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 (Nehemiah 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.
‘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 (Nehemiah 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 (Daniel 5:31). Compare Daniel 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 Nehemiah 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' (Nehemiah 12:23; Ezra 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 Nehemiah 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 (Nehemiah 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 (1 Chronicles 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' (Nehemiah 13:4), so that the Johanan of Ezra 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 Ezra 10:24, so that it is just possible that the Johanan in Nehemiah 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.
‘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 Ezra 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 Nehemiah 12:12. Both these facts suggest (although not conclusively) that Nehemiah 12:23 was part of the original passage from Nehemiah 12:12 to Nehemiah 12:24, rather than being an insertion.
‘And the chiefs of the Levites:
The names of the chiefs of the Levites in the days of Joiakim are now given.
‘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' (Nehemiah 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' (Nehemiah 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 (Nehemiah 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 Nehemiah 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. Nehemiah 8:7; Nehemiah 10:9; Nehemiah 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 Ezra 8:24 ‘Hashabiah and Sherebiah' were the names of chiefs of priests who returned with Ezra, whereas in Ezra 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 (Nehemiah 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 1 Chronicles 16:4; 1Ch 23:30; 2 Chronicles 5:12-13. or the phrase ‘watch next to watch' compare 1 Chronicles 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. Hosea 3:5; Jeremiah 30:9 Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24).
The description of David as ‘the man of God' is rare in Scripture (here, Nehemiah 12:36 and 2 Chronicles 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 Mark 12:36).
‘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 Nehemiah 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 Nehemiah 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 (Nehemiah 3:4; Nehemiah 3:6; Nehemiah 8:4; Nehemiah 10:7; Nehemiah 10:20; Nehemiah 11:7; Nehemiah 11:11; Nehemiah 12:13; Nehemiah 12:16; Nehemiah 12:33; Ezra 8:16; Ezra 8:25). Talmon and Akkub are the names of different generations of gatekeepers in Nehemiah 7:45; with Ezra 2:42; and Nehemiah 11:19; with 1 Chronicles 9:17.
‘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 Nehemiah 12:12. Note the assumption that Ezra and Nehemiah operated alongside each other.
The peoples mentioned in the passage from Nehemiah 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.