Jeshua - See the marginal reference. Not the high priest, but the head of one of the two Levitical houses which had returned.

Together - The Hebrew phrase is very emphatic - "they stood up as one man."

Then stood Jeshua, with his sons,.... Not Jeshua the high priest before mentioned, but Jeshua the Levite, Ezra 2:40,

and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together; the same with Hodaviah, Ezra 2:40

to set forward the workmen in the house of God; to give them orders to begin and lay the foundation, and hasten and animate them to it:

the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites: two of this man's sons are mentioned in Nehemiah 3:18.

The Levites undertook this appointment, and executed the commission. The singular ויּעמד stands before a plural subject, as is frequently the case when the verb precedes its subject. Three classes or orders of Levites are named: 1. Jeshua with his sons and brethren; 2. Kadmiel with his sons, the sons of Hodaviah; 3. The sons of Henadad, their sons and brethren. Jeshua and Kadmiel are the two heads of orders of Levites already named (Ezra 2:40). From a comparison of these passages, we perceive that יהוּדה בּני is a clerical error for הודויה (or הודיּה) בּני. This more precise designation is not "a comprehensive appellation for all hitherto enumerated" (Bertheau), but, as is undoubtedly obvious from Ezra 2:40, only a more precise designation of the sons of Kadmiel. כּאחד, as one, i.e., all, without exception. The third class, the sons of Henadad, are not expressly named in Ezra 2:40 among those who returned from Babylon; but a son of Henadad appears, Nehemiah 3:24 and Nehemiah 10:10, as head of an order of Levites. The naming of this order after the predicate, in the form of a supplementary notice, and unconnected by a ו cop., is striking. Bertheau infers therefrom that the construction of the sentence is incorrect, and desires to alter it according to 1 Esdr. 5:56, where indeed this class is named immediately after the two first, but יהוּדה בּני is separated from what precedes; and of these בני יהודה is made a fourth class, υἱοὶ Ἰωδά τοῦ Ἡλιαδούδ. All this sufficiently shows that this text cannot be regarded as authoritative. The striking position or supplementary enumeration of the sons of Henadad may be explained by the fact to which the placing of כּאחד after בני יהודה points, viz., that the two classes, Jeshua with his sons and brethren, and Kadmiel with his sons, were more closely connected with each other than with the sons of Henadad, who formed a third class. The הלויּם at the end of the enumeration offers no argument for the transposition of the words, though this addition pertains not only to the sons of Henadad, but also to the two first classes. hm' עשׂה is plural, and only an unusual reading for עשׁי; see on 1 Chronicles 23:24.

Then stood Jeshua {f} with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to set forward the workmen in the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites.

(f) They gave them exhortations and encouraged every man forward in the work.

3:9 Joshua - Not the high - priest so called, but a Levite, of whom see chap.2:40. To set forward - To encourage them to a vigorous prosecution of the work.

Judah: also called, Hodaviah

together: Heb. as one

9. Jeshua with his sons-not the high priest, but a Levite (Ezr 2:40). To these, as probably distinguished for their mechanical skill and taste, the duty of acting as overseers was particularly committed.

3:8-13 There was a remarkable mixture of affections upon laying the foundation of the temple. Those that only knew the misery of having no temple at all, praised the Lord with shouts of joy. To them, even this foundation seemed great. We ought to be thankful for the beginnings of mercy, though it be not yet perfect. But those who remembered the glory of the first temple, and considered how far inferior this was likely to be, wept with a loud voice. There was reason for it, and if they bewailed the sin that was the cause of this melancholy change, they did well. Yet it was wrong to cast a damp upon the common joys. They despised the day of small things, and were unthankful for the good they enjoyed. Let not the remembrance of former afflictions drown the sense of present mercies.