Nehemiah 12 Study Notes

12:1-26 This section of chap. 12 consists of temple personnel in supplementary lists appended to the repopulation list of chap. 11. These lists were representative of the situation a generation after Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Since they appear with little explanation or background, they bring about significant discussion in the scholarly community about their relationship to each other and in relation to the other lists of temple personnel mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezr 2; Neh 7; 9; 10).

12:1-7 This list appears to enumerate individuals, while the second (vv. 12-21) lists the leaders of the priests. However, it seems some of the names listed in vv. 1-7 must be family names and not the names of individuals.

12:8-9 According to Ezr 2:40, there were only two Levitical families present in the return to the land under Zerubbabel (Jeshua and Kadmiel), numbering only seventy-four people. It is not clear why six families are listed here, especially since Mattaniah and Bakbukiah are mentioned as active in Nehemiah’s time (v. 25; 11:17). The latter stood opposite the others either to offer support or to provide antiphonal music.

12:10-11 These verses list six high priests. The identity of the first and third are clear, with Jeshua serving with Zerubbabel in the return to the land (Ezr 2:2) and Eliashib serving as high priest during Nehemiah’s tenure (3:1,20). However, since there is nearly an eighty-year gap between the first and the third postexilic high priests, it is possible that the list is only representative and not complete, or, as suggested by J. Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah), “there may have been times of political crisis . . . when the office was vacant.”

The fourth priest, Joiada (also referred to by the longer form of his name, Jehoiada), is mentioned in 13:28 as the son of Eliashib the high priest, although Joiada himself did not yet bear that title. There is no other mention of Jonathan during this era. But v. 22 does identify an era by the listing of four priests: Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua. The last named high priest, Jaddua, was mentioned by Josephus, who claimed that Alexander the Great met Jaddua (333 BC). However, since some of Josephus’s work is considered legendary, it is probably unwise to date Jaddua that late. It is also possible that there were earlier and later high priests with the same name.

12:12-21 The second list of priestly names parallels the earlier one (vv. 1-7), although there is significant variation in the spelling of many names as well as an unexpected omission—Hattush (v. 2). Many of these names appear as signers of the pledge in chap. 10. The final six names are not on the earlier list (vv. 1-7) nor on the list of signatories in chap. 10. Of interest is the mention of Zechariah of Iddo, probably a reference to the prophet Zechariah (Ezr 5:1; 6:14; Zch 1:1).

12:22 The identification of Darius the Persian is not certain, and all three Persian kings named Darius have been suggested by scholars. Those who accept the veracity of Josephus’s statement about Jaddua meeting Alexander the Great identify the Darius in this verse as Darius III Codomannus (336-331 BC). More likely Darius in this passage is a reference to Darius II Nothus (423-404 BC).

12:27-43 The grand finale of Nehemiah’s ministry took place with the joyous dedication of the rebuilt wall around Jerusalem. While some scholars suggest that this dedication service took place immediately after the completion of the wall (6:15-16), it is more likely that the text is presenting an accurate chronology. Nehemiah’s task, along with Ezra’s, was to restore the people as well. Thus, the dedication celebrated the rebuilt wall as well as the revitalized people.

12:30 With the Levites and singers (vv. 28-29) present, the mandatory purification procedure could begin. For the priests and Levites (probably the singers as well, assuming they were included among the Levites at this point), this involved washing their clothes and abstaining from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:14-15), bringing special sacrifices (Nm 8:8-12), and being sprinkled with water (Nm 8:7).

12:31-37 The dedicatory procession began with Nehemiah (the text now resumes with the first-person account from the Nehemiah Memoir) bringing the leaders (Hb sarim) up on top of the wall, where they split into two groups. One group went to the right on the wall. The procession must have approached the city from the west, probably mounting the wall at the Valley Gate on the west side of the city. Here they “went to the right”—or south—toward the Dung Gate. Archaeological evidence suggests that the top of the wall was about nine feet wide, allowing people to walk two or three abreast.

The leader of the procession was Ezra the scribe, a statement that many regard as impossible. Since many scholars do not believe there was any overlap between the ministries of Ezra and Nehemiah, they consider this statement a pious but flawed attempt to link the ministry of these two great men. However, as D. J. A. Clines writes, “It cannot be proved that Ezra’s participation is unhistorical; it is not impossible that Ezra should have been brought from retirement or from Babylonia specifically to engage in this ceremony.”

12:38-39 The second procession left the Valley Gate and went to the left, or north, in a clockwise direction, passing the Fish Gate (northwest corner of the city) and leaving the wall at the Sheep Gate at the north end of the city. From there they traveled to the Gate of the Guard, an uncertain location that may be identical with the courtyard of the guard (3:25) or the Inspection Gate (3:31). Presumably either location was near the temple.

12:40-43 The two processions met at the house of God, the temple. Nehemiah acknowledged God as the source of their great joy.

12:44-47 This section is linked to the dedication celebration by the phrase on that same day, although the issues mentioned prepare the way for the following chapter. Many critical scholars regard the claim that the worship was exactly as prescribed by David and his son Solomon as a historical retrojection of postexilic worship back into the time of David and Solomon (1Ch 23-36). However, such a position probably reflects more on a scholar’s presuppositions about the history of Israel than on exegesis of the biblical text.