Nehemiah 1:1 to Nehemiah 7:73 a. Extract from the memoirs of Nehemiah

1. The Superscription. ‘In many MSS. and editions the beginning of this book is closely united with the last verse of Ezra, and in some it appears without line or interval between as part of Ezra’ (Davidson’s Hebrew Text).

The words] R.V. marg. the history. (a) The rendering ‘words’ merely calls attention to the fact that we here have a portion of the writings of Nehemiah himself. (b) The rendering ‘history’ is more formal, and is capable of being understood in two different ways, (1) as a reference to a well-known work of history from the pen of Nehemiah, as in ‘the histories (marg. Heb. words) of Shemaiah, the prophet, and Iddo, the seer’ (2 Chronicles 12:15) and ‘the history (marg. Heb. words) of Jehu, the son of Hanani’ (2 Chronicles 20:34); (2) as a descriptive heading of the present book, ‘the history of Nehemiah’ being equivalent to ‘the acts of Nehemiah’; the common expression ‘the acts of,’ e.g. Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), is literally ‘the words of.’

In order to choose between these renderings, we must remember that the clause is probably an editorial heading, inserted by the Chronicler in the compilation of his work. Perhaps the preference should be given to (a) ‘the words of,’ on the ground that when Ezra and Nehemiah formed one continuous work it was not likely that a heading (whether giving the title of a work that is quoted, or describing the remainder of the Chronicler’s book) would be inserted in the middle of the text. But the insertion of a note, to explain the transition from the 1st person, used in the extracts from Ezra’s memoirs, to the 1st person used in the memoirs of Nehemiah, is only what we might expect.

For superscriptions introduced by editorial hands, compare Isaiah 1:1; Jeremiah 1:1; Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1; Micah 1:1. This, however, is the only superscription of the kind in an historical book.

Hachaliah] R.V. Hacaliah, cf. Nehemiah 10:1. The father’s name enables us to distinguish Nehemiah from the men of the same name mentioned in Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 3:16. The name Hacaliah does not occur elsewhere in the O.T.

We are not told what tribe Nehemiah belonged to. Some have supposed the tribe of Levi; and in favour of this suggestion should be observed (a) the mention of his ‘brother’ Hanani’s appointment (Nehemiah 7:2) along with the appointment of the porters, singers, and Levites; (b) the prominent consideration paid by Nehemiah to the interests of the priests and Levites.

Others have suggested the tribe of Judah, and in support of their view refer to the mention of his ‘house’ (Nehemiah 1:6).

Nehemiah 1:1 to Nehemiah 2:11. Nehemiah’s Commission

1–4. The Evil Tidings from Jerusalem

1b. And] R.V. Now. See note on Ezra 1:1. The copula implies that something has preceded. The Memoirs of Nehemiah did not open with these words. The Chronicler only gives us extracts (Nehemiah 1:1 b–7:73a, Nehemiah 12:27-43, Nehemiah 13:4-31). The retention of the copula at the beginning of the section shows that there was no intention to conceal the fragmentary character of the section.

Chisleu] R.V. Chislev. See note on Ezra 10:9. Hanani’s arrival was in the winter, some three or four months before the events narrated in Nehemiah 2:1 ff.

in the twentieth year] R.V. marg. ‘see ch. Nehemiah 2:1.’ In ch. Nehemiah 2:1 we find that the events described in the beginning of that chapter are said to have taken place in the month Nisan, in the 20th year of king Artaxerxes. Now Nisan is the first month, Chislev the ninth month in the year. How then comes it that in this verse the events of the ninth month seem to precede those of the first month, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes?

(a) The explanation usually given is that Nehemiah employs the post-exilic calendar, in which Tisri (the seventh month) opens the sacred Jewish year, Chislev being then the third and Nisan the seventh months.

The objections, however, to this explanation are considerable:

(1) There is nothing in the context, here or in Nehemiah 2:1, to cause Nehemiah to employ a sacred in preference to a civil computation. As he reckons the year by the reign of the Persian king, and employs the Babylonian (not the old Hebrew) names of months, we should expect him to adopt the calendar in vogue in the Persian dominion.

(2) The custom of reckoning Nisan as the first and Chislev as the ninth month in the year was almost universal in Western Asia.

(3) In post-exilic Jewish writings we find this method of computing the months employed with reference to sacred and secular matters indifferently (cf. Zechariah 1:7; Zechariah 7:1; Esther 2:16; Esther 3:7; Esther 3:13; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:1; 1Ma 4:52; 1Ma 10:21; 1Ma 16:14, 2Ma 15:36).

(4) The system of reckoning the 1st of Tisri, the Feast of Trumpets, as New Year’s Day is to be dated, according to Jewish tradition, either from the age of Alexander the Great, or, more probably, from the time of the adoption of the Seleucid era (312 b.c.). (The theory which connects it with the restoration of the daily burnt-offering ‘on the first day of the seventh month’ Ezra 3:6, cf. Nehemiah 8:11, rests on no foundation.) Even where reference is made to ‘the Feast of Trumpets,’ the feast is stated to occur in the seventh month (see Leviticus 23:24-25; Numbers 29:1).

In the opinion of some scholars (e.g. Wellhausen, Hist. of Isr. p. 109) the Hebrew year was reckoned from autumn to autumn until the Exile, and then the influence of the Babylonian usage caused a change from autumn to spring to take place. There are some indications of an early Israelite practice of reckoning the year from autumn to autumn (Exodus 23:16; Exodus 34:22; Leviticus 25:22, cf. Genesis 7:11); and Josephus (Ant. i. 1. 3) says this was altered by Moses, in order that the year might date from the month in which the Exodus occurred. But the impression produced by the narrative of the regal period (see 2 Samuel 11:1; 1 Kings 20:22; 1 Kings 20:26; Jeremiah 36:9; Jeremiah 36:22) is in favour of the mode of reckoning from spring to spring. It seems on every account more probable, that Nehemiah would follow the numeration of months, starting from the month Nisan, which both his countrymen and the people, among whom he lived, commonly employed.

(b) Another explanation has been given, that the years of Artaxerxes’ reign were not reckoned, as calendar years, from the month Nisan, but from the month in which he ascended the throne: if therefore his reign began in any one of the months between Nisan and Chislev (i.e. Iyyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Ab, Elul, Tisri, Marcheswan), Chislev would precede Nisan in the year so calculated. But for this view there is no evidence from other sources.

(c) It is better to acknowledge that we have here a contradiction, and to suppose that a mistake has been made either by the Compiler or by a scribe, who was anxious that the extract from Nehemiah’s writings should open with the mention of a date, and inserted, from ch. Nehemiah 2:1, the year of the king’s reign, not perceiving the difficulty to which it would give rise. The omission of the king’s name is an additional reason for suspecting an error in the text.

Shushan] Shushan or Susa, alter its capture by Cyrus (546?), became ‘the principal capital of the Persian Empire, and its river, the Choaspes, a branch of the Eulaeus (Ulai, Daniel 8:2; Daniel 8:16), had the honour of supplying the (Persian) kings with the only drinking water they would use’ (‘The Story of the Nations:’ Media, p. 318). “The city of Susa was cut in two by a wide river, known at present under the name of Ab-Kharkha (ancient Choaspes). On the right bank were the populous quarters; on the left, temples, or at least a Ziggurat, the royal city, the citadel, and the palace, the ruins of which, entombed in an immense earth-mound, rise in the midst of the other lesser mounds, like a steep islet from the sea.” (id. pp. 333 f.)

Shushan had formerly been the capital of the kingdom of Elam, whose territory had embraced the alluvial plain E. of the lower Tigris, and stretched S. along the shores of the Persian Gulf (Kiepert). For a mention of the early Elamite kingdom see the reference in Genesis 14:1 ff. to the invasion of Chedor-laomer (Kudur-lagamer). In the Assyrian Inscriptions of Assur-bani-pal, king of Assyria (668–626), we have an extraordinarily vivid and minute account of that monarch’s two campaigns against the kingdom of Elam. Few, if any, of the treasures of the Assyrian Rooms in the British Museum exceed in dramatic interest, vigour of treatment, and beauty of preservation, the representation, on three slabs (nos. 45–47) in the Kouyunjik Gallery, of the overthrow and death, by the banks of Eulaeus, of Teumman, king of Elam. Assur-bani-pal entered Shushan with his victorious army and carried away enormous treasure. The city was sacked and its fortifications destroyed. Elam as a kingdom ceased to exist. Shushan however rose from its ashes. Darius Hystaspes rebuilt the city and erected there a magnificent palace. This was destroyed by fire. But on its site Artaxerxes built another and yet more splendid residence. The remnants of ‘a magnificent piece of painted and glazed tiles representing striding lions, which formed the decoration of the pillared porticos’ (Ragozin’s Media) have been discovered; and along it ran an inscription on which appears the name of Artaxerxes. This was probably the palace in which Nehemiah attended the king as cupbearer.

It became the usual winter residence of the Persian kings, who made use of Ecbatana for their summer quarters. The importance of the town caused the whole district to be called ‘Susiana’ in the Macedonian period. After its capture by the Mahommedans it sank gradually into decay. The modern town of Dizfûl stands near the site of Shushan. Other passages of Scripture which make mention of Shushan (Daniel 8:2; Esth. passim) point to the fact that a large number of Jews resided in the city.

the palace] R.V. marg. the castle. The word ‘bîrah’ is used here, in Daniel 8:2, and in Esther, as an appellation of Shushan. It is applied in 1 Chronicles 29:1; 1 Chronicles 29:19 to the Temple at Jerusalem; in Nehemiah 2:8; Nehemiah 7:2, to the ‘capitol’ or ‘castle’ of Jerusalem. In Ezra 6:2 (Aram.) it is used of Ecbatana. It means something more than ‘the royal house of residence,’ for which we have ‘palace’ (= bîthan) (Esther 1:5; Esther 7:7-8) or ‘the king’s house’ (Esther 2:8; Esther 4:13). It is probably a special title of Shushan, denoting it as a stronghold as well as a royal city.

The Vulgate here renders by ‘castro’: the LXX. transliterates (ἀβιρά).

2. Hanani, one of my brethren] Cf. Nehemiah 7:2 ‘my brother Hanani,’ where the context places it beyond all doubt that the word ‘brother’ is not to be understood in the sense of ‘fellow-countryman.’ But ‘brother’ may mean ‘cousin’ or ‘relative,’ cf. Genesis 14:16; Genesis 24:48; and we find ‘brethren’ used for ‘fellow-tribesmen’ in 2 Samuel 19:12; Nehemiah 3:1. The term ‘one of my brethren’ favours the explanation that Hanani was a relative, not his actual brother.

certain men of Judah] R.V. certain men out of Judah. The R.V. gives the truer rendering of the preposition. The emphasis does not lie upon the men being Jews, but upon their having just come from Judea.

the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity] i.e. the Jews in the land of Judea as distinguished from those in Babylon and dispersed in other countries. They are described as refugees, or as the children of refugees, who had survived the captivity; cf. Ezra 3:8; Ezra 8:35; Nehemiah 8:17.

‘that had escaped,’ one word in the Hebrew, the same abstract substantive as in Ezra 9:15, ‘A remnant that is escaped.’

‘the captivity,’ not collectively ‘the captives,’ abstract for concrete like ‘hag-gôlah’ (Ezra 2:1), but descriptively, ‘the scene or condition of captivity’ (sh’bhî).

and concerning Jerusalem] Nehemiah’s anxious enquiry relates to two things, the welfare of the people and the condition of the city. He does not ask about the Temple.

3. The reply of the Jews corresponds to the enquiry, and is given in two sentences, the one relating to the inhabitants, the other to the walls and defences of Jerusalem.

in the province] See note on Ezra 2:1.

great affliction and reproach] Compare the description in Nehemiah 2:17 and the sarcasms of Sanballat in Nehemiah 4:2-3. This ‘affliction and reproach’ is something quite distinct from the humiliation of being subject to foreign rulers, as in Nehemiah 9:37. The ‘affliction’ denotes ‘the evil plight’ within the walls; the ‘reproach,’ the scornful attitude of enemies without. Cf. Psalm 79:4-9, ‘we are become a reproach to our neighbours, &c.…; for we are brought very low,’ and Psalm 89:38-46.

the wall … is broken down] Speaking of the wall, the Jews describe its present condition; speaking of the gates, they refer to a past event. For the condition of ‘the wall,’ cf. Nehemiah 2:13. ‘Broken down’: in order to deprive a walled city of its power of resistance, a victorious enemy used to make breaches in the walls at one or more vulnerable points. Cf. 2 Kings 14:13 (2 Chronicles 32:5).

the gates … are burnt with fire] cf. Nehemiah 2:13. ‘The gates,’ as in Jeremiah 17:27, are the fortified gateways, the principal objects of assault. The verb here is in the past tense, and alludes to an historical event, not to a long-standing condition.

It has been commonly supposed that the Jews are informing Nehemiah of the condition in which the walls and gates of Jerusalem had been lying ever since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, 143 years previously (588); and Rashi points out that the walls and gates are mentioned and not the Temple, because the Temple had been rebuilt, and ‘the walls’ and ‘the gates’ remained in ruins. But this explanation is not sufficient. (1) If Nehemiah’s brethren informed him of a condition of things which had continued ever since the return from the Captivity, we fail to see any reason for the vehement consternation into which he was thrown. (2) As a reply to an enquiry concerning the condition of Jerusalem, we should not expect the words ‘the gates … are burned with fire,’ relating to so distant an event as the Chaldean overthrow. (3) The verb ‘are burned’ seems to denote a recent event = ‘have been burned.’

It is more natural to suppose that Nehemiah’s brethren inform him of a recent catastrophe at Jerusalem. It is a probable conjecture that they refer to a forcible interference, on the part of Samaritan foes, with some recent attempt of the Jews, perhaps led by Ezra, to rebuild their walls. This may be the failure described in Ezra 4. Artaxerxes’ decree of prohibition was, we may well imagine, followed up by hostile action, on the part of the enemies of the Jews, by the demolition of the wall, so far as it had been built, and by the destruction of the gates.

Nehemiah, a leading Jew at the court, would have been made acquainted both with the project of rebuilding the wall and with the fact of Artaxerxes having prohibited it. Hence his anxious enquiry about the people beset with foes, and about the city whose defences were in danger. The Temple, on the other hand, had long been rebuilt with the sanction of the Persian king, Darius. There was no apprehension to be felt on its behalf.

The news which he receives at first overwhelms Nehemiah with dismay. He connects in his mind the religious and national independence of his people with a strong and fortified Jerusalem. For the moment his hopes for his people seem to be shattered at a blow.

4. I sat down and wept] Cf. Ezra 9:3 ‘sat down astonied,’ Psalm 137:1 ‘we sat down and wept.’ Nehemiah’s sudden grief shows that the information brought by his ‘brethren’ was unexpected.

mourned] A word in the original used especially for formal lamentation, e.g. over the dead, Genesis 37:35, or on account of sin, Nehemiah 8:9; Ezra 10:6; Daniel 10:2.

certain days] R.V. certain days. Literally ‘days,’ sometimes used to denote a short indefinite period, cf. Nehemiah 13:6; it is rendered ‘a season’ in Genesis 40:4, ‘many days,’ 1 Kings 17:15.

fasted, and prayed] Cf. Ezra 8:23.

before the God of heaven] See note on Ezra 1:2. The use of this Divine title in Nehemiah’s writings is of especial interest, on account of the frequency with which it occurs in Persian inscriptions. It is not merely to be understood as an abridged form of the title of universal sovereignty, ‘God of heaven and earth,’ but rather as indicating that the Almighty dwelt in the heaven of heavens beyond the visible sky, cf. Psalm 115:16.

‘before:’ literally ‘in the presence of.’ This expression has sometimes been understood by commentators to denote ‘turning with the face towards Jerusalem,’ as in Daniel 6:10-11. But it is too general to admit of such a limitation (cf. 1 Samuel 1:12).

5. The opening address blends the Divine attributes of might and majesty with those of faithfulness and mercy. Divine forgiveness alone could vouchsafe the restoration, which Divine power alone could effect.

I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven] R.V. O Lord, the God of heaven. See on Ezra 1:2.

‘I beseech thee.’ (Vulg. quaeso). In the original one strong supplicatory word, ‘anah,’ used also in Nehemiah 1:11; 2 Kings 20:3; Psalm 116:4; Psalm 118:25; Isaiah 38:3; Jonah 1:14.

On ‘the God of heaven’ see note on Nehemiah 1:4.

the great and terrible God] This phrase, as in Daniel 9:4, with its use of the Divine name ‘Êl’ is derived from Deuteronomy 7:21 (Nehemiah 10:17). See the very similar expressions in chap. Nehemiah 4:14, Nehemiah 9:32.

God in the manifestation of His strength (Êl) is ‘terrible.’ Cf. Psalm 47:2; Psalm 66:3; Psalm 68:35; Psalm 99:3. For the fear which Jehovah inspires cf. Isaiah 8:13; Jeremiah 5:22; Malachi 1:6.

that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe (R.V. keep) his commandments] The reciprocity of the covenant relation, denoted by the use of the same Hebrew word for ‘keeping’ ‘covenant and mercy’ as for keeping commandments, is thus brought out in the R.V. The sentence which is borrowed from Deuteronomy 7:9; cf. Deuteronomy 5:12, is also found in 1 Kings 8:23; Nehemiah 9:32; Daniel 9:4, in each case, as here, being made use of in a prayer.

‘Keepeth covenant and mercy,’ a condensed phrase for ‘keepeth covenant and sheweth mercy.’ On the Divine side, the keeping of the covenant consisted in shewing ‘mercy.’ God will not break His covenant, cf. Jdg 2:1; Psalm 89:34.

‘for them that love him and keep his commandments,’ as in Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 5:10. One class is described in motive and act. The love of those who are in covenant with the Lord is shown in obedience. Compare the New Covenant, ‘if ye love me keep my commandments’ (John 14:15). ‘Love to God,’ in the Pentateuch, is only expressed in Exodus 20:6 and in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 5:10, Deuteronomy 6:5, Deuteronomy 7:9, Deuteronomy 10:12, Deuteronomy 11:1; Deuteronomy 11:13; Deuteronomy 11:22, Deuteronomy 13:3, Deuteronomy 19:9, Deuteronomy 30:6; Deuteronomy 30:16; Deuteronomy 30:20); it is found in the historical books, Joshua 22:5; Joshua 23:11; Jdg 5:31; 1 Kings 3:3 : in the Psalms, Psalm 18:1; Psalm 31:23; Psalm 97:10; Psalm 116:1; Psalm 145:20 (Psalm 5:11, Psalm 69:36, Psalm 119:132). Elsewhere in the O.T. the thought of love to God is hardly directly found except in the parallel passage Daniel 9:4, and less definitely in Isaiah 56:6; Malachi 2:11.

It is as if the writers of the O.T. shrank from expressing the thought of devotion to God by a term familiarly used of human friendship and earthly affection. The relation of sinful man to the Almighty was that of the subject to the sovereign, of the servant to the master. Devotion was realized in obedience to His law.

5–11. Nehemiah’s Prayer

This prayer falls into five portions: (1) the opening address, Nehemiah 1:5; (2) the humble approach, Nehemiah 1:6 a; (3) the confession of sins, Nehemiah 1:6 b, 7; (4) the appeal to the Divine Promise, Nehemiah 1:8-10; (5) the closing supplication for (a) the people, and (b) Nehemiah as their representative at the royal court, Nehemiah 1:11.

Points of resemblance may be noted with the prayer of Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15), and, in particular, with that of Daniel (Daniel 9:4-19). The opening words (Nehemiah 1:5), which are almost word for word the same as we find in Daniel 9:4 (the only variations being ‘Adonai’ for ‘Jehovah’ and the additional title ‘God of heaven’), were very probably a recognised formula of prayer based on the language of Deuteronomy.

6. The humble access leading to the confession of sin.

let thine ear now be attentive] The word ‘attentive’ is not very common in the original. It occurs again in Nehemiah 1:11, in Psalm 130:2. And with the rendering ‘attent’ (A.V. and R.V.) in 2 Chronicles 6:40; 2 Chronicles 7:15. The LXX. renders πρόσεχον.

and thine eyes open] We should expect this clause to come first, as in 2 Chronicles 6:40; 2 Chronicles 7:15. We need not however supply the words ‘to the misery of thy people’ or ‘to him that prayeth.’ A similar passage in 1 Kings 8:52, ‘that thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of thy servant,’ shows that the metaphor is not to be pressed too literally.

hear] R.V. hearken unto. An alteration due to the wish to give the full force of the Hebrew. ‘Thy servant.’ Compare 1 Samuel 3:9-10; 1 Samuel 23:10; 2 Samuel 7:20.

now, day and night] R.V. at this time, day and night. Literally, ‘this day, day and night,’ cf. Nehemiah 1:11. ‘At this time’ then refers to the ‘certain days’ mentioned in Nehemiah 1:4 : it does not mean that he went into the presence of the king on the day of this prayer.

The Vulgate ‘hodie nocte et die.’ Cf. Acts 20:31 ‘night and day with tears.’

for the children of Israel thy servants] i.e. in their behalf. In spite of their sin and disobedience, the children of Israel are still God’s servants, cf. Leviticus 25:55; Isaiah 63:17. The exact phrase used here does not occur elsewhere. But the permanent ideal relation, in spite of all failure or rebellion, is frequently expressed in the prophets; cf. ‘Jacob, my servant,’ used in Isaiah (Isaiah 41:8; Isaiah 44:2 &c.), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 30:10; Jeremiah 46:27-28), Ezekiel 37:25.

and confess] R.V. while I confess. The A.V. is not grammatical.

‘Confess.’ See on Ezra 10:1.

the sins of the children of Israel, which we &c.] Nehemiah identifies himself with the guilt of the people. Cf. Moses in Exodus 34:9 ‘Pardon our iniquity and our sin.’

both I and my father’s house] i.e. Neither the individual nor the family being free from the responsibility of national sin. It has been remarked that, if Nehemiah belonged to the house of David, there would be a special appropriateness in these words. According to one tradition (Euseb.), he was of the tribe of Judah.

7. We have dealt very corruptly] The words in the original occasion some difficulty. There is however no connexion, as commentators have supposed, between the Hebrew words used here and a similar root meaning ‘a pledge.’ The Vulgate, adopting a different derivation, has ‘vanitate seducti sumus.’ The LXX. rendering διαλύσει διελύσαμεν πρὸς σὲ and that of a few MSS. ματαιώσει ἐματαιώθημεν ἐν σοί (Field’s Orig. Hex.) show the uncertainty as to the meaning. Elsewhere in the O.T. the word occurs in Job 17:1; Isaiah 13:5; Isaiah 32:7; Isaiah 54:16; Proverbs 13:13; Micah 2:10; Song of Solomon 2:15. The substantive derived from the root here used is rendered ‘hurt’ Daniel 6:23. It is found with the same meaning as in this verse Job 34:31 ‘I will not offend any more.’

commandments … statutes … judgments] The three words occur together in Deuteronomy 5:31; Deuteronomy 6:1; Deuteronomy 7:11; Deuteronomy 8:11; Deuteronomy 11:1.

which thou commandedst] e.g. Deuteronomy 6:1.

thy servant Moses] and Nehemiah 1:8, Nehemiah 9:18.

‘The servant of the Lord’ was a favourite title applied to Moses. In Joshua it occurs with great frequency (e.g. Joshua 1:1-2; Joshua 1:7; Joshua 1:13, &c.). Elsewhere it is found in 1 Kings 8:53; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 21:8; 2 Chronicles 1:3; Psalm 105:26; Malachi 4:4. He is called ‘the servant of God’ in Nehemiah 10:29; 1 Chronicles 6:49; Daniel 9:11; ‘the man of God’ Ezra 3:2; 1 Chronicles 23:14; Psalms 90. (title). Cf. in the New Testament the description of Moses as the ‘faithful servant’ in Hebrews 3:2-5, and Revelation 15:3. The LXX. τῷ Μωυσῇ παιδί σου (Vulg. famulo tuo) will illustrate Acts 4:27 ‘thy holy Servant Jesus’ (τὸν ἅγιον παῖδά σου Ἰησοῦν).

8. Remember … the word … saying] The reference here made is in general terms. No passage in the Pentateuch exactly agrees with it (cf. Nehemiah 10:34). This may be shown by the words used in the first sentence. The Hebrew word for ‘I will scatter’ is only found in Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch: the Hebrew word for ‘transgress’ only occurs once in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 32:51), but in quite a different context from the threat of dispersion.

The threat of dispersion is found in the Pentateuch in Leviticus 26:33; Deuteronomy 4:27; Deuteronomy 28:64; Deuteronomy 30:3. The promise of restoration is given in Deuteronomy 4:29 and in Deuteronomy 30:4-5 (Leviticus 26:40-42). The passage most resembling the words here given is Deuteronomy 30:1-5. On ‘transgress,’ see note on Ezra 9:4.

scatter … abroad among the nations] Cf. Jeremiah 9:16; Ezekiel 11:16; Ezekiel 12:15; Ezekiel 20:23; Ezekiel 22:15; Ezekiel 36:19.

In the original the position of the personal pronouns is very emphatic, Ye transgress, I scatter.

For the appeal to the Lord to ‘remember,’ cf. Psalm 106:4.

9. The Promise. The appeal to this promise marks the crisis of the prayer.

if ye turn] R.V. return. The word, as in Deuteronomy 30:2, is stronger than to ‘turn’. It denotes a ‘return’ from a wrong road. The back is turned upon the former wrong direction. Cf. Malachi 3:18.

and keep my commandments, and do them] R.V. omits comma. These words contain the practical explanation of the ‘return.’ No distinction can really be drawn between ‘keeping’ and ‘doing’ the commandments. The words occur together with great frequency in Deuteronomy, both as ‘observe to do’ and ‘observe (or keep) and do.’

though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, &c.] R.V. though your outcasts were in the uttermost part of the heaven, &c. This and the next clauses are clearly taken from Deuteronomy 30:4, where the same words (except for the use of the 2nd sing. for the 2nd plur.) occur. The term ‘your outcasts’ does not occur with this usage elsewhere in the Pentateuch, while the exact phrase ‘in the uttermost part of heaven’ also only occurs there. The word ‘outcasts’ may be illustrated from 2 Samuel 14:13-14; Isaiah 16:3-4; Isaiah 27:13; Isaiah 56:8; Jeremiah 30:17; Jeremiah 49:36, and ‘the uttermost part of heaven’ from Deuteronomy 4:32 and Jdg 7:11. But the occurrence here side by side of these two forms can only be accounted for on the supposition that Nehemiah has here in his thoughts the passage Deuteronomy 30:1-4.

On ‘gathering the outcasts’ compare the title given to the Lord in Isaiah 56:8, ‘The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel.’

and will bring them] The promise to bring together ‘the outcasts’ of Israel should be compared with the metaphor of the shepherd and the scattered sheep, in Ezekiel 34:11-18. See especially, Ezekiel 34:13, ‘And I will bring them out from the peoples, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land.’

unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there] R.V., to cause my name to dwell there. This sentence is again characteristically Deuteronomic. The words, ‘the place which the Lord thy God shall choose,’ do not occur in the Pentateuch except in the book Deuteronomy, where they are found some 20 times. In five of these passages (Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 14:23, Deuteronomy 16:6; Deuteronomy 16:11, Deuteronomy 26:2) the full phrase is found, ‘the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there,’ which Nehemiah here quotes.

That ‘the place’ so designated is Jerusalem and the Temple at Jerusalem is beyond all doubt. This was the place of which God had said ‘My name shall be there’ (1 Kings 8:29). At Shiloh God ‘caused his name to dwell at the first’ (Jeremiah 7:12). But Shiloh passed away. And though Jerusalem for a time seemed threatened with a like fate (Jeremiah 7:12-15), the day came when the watchmen upon the hills of Ephraim cried, ‘Arise ye and let us go up to Zion unto the Lord our God’ (Jeremiah 31:6).

The Hebrew verb ‘cause to dwell’ is that from which came the late Hebrew word ‘Shechinah’, applied to the visible manifestation in Glory of the Divine Presence.

The association of ‘the Name’ with the Temple is very frequent in Chronicles (e.g. 1 Chronicles 22:7-10; 1 Chronicles 22:19; 1 Chronicles 28:3; 1 Chronicles 29:16; 2 Chronicles 2:1; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 2 Chronicles 6:5-9; 2 Chronicles 6:20; 2 Chronicles 6:33-34; 2 Chronicles 6:38; 2 Chronicles 7:16; 2 Chronicles 7:20; 2 Chronicles 12:13; 2 Chronicles 20:8-9; 2 Chronicles 33:4; 2 Chronicles 33:7).

10. This verse states the ground on which the privilege of the promise is claimed.

Now these are thy servants, &c.] The connexion of thought, which is not very obvious at first sight, seems to be as follows. Having stated the Divine promise, Nehemiah returns in thought to ‘the children of thy servants’ of Nehemiah 1:6. They, by their confession of sin, had fulfilled the condition, they had ‘returned’ unto their God. They could claim the fulfilment of His promise. They were not aliens. They were His own people whom He Himself had redeemed.

whom thou hast redeemed] Of the two Hebrew words, rendered by the English ‘redeem,’ i.e. ‘ga’al’ and ‘padah,’ the word here used is ‘padah.’ It is noteworthy that in the similar expression, Exodus 6:6, ‘redeem you with a stretched out arm,’ the word ‘ga’al’ is used, while here, as always in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 7:8, Deuteronomy 9:26, Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 15:15, Deuteronomy 21:8, Deuteronomy 24:18), the word ‘redeem’ is ‘padah.’ LXX. ἐλυτρώσω; Vulg. redemisti. The redemption, here spoken of, looks back, beyond the recent restoration from Babylon, to the original deliverance from Egypt, which sealed for ever the relation between Jehovah and His people.

by thy great power, and by thy strong hand] Nehemiah combines two familiar phrases which do not seem to be elsewhere combined except in Exodus 32:11 ‘thy people which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand.’ Along with ‘great power’ we frequently find ‘a stretched out arm,’ as in Deuteronomy 9:29; 2 Kings 17:36; Jeremiah 27:5; Jeremiah 32:17 : and again ‘a stretched out arm’ following upon ‘a strong (or mighty) hand,’ as in Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 7:19; Deuteronomy 11:2; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Chronicles 6:32; Psalm 136:12; Jeremiah 32:21; Ezekiel 20:33-34.

It is possible that Nehemiah here has the Jehovist Exodus 32:11 in his thoughts. But as the reading there is doubtful, both the Samaritan and the LXX. texts having ‘a stretched out arm’ instead of ‘a mighty hand,’ we cannot be confident that we have here a quotation.

The words ‘yad hakhezakah’ are rendered by the R.V. ‘strong hand’ here and Exodus 3:19; Exodus 6:1; Exodus 13:9; Numbers 20:20; Psalm 136:12; Jeremiah 32:21 (Ezekiel 30:22), and ‘mighty hand’ in Exodus 32:11; Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 6:21; Deuteronomy 7:8; Deuteronomy 7:19; Deuteronomy 9:26; Deuteronomy 11:2; Deuteronomy 26:8; Deuteronomy 34:12; Joshua 4:24; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Chronicles 6:32; Ezekiel 20:33-34.

11. The special Intercession (a) generally, that the prayer of Nehemiah and his countrymen might be heard, (b) particularly, that Nehemiah’s application to the king might be successful.

O Lord] The Hebrew word ‘Adonai’ is also used for the Divine name in Neh. (Nehemiah 3:5) Nehemiah 8:10, Nehemiah 10:29 : see also note on Ezra 10:3.

The use of ‘Adonai’ by itself as a Divine title is common in poetry and in prophetical writings (e.g. Job 28:28; Psalm 16:2; Psalm 35:23; Psalm 37:13 &c.; Isaiah 3:17-18; Isaiah 8:7 &c.; Jeremiah 2:22; Ezekiel 18:25; Ezekiel 18:29; Amos 1:8; Amos 5:16; Micah 1:2, and in Lamentations chaps. 2, 3. passim). It is generally used in prayer or humble address, as in Genesis 18:3; Genesis 18:27; Genesis 18:30-32; Exodus 4:10; Exodus 4:13; Exodus 5:22; Exodus 34:9; Numbers 14:17; Joshua 7:8; Jdg 6:15; Jdg 13:8; 2 Samuel 7:19; 1 Kings 8:53; Psalm 39:7; Psalm 51:15; Daniel 9:4; Daniel 9:7-8; Daniel 9:16-17; Daniel 9:19.

I beseech thee] see note on Nehemiah 1:5.

who desire to fear thy name] R.V. who delight &c.

The R.V. gives the true rendering. The Hebrew word is more generally used of ‘delight in’ a person or a thing, e.g. 1 Samuel 19:2; Psalm 22:8; Psalm 112:1; Isaiah 1:11; but it is also found with an infin., e.g. Psalm 40:8 ‘I delight to do thy will, O God.’ Isaiah 58:2 ‘delight to know my ways.’ Esther 6:6 &c. ‘the king delighteth to honour.’

‘delight to fear.’ The union of fear and joy is the paradox of spiritual service. Cf. Psalm 2:11 ‘Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling,’ Psalm 22:23 ‘Ye that fear the Lord praise him.’

thy name] i.e. Thy nature and Thy attributes. As often in the O. T. For ‘fear thy name,’ comp. Psalm 86:11; Malachi 4:2.

this day] The same word as in Nehemiah 1:6 ‘at this time,’ and to be understood here in the same sense. There is an obvious interval of time between ch. 1. and ch. 2.

and grant him mercy] The idiom here employed, literally ‘and give him to mercy’ occurs with the word here used for ‘mercy’ (rachamim = ‘bowels’ or ‘mercies,’ τὰ σπλάγχνα) in 1 Kings 8:50; Psalm 106:46. The sense strictly is ‘and give him over for purposes, or as an object, of mercy and kindness,’ just as in Nehemiah 4:4 ‘give them up to spoiling’ represents an opposite thought.

in the sight of this man] i.e. the king; the final words of the prayer are explained by the parenthetical clause which follows. The word ‘this’ shows that the prayer was the petition of Nehemiah at the king’s court, not necessarily in his presence.

For I was &c.] R.V. (Now I was, &c.) The clause in the Hebrew is parenthetical.

the king’s cupbearer] R.V. cupbearer to the king. The article is wanting before ‘cupbearer.’ Nehemiah stood in the relation of ‘cupbearer’ to the Persian king, but there were others holding the same office. Compare the use of the plural, ‘cupbearers,’ 1 Kings 10:5; 2 Chronicles 9:4; the title of ‘chief butler,’ i.e. chief of the cupbearer, in Genesis 40, 41; and the title Rab-shakeh (= chief cupbearer) in 2 Kings 18:17. This last passage shows the important place occupied at the court by the head of these functionaries. For, although the title probably represents the Assyrian ‘Rab-sak’ = ‘Generalissimo,’ the Hebrew transliteration of it, based on the similarity of sound conveyed the idea of ‘chief cupbearer’ to Hebrew readers, and presupposed his prominence among the ministers of an Oriental king.

A good representation of the duties of a ‘cupbearer’ at the Persian court is given by Xenophon (Cyrop. i. 3, 4). See note on Nehemiah 2:1.

The majority of such attendants at an Oriental court were eunuchs. We must certainly admit the probability that the Jews who occupied places of distinction at the court like Nehemiah, Daniel and his companions (Daniel 1:7), Mordecai (Esther 2:5; Esther 2:19, &c.), Zerubbabel (1Es 3:14; 1Es 4:13), belonged to this class. The words of consolation addressed by the Prophet of the Exile (Isaiah 56:4-5) to pious Jews, who according to the strict letter of the law were excommunicate, were applicable to such cases.

LXX. οἰνοχόος: Vulg. pincerna. The old Rabbinic explanation of the word ‘Tirshatha,’ as equivalent to ‘cupbearer’ and therefore applied to Nehemiah, is an illustration of obsolete methods of derivation (see Ezra 2:63).