Bible Commentaries

I. Nehemiah's Journey to Jerusalem, andthe Restoration of the Walls ofJerusalem - Nehemiah 1:1

Nehemiah, cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes, is plunged into deep afflictionby the account which he receives from certain individuals from Judah ofthe sad condition of his countrymen who had returned to Jerusalem andJudah. He prays with fasting to the Lord for mercy (Nehemiah 1:1-11), and on afavourable opportunity entreats the king and queen for permission tomake a journey to Jerusalem, and for the necessary authority to repair itsruined walls. His request being granted, he travels as governor toJerusalem, provided with letters from the king, and escorted by captains ofthe army and horsemen (Nehemiah 2:1-10). Soon after his arrival, he surveys thecondition of the walls and gates, summons the rulers of the people and thepriests to set about building the wall, and in spite of the obstacles heencounters from the enemies of the Jews, accomplishes this work (2:11-6:19). In describing the manner in which the building of the walls wascarried on, he first enumerates in succession (3) the individuals andcompanies engaged in restoring the walls surrounding the city (3), and thenrelates the obstacles and difficulties encountered (4:1-6:19).

In the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah,being then at Susa, received from one of his brethren, and other individualsfrom Judah, information which deeply grieved him, concerning the sadcondition of the captive who had returned to the land of their fathers, andthe state of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1 contains the title of the whole book: theHistory of Nehemiah. By the addition “son of Hachaliah,”Nehemiah is distinguished from others of the same name (e.g., fromNehemiah the son of Azbuk, Nehemiah 3:16). Another Nehemiah, too, returnedfrom captivity with Zerubbabel, Ezra 2:2. Of Hachaliah we know nothingfurther, his name occurring but once more, Nehemiah 10:2, in conjunction, ashere, with that of Nehemiah. Eusebius and Jerome assert that Nehemiahwas of the tribe of Judah, - a statement which may be correct, but isunsupported by any evidence from the Old Testament. According to Nehemiah 1:11, he was cup-bearer to the Persian king, and was, at his own request,appointed for some time Pecha, i.e., governor, of Judah. Comp. Nehemiah 5:14; Nehemiah 12:26, and Nehemiah 8:9; Nehemiah 10:2. “In the month Chisleu of the twentieth year I was inthe citadel of Susa” - such is the manner in which Nehemiah commences thenarrative of his labours for Jerusalem. Chisleu is the ninth month of theyear, answering to our December. Comp. Zechariah 7:1, 1 Macc. 4:52. Thetwentieth year is, according to Nehemiah 2:1, the twentieth year of ArtaxerxesLongimanus. On the citadel of Susa, see further details in the remarks onDaniel 8:2. Susa was the capital of the province Susiana, and its citadel,called by the Greeks Memnoneion, was strongly fortified. The kings ofPersia were accustomed to reside here during some months of the year.

Nehemiah 1:2-3

There came to Nehemiah Hanani, one of his brethren, andcertain men from Judah. מאחי אחד, one of mybrethren, might mean merely a relation of Nehemiah, אחים beingoften used of more distant relations; but since Nehemiah calls Hananiאחי in Nehemiah 7:10, it is evident that his own brother is meant. “And I asked them concerning the Jews, and concerning Jerusalem.”היּהוּדים is further defined by וגו הפּליטה, whohad escaped, who were left from the captivity; those who had returned toJudah are intended, as contrasted with those who still remained in heathen,lands. In the answer, Nehemiah 1:3, they are more precisely designated as being”there in the province (of Judah).” With respect to המּדינה,see remarks on Ezra 2:1. They are said to be “in great affliction (רעה) and in reproach.” Their affliction is more nearly defined by theaccessory clause which follows: and the wall = because the wall ofJerusalem is broken down, and its gates burned with fire. מפרצת, Pual(the intensive form), broken down, does not necessarily mean that thewhole wall was destroyed, but only portions, as appears from thesubsequent description of the building of the wall, Neh 3.

Nehemiah 1:4

This description of the state of the returned captives plungedNehemiah into such deep affliction, that he passed some days in mourning,fasting, and prayer. Opinions are divided with respect to the historicalrelation of the facts mentioned Nehemiah 1:3. Some older expositors thought thatHanani could not have spoken of the destruction of the walls and gates ofJerusalem by the Babylonians, because this was already sufficientlyknown to Nehemiah, but of some recent demolition on the part ofSamaritans and other hostile neighbours of the Jews; in opposition towhich, Rambach simply replies that we are told nothing of a restoration ofthe wall of Jerusalem by Zerubbabel and Ezra. More recently Ewald(Geschichte, iv. p. 137f.) has endeavoured to show, from certain psalmswhich he transposes to post-Babylonian times, the probability of adestruction of the rebuilt wall, but gives a decided negative to the question,whether this took place during the thirteen years between the arrivals ofEzra and Nehemiah. “For,” says he, “there is not in the whole of Nehemiah's record the mostdistant hint that the walls had been destroyed only a short time since; but,on the contrary, this destruction was already so remote an event, that itsoccasion and authors were no longer spoken of.” Vaihinger (Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1857, p. 88, comp. 1854, p. 124f.) and Bertheau are of opinionthat it indisputably follows from Nehemiah 1:3-4, as appearances show, that thewalls of Jerusalem were actually rebuilt and the gates set up before thetwentieth year of Artaxerxes, and that the destruction of this laboriouswork, which occasioned the sending of an embassy to the Persian court,was of quite recent occurrence, since otherwise Nehemiah would not havebeen so painfully affected by it. But even the very opposite opinion heldconcerning the impression made upon the reader by these verses, showsthat appearances are deceitful, and the view that the destruction of thewalls and gates was of quite recent occurrence is not implied by the wordsthemselves, but only inserted in them by expositors. There is no kind ofhistorical evidence that the walls of Jerusalem which had been destroyedby the Chaldeans were once more rebuilt before Nehemiah's arrival.

The documents given by Ezra 4:8-22, which are in this instanceappealed to, so far from proving the fact, rather bear testimony against it. The counsellor Rehum and the scribe Shimshai, in their letter toArtaxerxes, accuse indeed the Jews of building a rebellious and bad city, ofrestoring its walls and digging its foundations (Ezra 4:12); but they onlygive the king to understand that if this city be built and its walls restored,the king will no longer have a portion on this side the river (Ezra 4:16), andhasten to Jerusalem, as soon as they receive the king's decision, to hinderthe Jews by force and power (Ezra 4:23). Now, even if this accusation werequite well founded, nothing further can be inferred from it than that theJews had begun to restore the walls, but were hindered in the midst oftheir undertaking. Nothing is said in these documents either of a rebuilding,i.e., a complete restoration, of the walls and setting up of the gates, or ofbreaking down the walls and burning the gates. It cannot be said that to build a wall means the same as pulling down awall already built. Nor is anything said in Nehemiah 1:3 and Nehemiah 1:4 of a recentdemolition. The assertion, too, that the destruction of this laborious workwas the occasion of the mission of Hanani and certain men of Judah to thePersian court (Vaihinger), is entirely without scriptural support. In Nehemiah 1:2 and Nehemiah 1:3 it is merely said that Hanani and his companions came from Judah toNehemiah, and that Nehemiah questioned them concerning the condition ofthe Jews in the province of Judah, and concerning Jerusalem, and that theyanswered: The Jews there are in great affliction and reproach, for the wallof Jerusalem is broken down (מפרצת is a participle expressing thestate, not the praeter. or perfect, which would be found here if adestruction recently effected were spoken of). Nehemiah, too, in Nehemiah 2:3 and Nehemiah 2:17, only says: The city of my fathers' sepulchres (Jerusalem) liethdesolate (חרבה is an adjective), not: has been desolated. Nor can a visit on the part of Jews from Judah to their compatriot andrelative, the king's cup-bearer, be called a mission to the Persian court. - With respect also to the deep affliction of Nehemiah, upon whichBertheau lays so much stress, it by no means proves that he had received aterrible account of some fresh calamity which had but just befallen thecommunity at Jerusalem, and whose whole extent was as yet unknown tohim. Nehemiah had not as yet been to Jerusalem, and could not from hisown experience know the state of affairs in Judah and Jerusalem; hence hequestioned the newly arrived visitors, not concerning the latestoccurrences, but as to the general condition of the returned captives. Thefact of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldees could not, of course,be unknown to him; but neither could he be ignorant that now ninety yearssince a great number of captives had returned to their homes withZerubbabel and settled in Judah and Jerusalem, and that seventy yearssince the temple at Jerusalem had been rebuilt. Judging from these facts, he might not have imagined that the state ofaffairs in Judah and Jerusalem was so bad as it really was. When, then, henow learnt that those who had returned to Judah were in great affliction,that the walls of the town were still lying in ruins and its gates burned, andthat it was therefore exposed defenceless to all the insults of hostileneighbours, even this information might well grieve him. It is also probablethat it was through Hanani and his companions that he first learnt of theinimical epistle of the royal officials Rehum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes,and of the answer sent thereto by that monarch and thus became for thefirst time aware of the magnitude of his fellow-countrymen's difficulties. Such intelligence might well be such a shock to him as to cause the amountof distress described Nehemiah 1:4. For even if he indulged the hope that the kingmight repeal the decree by which the rebuilding of the wall had beenprohibited till further orders, he could not but perceive how difficult itwould be effectually to remedy the grievous state in which his countrymenwho had returned to the land of their fathers found themselves, while thedisposition of their neighbours towards them was thus hostile. This state was indeed sufficiently distressing to cause deep pain to onewho had a heart alive to the welfare of his nation, and there is no need forinventing new “calamities,” of which history knows nothing, to accountfor the sorrow of Nehemiah. Finally, the circumstance that the destructionof the walls and burning of the gates are alone mentioned as proofs of theaffliction and reproach which the returned exiles were suffering, arisessimply from an intention to hint at the remedy about to be described in thenarrative which follows, by bringing this special kind of reproachprominently forward.

Nehemiah's prayer, as given in these verses, comprises the prayers whichhe prayed day and night, during the period of his mourning and fasting (Nehemiah 1:4 comp. Nehemiah 1:6), to his faithful and covenant God, to obtain mercy for hispeople, and the divine blessing upon his project for their assistance.

Nehemiah 1:5

The invocation of Jahve as: Thou God of heaven, alludes to God'salmighty government of the world, and the further predicates of God, toHis covenant faithfulness. “Thou great and terrible God” recalls Deuteronomy 7:21,and “who keepest covenant and mercy,” etc., Deuteronomy 7:9 and Exodus 20:5-6.

Nehemiah 1:6

“Let Thine ear be attentive, and Thine eyes open,” like 2 Chronicles 6:40; 2 Chronicles 7:15 - לשׁמע, that Thou mayest hearken to the prayer ofThy servant, which I pray, and how I confess concerning … מתדּה stilldepends upon אשׁר in the sense of: and what I confess concerningthe sins. היּום does not here mean to-day, but now, at this time,as the addition “day and night” compared with ימים in Nehemiah 1:4 shows. To strengthen the communicative form לך חטאנוּ, and to acknowledge before God how deeply penetrated he was bythe feeling of his own sin and guilt, he adds: and I and my father's househave sinned.

Nehemiah 1:7

We have dealt very corruptly against Thee. חבל is theinf. constr. instead of the infin. abs., which, before the finite verb, and byreason of its close connection therewith, becomes the infin. constr., likeאהיה היות, Psalm 50:21; comp. Ewald, §240, c. The dealing corruptlyagainst God consists in not having kept the commandments, statutes, andjudgments of the law.

Nehemiah 1:8-10

With his confession of grievous transgression, Nehemiahcombines the petition that the Lord would be mindful of His worddeclared by Moses, that if His people, whom He had scattered among theheathen for their sins, should turn to Him and keep His commandments,He would gather them from all places where He had scattered them, andbring them back to the place which He had chosen to place His name there. This word (הדּבר) he designates, as that which God hadcommanded to His servant Moses, inasmuch as it formed a part of thatcovenant law which was prescribed to the Israelites as their rule of life. The matter of this word is introduced by לאמר: ye transgress, Iwill scatter; i.e., if ye transgress by revolting from me, I will scatter youamong the nations, - and ye turn to me and keep my commandments (i.e., ifye turn to me and … ), if there were of you cast out to the end of heaven(i.e., to the most distant regions where the end of heaven touches theearth), thence will I gather you, etc. נדּח, pat. Niphal, with acollective meaning, cast-out ones, like Deuteronomy 30:4. These words are no verbal quotation, but a free summary, in whichNehemiah had Deuteronomy 30:1-5 chiefly in view, of what God had proclaimed inthe law of Moses concerning the dispersion of His people among theheathen if they sinned against Him, and of their return to the land of theirfathers if they repented and turned to Him. The clause: if the cast-out oneswere at the end of heaven, etc., stands verbally in Nehemiah 1:4. The last words, Nehemiah 1:9, “(I will bring them) to the place which I have chosen, that my name maydwell there,” are a special application of the general promise of the law tothe present case. Jerusalem is meant, where the Lord caused His name todwell in the temple; comp. Deuteronomy 12:11. The entreaty to remember thisword and to fulfil it, seems ill adapted to existing circumstances, for aportion of the people were already brought back to Jerusalem; andNehemiah's immediate purpose was to pray, not for the return of thosestill sojourning among the heathen, but for the removal of the affliction andreproach resting on those who were now at Jerusalem. Still lessappropriate seems the citation of the words: If ye transgress, I will scatteryou among the nations. It must, however, be remembered that Nehemiah is not so much invokingthe divine compassion as the righteousness and faithfulness of a covenantGod, the great and terrible God that keepeth covenant and mercy (Nehemiah 1:5). Now this, God had shown Himself to be, by fulfilling the threats of Hislaw that He would scatter His faithless and transgressing people amongthe nations. Thus His fulfilment of this one side of the covenantstrengthened the hope that God would also keep His other covenant wordto His people who turned to Him, viz., that He would bring them again tothe land of their fathers, to the place of His gracious presence. Hence thereference to the dispersion of the nation among the heathen, forms theactual substructure for the request that so much of the promise as yetremained unfulfilled might come to pass. Nehemiah, moreover, views thispromise in the full depth of its import, as securing to Israel not merely anexternal return to their native land, but their restoration as a community, inthe midst of whom the Lord had His dwelling, and manifested Himself asthe defence and refuge of His people. To the re-establishment of this covenant relation very much was stillwanting. Those who had returned from captivity had indeed settled in theland of their fathers; and the temple in which they might worship Godwith sacrifices, according to the law, was rebuilt at Jerusalem. Butnotwithstanding all this, Jerusalem, with its ruined walls and burned gates,was still like a city lying waste, and exposed to attacks of all kinds; whilethe inhabitants of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were loaded withshame and contempt by their heathen neighbours. In this sense, Jerusalemwas not yet restored, and the community dwelling therein not yet broughtto the place where the name of the Lord dwelt. In this respect, the promisethat Jahve would again manifest Himself to His repentant people as theGod of the covenant was still unfulfilled, and the petition that He wouldgather His people to the place which He had chosen to put His namethere, i.e., to manifest Himself according to His nature, as testified in Hiscovenant (Exodus 34:6-7), quite justifiable. In Nehemiah 1:10 Nehemiah supports hispetition by the words: And these (now dwelling in Judah and Jerusalem)are Thy servants and Thy people whom Thou hast redeemed, etc. Hisservants who worship Him in His temple, His people whom He hasredeemed from Egypt by His great power and by His strong arm, Godcannot leave in affliction and reproach. The words: “redeemed with greatpower” … are reminiscences from Deuteronomy 7:8; Deuteronomy 9:26, Deuteronomy 9:29, and other passages inthe Pentateuch, and refer to the deliverance from Egypt.

Nehemiah 1:11

The prayer closes with the reiterated entreaty that God wouldhearken to the prayer of His servant (i.e., Nehemiah), and to the prayer ofHis servants who delight to fear His name (יראה, infin. like Deuteronomy 4:10 and elsewhere), i.e., of all Israelites who, like Nehemiah, prayed toGod to redeem Israel from all his troubles. For himself in particular,Nehemiah also request: “Prosper Thy servant to-day (היּום likeNehemiah 1:6; לעבדּך may be either the accusative of the person, like 2 Chronicles 26:5, or the dative: Prosper his design unto Thy servant, like Nehemiah 2:20),and give him to mercy (i.e., cause him to find mercy; comp. 1 Kings 8:50; Psalm 106:46) before the face of this man.” What man he means is explainedby the following supplementary remark, “And I was cup-bearer to theking,” without whose favour and permission Nehemiah could not havecarried his project into execution (as related in Neh 2).