and excellent governor, as it was to Ezra, that famous scribe, as was noted on Nehemiah 12:1, and that for the very same reason. He might also live to see Jaddua, though not to see him high priest, which might be many years after. Or this passage might be put into this book by some sacred or inspired penman, there being some, though but few, such passages in the foregoing books of Scripture, which were added by succeeding men of God in after-times. And Jeshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim also begat Eliashib, and Eliashib begot Joiada, and Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begot Jaddua. This is an account of the high priests in succession in the second temple, the first six of them; and if Jaddua, the last mentioned, is the same with Jaddus, as Josephus (n) supposes, who went forth in his pontifical robes to meet Alexander the great returning from his conquests of Tyre and Gaza, from whom he obtained many favours, and whom he had into the temple, and showed him the prophecy of Daniel concerning himself; this paragraph must be written by another hand, and not Nehemiah, since it can hardly be thought he should live so long; and as to his times, this account of him, or the history of his own times, seems not to have gone through the priesthood of Eliashib, the third of those high priests, see Nehemiah 13:28, and to reach no further than to the thirty second of Darius Hystaspis, Nehemiah 13:6 this fragment therefore might be inserted by some godly man under a divine direction in later times, as we have several insertions in the books of Moses and Joshua of the like kind; and particularly in 1 Chronicles 3:19 where the genealogy of Zerubbabel is carried down beyond the times of the Maccabees, and so could not be placed there by Ezra.

(n) Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. sect. 5.

And Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat Jaddua.
Verse 11. - Jonathan, or "Johanan," as the name is given in vers. 22, 23, became high priest about B.C. 380, according to Syncellus and the Paschal Chronicle, and held the office for thirty-two years. Josephus, who calls him "Jannseus" ( = John), says that he murdered his own brother, Jeshua, in the temple, because he was endeavouring to supplant him in the high priesthood through the influence of the Persians. Jaddua is mentioned as high priest at the time of Alexander's entrance into Jerusalem by Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 11:8, § 5) and Eusebius ('Chron. Can.,' 2. p. 346). The story of Alexander's having previously seen him in a dream is not generally credited. He is said to been high priest for twenty years, and to have outlived Alexander. LIST OF THE HEADS OF THE PRIESTLY COURSES IN THE TIME OF THE HIGH PRIEST JOIAKIM (Nehemiah 12:12-21). Joiakim must have been contemporary with Xerxes, and consequently have been high priest at the time when the very existence of the Jewish people was threatened by Haman. It is curious that we have no record of his high priesthood, nor of the condition of the Palestinian Jews at the time, beyond the slight hints furnished by this chapter. These hints seem to imply that under him special attention was paid to the formation of lists, especially of the chief priests and Levites, and that the temple service was celebrated with great exactness and regularity (vers. 24-26). The present list is particularly valuable, as enabling us to check that with which the chapter opens, and as establishing the family character of the names whereof that list is made up. Nehemiah 12:1 contains the title of the first list, Nehemiah 12:1-9. "These are the priests 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 the subscription: "These are the heads of the priests and of their brethren, in the 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 are enumerated, and these reappear, with but slight variations attributable to clerical errors, as names of priestly houses in Nehemiah 12:12-21, where they are given in conjunction with the names of those priests who, in the days of Joiakim, either represented these houses, or occupied as heads the first position in them. The greater number, viz., 15, of these have already been mentioned as among those who, together with Nehemiah, sealed as heads of their respective houses the agreement to observe the law, Nehemiah 10. Hence the present chapter appears to be the most appropriate place for comparing with each other the several statements given in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, concerning the divisions or orders of priests in the period immediately following the return from the captivity, and for discussing the question how the heads and houses of priests enumerated in Nehemiah 10 and 12 stand related on the one hand to the list of the priestly races who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and on the other to the twenty-four orders of priests instituted by David. For the purpose of giving an intelligible answer to this question, we first place in juxtaposition the three lists given in Nehemiah, chs. 10 and 12.

Nehemiah 10:3-9 Nehemiah 12:1-7 Nehemiah 12:12-21 Priests who sealed the Covenant Priests who were Heads of their Houses Priestly Houses and their respective Heads 1. Seraiah 1. Seraiah* SeraiahMeraiah 2. Azariah 2. Jeremiah* Jeremiah Hananiah 3. Jeremiah 3. Ezra* Ezra Meshullam 4. Pashur 4. Amariah* Amariah Jehohanan 5. Amariah 5. Malluch* Meluchi Jonathan 6. Malchijah 6. Hattush* 7. Hattush 7. Shecaniah* Shebaniah Joseph 8. Shebaniah 8. Rehum* Harim Adna 9. Malluch 9. Meremoth* Meraioth Helkai 10. Harim 10. Iddo Idiah Zecariah 11. Meremoth 11. Ginnethon* Ginnethon Meshullam 12. Obadiah 12. Abijah* Abijah Zichri 13. Daniel 13. Miamin* Miniamin 14. Ginnethon 14. Maadiah* Moadiah Piltai 15. Baruch 15. Bilgah* Bilgah Shammua 16. Meshullam 16. Shemaiah* Shemaiah Jehonathan 17. Abijah 17. Joiarib Joiarib Mathnai 18. Mijamin 18. Jedaiah Jedaiah Uzzi 19. Maaziah 19. Sallu Sallai Kallai 20. Bilgai 20. Amok Amok Eber 21. Shemaiah 21. Hilkiah Hilkiah Hashabiah 22. Jedaiah 22. Jedaiah Nethaneel When, in the first place, we compare the two series in Nehemiah 12, we find the name of the head of the house of Minjamin, and the names both of the house and the head, Hattush, between Meluchi and Shebaniah, omitted. In other respects the two lists agree both in the order and number of the names, with the exception of unimportant variations in the names, as מלוּכי (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), a transposition 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 of עדּוא (Nehemiah 12:4); מיּמין (Nehemiah 12:5) for מנימין (Nehemiah 12:17); מועדיה (Nehemiah 12:17) for מעדיה (Nehemiah 12:4), or, according to a different pronunciation, מעזיה (Nehemiah 10:9); סלּי (Nehemiah 12:20) for סלּוּ (Nehemiah 12:7). - If we next compare the two lists in Nehemiah 12 with that in Nehemiah 10, we find that of the twenty-two names given (Nehemiah 12), the fifteen marked thus * occur also in Nehemiah 10; עזריה, Nehemiah 10:4, being evidently a clerical error, or another form of עזרא, Nehemiah 12:2, Nehemiah 12:13. Of the names enumerated in Nehemiah 10, Pashur, Malchiah, Obadiah, Daniel, Baruch, and Meshullam are wanting in Nehemiah 12, and are replaced by Iddo and the six last: Joiarib, Jedaiah, Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, and Jedaiah. The name of Eliashib the high priest being also absent, Bertheau seeks to explain this difference by supposing that a portion of the priests refused their signatures because they did not concur in the strict measures of Ezra and Nehemiah. This conjecture would be conceivable, if we found in Nehemiah 10 that only thirteen orders or heads of priests had signed instead of twenty-two. Since, however, instead of the seven missing names, six others signed the covenant, this cannot be the reason for the difference between the names in the two documents (Nehemiah 10, 12), which is probably to be found in the time that elapsed between the making of these lists. The date of the list, Nehemiah 12:1-7, is that of Zerubbabel and Joshua (b.c. 536); that of the other in Nehemiah 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, perhaps even the reign of Xerxes.

How, then, are the two lists in Nehemiah 12 and that in Nehemiah 10, agreeing as they do 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 the returned captives again divided into twenty-four; whereupon their names were written upon tickets and put in an urn, from which Jedaiah drew five, and each of the other three before-named divisions as many: it was then ordained by those prophets, that even if the division Joiarib (probably the first division before the captivity) should return, Jedaiah should nevertheless retain his position, and Joiarib 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 of independent historical testimony, still give it more weight than it deserves.)

is, that the four divisions given in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, "the sons 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 of 1 Chronicles 24). For the sake of restoring, according to the ancient institution, a greater number of priestly orders, the twenty-two orders enumerated in Nehemiah 12 were formed from these four divisions; and the full number of twenty-four was not immediately completed, only because, according to Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63., three families of priests who could not find their registers returned, as well as those before named, and room was therefore left for their insertion in the twenty-four orders: the first of these three families, viz., Habaiah, being probably identical with the eighth class, Abia; the second, Hakkoz, with the seventh class of the same name. See Oehler's before-cited work. p. 184f. But this view is decidedly erroneous, and the error lies in the identification of the four races of Ezra 2:36, on account of the similarity of the names Jedaiah, Immer, and Harim, with those of the second, sixteenth, and third classes of the Davidic division, - thus regarding priestly races as Davidic priestly classes, through mere similarity of name, without reflecting that even the number 4487, given in Ezra 2:36., is incompatible with this assumption. For if these four races were only four orders of priests, each order must have numbered about 1120 males, and the twenty-four orders of the priesthood before the captivity would have yielded the colossal sum of from 24,000 to 26,000 priests. It is true that we have no statement of the numbers of the priesthood; but if the numbering of the Levites in David's times gave the amount of 38,000 males, the priests of that time could at the most have been 3800, and each of the twenty-four orders would have included in all 150 persons, or at most seventy-five priests of the proper age for officiating. Now, if this number had doubled in the interval of time extending to the close of the captivity, the 4487 who returned with Zerubbabel would have formed more than half of the whole number of priests then living, and not merely the amount of four classes. Hence we cannot but regard Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim, of Ezra 2:36, as names not of priestly orders, but of great priestly races, and explain the occurrence of three of these names as those of certain of the orders of priests formed by David, by the consideration, that the Davidic orders were names after heads of priestly families of the days of David, and that several of these heads, according to the custom of bestowing upon sons, grandsons, etc., the names of renowned ancestors, bore the names of the founders and heads of the greater races and houses. The classification of the priests in Ezra 2:36. is genealogical, i.e., it follows not the division into orders made by David for the service of the temple, but the genealogical ramification into races and houses. The sons of Jedaiah, Immer, etc., are not the priests belonging to the official orders of Jedaiah, Immer, etc., but the priestly races descended from Jedaiah, etc. The four races (mentioned Ezra 2:36, etc.), each of which averaged upwards of 1000 men, were, as appears from Nehemiah 12:1-7 and Nehemiah 12:12, divided into twenty-two houses. From this number of houses, it was easy to restore the old division into twenty-four official orders. That it was not, however, considered necessary to make this artificial restoration of the twenty-four classes immediately, is seen from the circumstances that both under Joiakim, i.e., a generation after Zerubbabel's return (Nehemiah 12:12-21), only twenty-two houses are enumerated, and under Nehemiah, i.e., after Ezra's return (in Nehemiah 10), only twenty-one heads of priestly houses sealed the document. Whether, and how the full number of twenty-four was completed, cannot, for want of information, be determined. The statement of Joseph. Ant. vii. 14. 7, that David's division into orders continues to this day, affords no sufficient testimony to the fact.

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

Nehemiah 12:11 Interlinear
Nehemiah 12:11 Parallel Texts

Nehemiah 12:11 NIV
Nehemiah 12:11 NLT
Nehemiah 12:11 ESV
Nehemiah 12:11 NASB
Nehemiah 12:11 KJV

Nehemiah 12:11 Bible Apps
Nehemiah 12:11 Parallel
Nehemiah 12:11 Biblia Paralela
Nehemiah 12:11 Chinese Bible
Nehemiah 12:11 French Bible
Nehemiah 12:11 German Bible

Bible Hub

Nehemiah 12:10
Top of Page
Top of Page