Nehemiah 2:1-11. Nehemiah receives His Commission

1. Nisan] See note on Nehemiah 1:1. This name only occurs elsewhere in the O.T. in Esther 3:7, ‘in the first month, which is the month Nisan,’ cf. Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, 8, ‘The first month, which according to the Macedonians is called Xanthicus, but according to us Nisan.’ Its meaning is uncertain; according to some its root-idea is ‘fruitfulness,’ according to others ‘beginning’ or ‘origin.’ It corresponds to the month of which the older Israelite name was ‘Abib’ (Exodus 13:4; Exodus 23:15; Exodus 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:1), ‘the harvest month,’ equivalent to our latter part of March and beginning of April.

The same month appears in the Assyrian dialect as Nisannu, and it is quite possible that the Jews may have adopted the name from Babylonian usage.

the twentieth year of Artaxerxes] 445 b.c.: Artaxerxes reigned 41 years (465–424 b.c.). In the year 445 Pericles had obtained control of Athenian affairs; and a thirty years’ truce was concluded between Athens and Sparta. At Rome the conflict between patricians and plebeians was being waged; the deposition of the Decemvirs had occurred only four years before.

that wine] R.V. when wine. The R.V. shows the connexion of the sentences. The present clause states the occasion, when Nehemiah preferred his request. ‘When wine was before him;’ i.e. when the king was at a repast, and the cupbearers were (or a cupbearer was) in attendance. At such a time the king would naturally remark upon any alteration of demeanour in a favourite ‘cupbearer.’

According to Rawlinson (Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii. p. 214) the Persian king himself rarely dined with his guests. For the most part he dined alone. Sometimes he admitted to his table the queen and two or three of his children. Sometimes at a ‘banquet of wine’ (Esther 7:2) a certain number of privileged boon companions were received.

before him] Another reading is found in the LXX. ‘before me,’ (καὶ ἦν ὁ οἶνος ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ), which is followed in the Arabic version and was known to the translators of the Syriac. The change needed in the Hebrew to give this rendering is very slight, being only the omission of a single letter (vaw), which is read once instead of being repeated (l’phânâ(y) vaessa instead of l’phânâv vaessa). It has been very ingeniously maintained that this is the right reading, and that the words ‘when wine was before me’ denote ‘when my turn came round to attend as cupbearer at the royal table.’ According to this explanation, the clause accounts for the delay of three or four months, before Nehemiah made his appeal to the king; it also accounts for the king not having before recognised the sadness of his cupbearer, this being the first occasion on which he had appeared in the royal presence since the sad news arrived in the month Chislev.

But it does not seem likely that a cupbearer, who enjoyed the favour of the king, should have appeared so rarely in his presence as this view supposes. The LXX. reading makes practically no distinction in meaning between the clauses ‘wine was before me’ and ‘I took up the wine,’ and it is a pure assumption, that the former was a phrase for the rotation of the cupbearer’s office.

On the other hand, the Hebrew text gives with great minuteness full circumstances of the event: (1) the month and year; (2) the time of day, at the dinner; (3) the stage at the dinner, when the cupbearer offered the king wine. It distinguishes between ‘wine … before him,’ the occasion of the repast, and ‘I took up … the wine,’ the act of presenting the royal cup.

and I took up] R.V. that I took up. The cupbearer’s duties were to pour out the wine, to taste it so as to prevent any scheme of poisoning, and to present it to the king. Perhaps the words ‘took up’ relate to the reverential gesture with which the goblet was offered.

the wine] ‘The vines of Helbon were cultivated for the special purpose of supplying the Persian king with wine’ (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon., 3. p. 226). Helbon, a village near Damascus (see Ezekiel 27:18), seems to be the place intended by Strabo and Athenaeus, who call it ‘Chalybon.’

Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence] These words have given rise to considerable difficulty. There is nothing to show that this was the first occasion on which Nehemiah had stood before the king since the month Chislev. To suppose that the king had been absent for several months from Shushan would of course get over the difficulty. But we have no evidence upon which to base such an assertion. The passage, as it stands, suggests that Nehemiah was performing his usual duties as on former days. If so, how are we to explain Nehemiah’s words? For surely we may suppose his sadness to have dated from the arrival of the distressing news (ch. Nehemiah 1:2). Various explanations of the words have been attempted; e.g.,

(1) ‘Now I was not evil in his sight,’ i.e. he was well disposed to me. The rendering ‘evil’ instead of ‘sad’ is equally in accordance with the Hebrew, but the use of the same adjective in the sense of ‘sad’ in Nehemiah 2:2 (see note) is fatal to this interpretation.

(2) ‘To suppose that I should not have been sad in his presence!’ Grammatically possible, an exclamation is not a probable turn of the sentence.

(3) ‘And I was not sad in his presence.’ The preterite tense is understood to refer to this particular occasion, and not generally to past time. This interpretation supposes that Nehemiah did not wear a sad countenance, but that the quick eye of his royal master perceived that something was wrong with his favourite. This, it is claimed, would account for the perturbation of Nehemiah described in Nehemiah 2:2. But it is sufficient to object that (a) Nehemiah 2:2, leaves us to suppose that Nehemiah’s sadness was clearly visible; (b) the 1st pers. sing. of the preterite of the auxiliary is used in three other passages in this book and refers to past time indefinitely (Nehemiah 1:1; Nehemiah 1:11, Nehemiah 13:6). Had, Nehemiah wished to say that he was not sad on this occasion he would not have employed the auxiliary at all.

(4) Accepting the English rendering, ‘Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence,’ it seems necessary to assume that Nehemiah chose his opportunity and deliberately gave occasion for the king’s enquiry. It was forbidden for royal servants to appear before the king gloomy and unhappy. It was ill-omened, and suggested discontent and plotting at the court, cf. Esther 4:2. Nehemiah had not therefore beforetime been sad in the king’s presence. He had not made up his mind up to this time what steps to take or what petition to present. Now, however, after his prayer to God (ch. Nehemiah 1:5-11), he had been able to resolve upon his course of action. He appeared before the king at the banquet table in a state of sadness and dejection, which could not possibly escape the king’s notice when he stood before him as cupbearer and presented him the cup.

2. Wherefore] R.V. And.

sad] The Hebrew adjective which means literally ‘bad’ is used constantly in this sense, just as we speak of ‘bad news’ when we mean ‘sad news.’ For this usage cf. Genesis 40:7 ‘sadly,’ Proverbs 25:20 ‘an heavy heart.’

sorrow of heart] The substantive, being derived from the same root as the adjective ‘sad,’ had better have been rendered ‘sadness,’ to bring out the antithesis between ‘countenance’ and ‘heart.’ It is so rendered in Ecclesiastes 7:3, ‘the sadness of the countenance.’

Then I was very sore afraid] See note on Nehemiah 2:1. Nehemiah’s fear was very natural. The long-expected and dreaded moment had come, on which he was to plead his people’s cause. Their destiny and perhaps his own life depended upon his success. The capricious temper of Persian kings was well known. Artaxerxes may very probably have been prejudiced against the Jews by such complaints as had occasioned the disastrous edict of Ezra 4:17-22.

3. Let the king live for ever] For this formula opening an address to a king see Daniel 2:4; Daniel 3:9. Cf. 1 Kings 1:31.

why should not my countenance be sad?] i.e. how could it be otherwise than sad?

the place of my fathers’ sepulchres] ‘the place,’ literally ‘the house:’ compare 1 Samuel 25:1; 1 Kings 2:34, where Samuel and Joab are said to have been buried each ‘in his own house.’ This is explained by comparing 2 Kings 21:18, ‘Manasses … was buried in the garden of his own house,’ with 2 Chronicles 33:20, ‘they buried him (Manasses) in his own house.’ Rich families had their own private places of sepulture (rock-hewn tombs, caves and the like). Nehemiah’s words would be particularly appropriate if he was, as some have supposed, a descendant of the royal house. The tombs of David and the kings of Jerusalem seem to have been cut out of the rock on the S. side of the Ophel hill, cf. Nehemiah 3:16.

consumed] Literally ‘eaten up,’ as in Nehemiah 2:13. The more usual phrase is ‘burned,’ as in Nehemiah 1:3, Nehemiah 2:17.

4. For what dost thou make request] See Esther 4:8; Esther 7:1; Esther 7:7. The king is favourable, and asks how he can render assistance.

So I prayed] Literally, ‘And I prayed’. Nehemiah instantaneously turns from the great king of Persia to the King of kings. The simplicity with which Nehemiah narrates this little incident of his momentary ejaculatory prayer adds wonderfully to the vividness of the scene. For Nehemiah’s habit of recourse to prayer see ch. Nehemiah 4:4; Nehemiah 4:9, Nehemiah 5:19, Nehemiah 6:9; Nehemiah 6:14, Nehemiah 13:14.

It is not easy to parallel this act of ejaculatory prayer from the Old Testament. In the New Testament we turn to the examples of our Lord, e.g. John 11:41; John 12:27; Luke 23:34; and St Stephen, Acts 7:60.

The object of his prayer is doubtless for wisdom to make his request aright and for a favourable assent from the king. He could not but expect that the king would be startled by the magnitude of a request, first to nominate his cupbearer as the royal commissioner at Jerusalem, and then to empower him to rebuild its walls and defences.

5. If it please the king, and if thy servant, &c.] A double conditional sentence precedes the request. On the king’s approbation of the policy and on the king’s personal favour to Nehemiah must depend the issue.

The words run literally, ‘If it is good before the king and if thy servant be good in thy presence.’ The phrase in the first clause is the same as that used, e.g. in Esther 1:19; Esther 9:13. The second clause differs from the common phrase ‘to find favour or grace,’ e.g. 1 Samuel 26:22; Esther 2:15. The verb which with this meaning is generally used impersonally, here has a subject; elsewhere this construction is unusual, cf. Esther 5:14, ‘the thing pleased Haman;’ Ecclesiastes 7:26, ‘whoso pleaseth God,’ literally, ‘is good in the presence of God.’

that I may build it] If, as is most probably the case, Ezra 4:7-24 refers to the events of the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah in alluding to the city of Jerusalem introduces a subject that had some time previously engaged the king’s attention. According to the letters in that chapter the work of ‘building’ the city had been stopped. But the decree, which had stopped the work, also contemplated the possibility of its being resumed: see Ezra 4:21, ‘Make ye now a decree to cause these men to cease and that this city be not builded until a decree shall be made by me.’ Nehemiah makes request that such a decree should be made. The knowledge of this previous edict would have increased his apprehensions. ‘Build’ in this passage is equivalent to ‘building the walls,’ cf. Ezra 4:12; Ezra 4:16.

5b–73a. The Register of those who returned with Zerubbabel = Ezra 2:1-70a register of the genealogy] R.V. the book.

of them which came up at the first] The only natural explanation of these words is that Nehemiah found in the archives of Jerusalem the list of those that accompanied Zerubbabel from Babylon. This seems to be conclusively proved (a) by the words in Nehemiah 2:5, ‘I found,’ ‘who came up at the first,’ ‘found written therein,’ and Nehemiah 2:7, ‘who came with Zerubbabel,’ (b) by the position of the parallel extract in Ezra 2:1-70. Nehemiah recognises the national importance of the register and transcribes it into his ‘Memoirs;’ he had not known of its existence before.

The view that the list in this chapter contains the results of Nehemiah’s census which were mistakenly inserted by the Compiler into Ezra 2, rests on the quite insufficient grounds of (1) the mention of the name Nehemiah in Ezra 2:7, (2) the title Tirshatha in Ezra 2:65, (3) the relation of Ezra 2:73 to the events of chap. 8, (4) the apparent omission of Nehemiah’s census. But (1) the name Nehemiah (Ezra 2:7) is not necessarily that of the governor of Jerusalem; (2) there is no evidence that the title ‘Tirshatha’ was appropriated to Nehemiah alone; (3) only the first part of Ezra 2:73 belongs to this extract; the latter part is freely adapted by the chronicler for the purpose of resuming the narrative; (4) traces of Nehemiah’s own census may well be recognised in chap. 11.

This long extract illustrates in an interesting manner the method of compilation adopted by Jewish chroniclers.

The double insertion of the list is probably due to its great importance in the eyes of the stricter Jews. It stands first of all in its right place, chronologically, in the narrative (Ezra 2); it is repeated here in the place which it occupied in the Memoirs of Nehemiah transcribed by the Compiler.

at the first] A general expression, sometimes used in the sense of ‘before’ ‘formerly,’ cf. Genesis 13:4; 1 Chronicles 17:9, sometimes in the sense of ‘first of all,’ Numbers 10:13-14.

6–73. See notes on the parallel passage Ezra 2:1, &c. The variations are very slight, and are for the most part such as would arise from errors of transcription.

6. The account is very condensed. Nehemiah’s request is favourably received, but only the general results of the conversation are related. The king seems at once to have appointed Nehemiah to be ‘governor’ at Jerusalem (cf. Nehemiah 5:14), and to have approved the policy of restoring the walls.

the queen] The royal consort (cf. Psalm 45:10; Daniel 5:2-3; Daniel 5:23) the head of the Harem. She may possibly have been Damaspia, who is mentioned by the historian Ctesias as the consort of Artaxerxes.

sitting by him] It was clearly not a public banquet (cf. Esther 1). The position of the queen sitting by or before the king corresponds with representations in the monuments. Compare especially the representation of Assurbanipal reclining at a banquet, his queen being seated on a chair at the foot of his couch (Brit. Mus.).

and I set him a time] The duration of this period is not stated. And the length of Nehemiah’s first residence in Jerusalem has been much disputed, some holding that he returned to the king’s court immediately after the completion of the walls, others saying that he remained as governor (cf. Nehemiah 5:14) for twelve years, having obtained an extension of the time of absence originally agreed upon.

7. letters] see note on Ezra 4:8.

the governors beyond the river] The ‘Pekhahs’ of the province on the west bank of the Euphrates (Ezra 8:36). A reference to Ezra 4:7-10; Ezra 4:17 shows the importance of securing the recognition of these provincial governors.

convey me over … into Judah] R.V. let me pass through … unto Judah. Letters of safe conduct through their territory. The governors would not be asked to assist the journey, but to secure that Nehemiah should not be hindered or molested on the way.

8. Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest] R.V. marg. ‘or park’. The forest or park from which the timber was to be supplied has been identified by some with the forests of Lebanon, by others with the well-wooded ‘plain’ abounding in olives and sycomores (1 Chronicles 27:28) near the coast. In the present day scholars incline to identify it with ‘Solomon’s Garden’ at Etan or Etam, described by Josephus (Ant. VIII. 7.3) as richly wooded and well watered (παραδείσοις … καὶ ναμάτων ἐπιρροαῖς ἐπιτερπὲς ὁμοῦ καὶ πλούσιον) distant about six or seven miles S. from Jerusalem. The ‘pleasure-grounds’ of Solomon may have been handed down as ‘royal domains.’

In a scantily-wooded country like Palestine a well-preserved forest would have constituted a valuable piece of property.

The management of the ‘timber’ was committed to a royal officer, ‘the keeper of the king’s forest’ or ‘park.’ The name Asaph suggests that ‘the keeper’ was a Jew, which would favour the view of the forest being not far from Jerusalem.

‘forest,’ ‘park’ or ‘pleasure-garden.’ The Hebrew word “pardês” (Gr. παράδεισος = English ‘paradise’) is found in the O.T. only in Song of Solomon 4:13; Ecclesiastes 2:5. It is said to be of Persian (= Zend pairidaéza) origin, signifying an ‘enclosure.’ It seems to have been used especially of ‘the royal parks’ or ‘enclosed hunting-grounds’ of the Persian kings, and in this sense to have been received into Hebrew and Greek literature. It occurs with the meaning of a ‘garden’ in Sir 24:30; Sir 40:17; Sir 40:27, Susann. passim. For its technical usage among the Jews for ‘the abode of the blest,’ see, on Luke 23:43, Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae.

that he may give me timber] Nehemiah asks for timber for the purpose of building (1) the castle or citadel of Jerusalem, (2) the walls generally, (3) his own house of residence as governor.

the gates of the palace which appertained to the house] R.V. the gates of the castle which appertaineth to the house. The word ‘Birah’ rendered ‘castle’ by the R.V. is of foreign, possibly Babylonian origin, and is represented in the Greek by Βᾶρις. See note on Nehemiah 1:1.

The building here referred to was destined to play an important part in the later history of Jerusalem. It lay on the north side of the Temple (‘the house’), which it was intended to defend, and with which it communicated. It is not mentioned in Nehemiah 12:39, and therefore probably lay inside the circuit of the wall. A special officer commanded it (Nehemiah 7:2) on account of its great importance.

It was rebuilt by the Asmonean princes (1Ma 13:52), and again by Herod the Great, who gave it the name of ‘Antonia,’ after his friend and patron Mark Antony. Into this castle St Paul was carried by the Roman soldiers, when they rescued him from the hands of the mob in the Temple precincts (Acts 21:37; Acts 22:24).

the wall of the city] The timber would be required especially for the gates and for the towers which commanded the gates.

the house that I shall enter into] By this is apparently intended Nehemiah’s official residence, where he afterwards so generously entertained, Nehemiah 5:17-18. The old interpretation which explained it to mean the Temple gives no satisfactory meaning to the words ‘that I shall enter into.’ Nehemiah was not a priest; and had no right to enter the Temple (see Nehemiah 6:11).

according to the good hand, &c.] Cf. Nehemiah 2:18; Ezra 7:6; Ezra 8:18-22.

9. the governors beyond the river] The governors of the provinces W. of the Euphrates. According to Josephus the chief governor of Syria, Phœnicia and Samaria was Adæus (Ant. XI. 5. 6). The statement that Nehemiah went to the various ‘governors beyond the river’ may indicate the line of his journey, of which we are told nothing. The Compiler for brevity’s sake has here condensed ‘the Memoirs of Nehemiah,’ omitting whatever was not directly connected with the purpose of his history. Nehemiah would journey to Babylon, and from Babylon probably to Hamath and Damascus, which as the most important cities in Syria would be the residences of ‘governors.’ From Damascus he either journeyed along the E. of the Jordan, crossing it at Jericho, or he crossed it by the usual fords south of the Lake of Galilee and visited Samaria on his way to Jerusalem. At Samaria there may very possibly have resided a Persian officer (cf. Nehemiah 4:2). If Nehemiah took Samaria on his way to Jerusalem, this would account for his mention of Sanballat and Tobiah (Nehemiah 2:10) before the mention of his arrival at Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:11).

had sent … with me] R.V. had sent with me.… As the king’s commissioner Nehemiah was attended by an armed retinue. These royal soldiers placed at his disposal would greatly strengthen the independence of his position at Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s progress as governor with an armed escort is in striking contrast to the similar journey of Ezra, who was ashamed to ask for military protection for his large and unarmed company. (Ezra 8:22.)

10. When] R.V. And when.

This is the first mention of the opposition which Nehemiah encountered. The news of his mission quickly spread, although its precise object was not known (cf. Nehemiah 2:12; Nehemiah 2:16).

Sanballat and Tobiah appear throughout the book as the bitterest foes he had to encounter. ‘Sanballat,’ or, as perhaps it should be called, Saneballat (LXX. Σαναβαλλὰτ, Josephus Σαναβαλλέτης) is probably an Assyrian name, meaning ‘Sin (the moon-god of the Assyrians) giveth life,’ just as Nabubalitanni means ‘Nebo giveth the life.’ The name of the moon-god appears also in Sennacherib = ‘Sin gives many brothers.’ Sanballat is distinguished as ‘the Horonite,’ by which is probably meant ‘dweller in Beth-horon,’ a town on the borders of Ephraim (Joshua 16:3; Joshua 16:5; Joshua 18:13; Joshua 21:22; 2 Chronicles 8:5; 2 Chronicles 25:13), about 18 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, upon the main road leading to the plain of the coast. Beth-horon commanded the pass into the mountains. Strategically it was a place of great importance. It is famous for its connexion with the victories of Joshua (Joshua 10:10), of Judas Maccabeus (1Ma 3:15; 1Ma 7:39), and as the scene of the overthrow of Cestius Gallus (Joseph. Bell. J. ii. 19. 8).

Sanballat was evidently one of the leaders of the Samaritan community (see on Nehemiah 4:2). Some scholars imagine from the frequent conjunction of his name with that of Tobiah the Ammonite, that Sanballat must have been a Moabite, and that the title ‘Horonite’ denotes a dweller in ‘Horonaim,’ a town in Southern Moab, mentioned in Isaiah 15:5; Jeremiah 48:3; Jeremiah 48:5; Jeremiah 48:34, and twice in the Inscription of the Moabite Stone.

Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite] Why Tobiah is called ‘the servant’ is not clear. It may denote that he once held some position under the Persian governor or under the king. Rawlinson’s suggestion that he was Sanballat’s secretary and councillor, and had originally been an Ammonite slave, is less probable. He is generally mentioned on an equality with Sanballat, and in Nehemiah 6:12; Nehemiah 6:14, his name stands first. Frequent mention is made of Tobiah’s intrigues against the work and authority of Nehemiah. According to some, the termination ‘-jah’ shows him to have been a renegade Jew: cf. Ezra 2:60; Zechariah 6:10, where the same name occurs. His son’s name, Jehohanan (Nehemiah 6:18), is also compounded of the Jewish Sacred Name.

The race-hatred between the Jews and the Ammonites and Moabites (see Nehemiah 13:1-2) may explain in some degree Tobiah’s hostility. But in all probability the Samaritans and the neighbouring nations (Moabites, Ammonites, Arabians, &c.) were combined in the desire to foil any effort made to reinstate Jerusalem in her old position of being the most powerful town in Palestine. The policy of Nehemiah would weaken the neighbouring tribes in proportion as it would strengthen the Jews.

Tobiah may have in some way represented the Ammonites, possibly as governor of their small community, having received the position from the court where he had been a slave (cf. Ecclesiastes 10:6; Lamentations 5:8, ‘servants rule over us’).

it grieved them exceedingly] Cf. the same phrase in Jonah 4:1.

that there was come a man] R.V. for that, &c.

a man] Contemptuous reference to Nehemiah. His office and position as ‘pekhah’ not referred to. The Hebrew ‘adam,’ not ‘ish,’ is used. For the difference when both occur together, cf. Psalm 49:2 (‘both low and high’), Psalm 62:9; Isaiah 2:9; Isaiah 5:15.

to seek the welfare of] Literally, ‘to seek good for.’ The phrase is not common; it is the antithesis of’ to seek the hurt’ (Esther 9:2). In Jeremiah 38:4, ‘this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt,’ the word rendered ‘welfare’ is ‘shalom’ or ‘peace,’ here it is ‘tôbh,’ the good or prosperity.

11. After his arrival at Jerusalem, Nehemiah waited three days before taking any steps. Ezra had done the same (Ezra 8:32). It was necessary to rest after the journey, and to interchange the formalities of Eastern courtesy with the principal people of the city.

Nehemiah 2:11 to Nehemiah 7:5. The Commission performed

Nehemiah 2:11-20. The Work undertaken

The incidents of this passage may be grouped as follows:

(a) 11. Nehemiah’s arrival: (b) 12–15, His preliminary investigation: (c) 16–18, the resolution to undertake the work: (d) 19, 20, Nehemiah and his opponents.

12. Nehemiah went out ‘by night’ with only a few attendants. He did not wish to excite the curiosity of the people or to arouse the suspicion of his foes with respect to his intended project.

neither told I any man] He preserved a discreet silence, until he had personally formed some estimate of the nature and extent of the work to be undertaken in the rebuilding of the walls. It was also important to have the scheme thoroughly matured, so that upon its announcement he could anticipate objections and forestall opposition by immediate action.

had put] R.V. put. The R.V. reproduces the present tense of the original more accurately. The consciousness of the Divine inspiration continued with him. For the expression cf. Nehemiah 7:5.

at Jerusalem] R.V. for Jerusalem. Undoubtedly the right rendering of the preposition here. Nehemiah’s project was primarily to renovate Jerusalem and to remove the shame of its position as described in Nehemiah 1:2-3. It was preeminently work for the city.

neither was there any beast, &c.] A cavalcade would have attracted notice. Nehemiah probably rode a mule or ass rather than a horse. Riding over rough places by night he would require the most surefooted animal.

13. by the gate of the valley] R.V. by the valley gate. The R.V. rendering is preferable, showing that Nehemiah is not merely defining the position of the gate but is referring to it by its recognised name.

The valley-gate is mentioned again in Nehemiah 3:13. The king Uzziah according to 2 Chronicles 26:9 had fortified this gate with towers. We may safely identify this gate as the chief gate in the western wall of Jerusalem, and as thus corresponding to the modern Jaffa Gate, although very possibly not standing at precisely the same spot. There were two well-known valleys outside the walls of Jerusalem, (1) the ‘valley’ or ‘ravine’ (gai) of Hinnom or ‘the son of Hinnom,’ i.e. Gehenna, cf. Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Nehemiah 11:30; Jeremiah 7:31-32; Jeremiah 19:6; (2) the ‘valley’ or ‘brook’ or ‘watercourse’ (nakhal) of Kedron. In the present verse the word for ‘valley’ is ‘gai,’ and this fact coupled with the general topographical description here and in Nehemiah 3:13, shows that ‘the valley-gate’ was the western gate leading out into the ravine of Hinnom.

Recent investigations, however, have given rise to the supposition that pre-exilic Jerusalem was much smaller in circuit and that the western wall passed down the valley of the Tyropoeon. If so, ‘the valley-gate’ would be the gate opening into the Tyropoeon, which in those days was a considerable ravine but has since become almost completely choked with accumulations of ruin. According to this view the Tyropoeon is to be identified with the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.

even before the dragon well] R.V. even towards the dragon’s well. The LXX. misreading the less common word in the Hebrew for ‘dragon,’ renders καὶ πρὸς στὸμα πηγῆς τῶν συκῶν. The name is doubtless connected with some sanctuary at this fountain in prehistoric times, when ‘living water’ was associated with the worship of a deity often represented by a ‘dragon.’ Prof. Robertson Smith (Religion of the Semites, pp. 156, 157) calls attention to ‘the connection of jinns in the form of dragons or serpents with sacred or healing springs’ … ‘The river of Coele-Syria, the Orontes, was carved out, according to local tradition, by a great dragon, which disappeared in the earth at its source.’ The explanation that the well was so called ‘because some curious large watersnake or crocodile was kept in it in Nehemiah’s time’ may be disregarded as fanciful and improbable.

The identification of the well is uncertain. By some it has been identified with ‘En-Rogel,’ near ‘the serpent’s stone,’ the stone of Zoheleth (1 Kings 1:9). But see Nehemiah 2:15. By others it has been identified with ‘the fountain of Gihon’ (1 Kings 1:33). Neither of these suggestions suits the present verse, from which we gather that ‘the dragon fountain stood on the W. or S.W. wall of the city.’ If it was a spring in the Tyropoeon Valley, it has long since been choked up. ‘The rock-hewn conduit which has been found running along the bed of the Tyropoeon Valley’ (Sir Chas. Wilson’s Jerusalem, p. 113, 1889) may very well have conducted the water from such a spring. The ‘serpent,’ or Mamilla Pool, lay at the N. end of the modern Hinnom Valley (Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 3. 2).

dung port] R.V. dung gate. The A.V. probably introduced the rendering ‘port’ as an intentional variation. For ‘port’ as the old English word for ‘gate,’ compare in the Prayer-book Version Psalm 9:14, ‘within the ports of the daughter of Sion.’ Shakespeare, Coriolanus, i. 7, ‘So let the ports be guarded’ (see The Bible Word-Book, by W. Aldis Wright).

The dung-gate was probably so called because the refuse of the town was carried out through this gate. Some scholars suppose this to be the same as ‘the gate Harsith’ or ‘gate of potsherds’ mentioned in Jeremiah 19:2. It is mentioned also in Nehemiah 3:13-14; Nehemiah 12:31. The proposal to identify it with the modern ‘dung-gate,’ the ‘Bâb-el-Mughâribe,’ is very natural; but the similarity of the name may be misleading. We might however assume that such a gate would be near the Southern extremity of the city, or at any rate not far from the lowest depression in the neighbourhood of the city.

and viewed the walls, &c.] ‘viewed,’ that is, ‘surveyed,’ as in Shakespeare Hen. V. ii. 4, ‘Therefore, I say ‘tis meet we all go forth To view the sick and feeble parts of France.’—So the Vulg. ‘considerabam.’

The Hebrew word, ‘shobhêr,’ which it translates is very unusual in this sense. It ordinarily means to ‘break’ or ‘burst,’ and hence some have rendered ‘and broke my way through the walls,’ and even ‘made my way over the broken fragments;’ while the LXX. has καὶ ᾔμην συντρίβων ἐν τῷ τείχει Ἱερουσαλήμ. The similar late Hebrew verb ‘sabhar,’ rendered ‘hope’ (Esther 9:1; Isaiah 38:18; Psalm 119:166), ‘wait’ (Psalm 104:27; Psalm 145:15), ‘tarry’ (Ruth 1:13), is probably only a variant of the word which occurs here. It was the misunderstanding of this word which caused Rashi to suggest in his note on Nehemiah 2:12 that the object of Nehemiah and his companions was to break down portions of the wall that remained, in order that on the next morning the Jews might the more readily assent to his proposals!

broken down, … consumed with fire] Cf. Nehemiah 1:3, Nehemiah 2:3. It is uncertain whether the Hebrew text had ‘wall’ or ‘walls.’ The LXX. and Latin versions both have the singular (τείχει, murum). The traditional Hebrew vocalization favours the plural.

13–15. Nehemiah’s tour of inspection[1]

[1] The Topography of the Walls of Jerusalem, in pre-Maccabean times, remains in great obscurity. The places mentioned in Nehemiah 2:13-15; Nehemiah 2:3; Nehemiah 12:37-39 cannot as yet be said to have been certainly identified except in one or two instances. So long as those who are best acquainted with the subject, differ widely from one another, we may be content to forbear expressing any decided opinion, until further evidence be brought to light.

14. I went on] Literally ‘I crossed’ or ‘passed over.’

to the gate of the fountain] R.V. to the fountain gate. On the disputed identification of ‘the fountain gate,’ see Nehemiah 3:15, Nehemiah 12:37. It seems to have stood almost at the southernmost part of the city, at the mouth of the narrow valley of the Tyropoeon. It derived its name either from its proximity to the waters of ‘the only real well at Jerusalem,’ now known as Bîr Eyub, ‘the well of Job’ (probably En-Rogel) ‘a little below the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys’ (Wilson’s Jerusalem, p. 104), or from its proximity to Siloam, called by Josephus ‘a fountain’ (πηγή) in Bell. Jud. v. 4. 1.

the king’s pool] Probably to be identified with the Pool of Siloam, and here called ‘the king’s pool’ because it adjoined ‘the king’s garden.’ It consisted of an upper and a lower reservoir (Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 22:9; Isaiah 22:11; 2 Kings 18:17) fed by a subterranean conduit from the waters of Gihon (cf. 2 Kings 20:20).

there was no place] Apparently owing to the ruins of the walls and the steepness of the slope Nehemiah could not continue his investigation, following the line of the wall.

15. Then went I up] The tense in the original denotes the gradual progress.

by the brook] i.e. the ‘nakhal’ or ‘brook’ (χείμαρρος) of Kedron. Leaving the ruined line of wall, he goes down to the hollow of the Kedron valley, and proceeds northward ‘up’ the stream, surveying the remains of the walls that crowned the steep declivity on his left.

and turned back] R.V. and I turned back. This word has been taken to mean not a retracing of his steps, but the turn westward in his route, which would lead eventually in the direction from which he had started. After leaving the Kedron valley the journey would not be so difficult, being probably on the more level ground where the ruins had been cleared; or where less destruction had been wrought. The absence of mention of any spot on the N. or N.W. wall has caused others to suppose that Nehemiah ‘turned back,’ having seen enough, without completing his circuit of the walls. More probably we have here an instance of condensation on the part of the compiler who at this point passes at once to the return journey, without giving us sufficient material to judge whether the complete circuit of the walls was made.

16–18. The Nation’s Resolve

16. the rulers] R.V. marg. Or deputies. ‘S’ganim’ is the title used in Ezra 9:2, and in this book (Nehemiah 4:8; Nehemiah 4:13, Nehemiah 5:7, Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah 12:40) for the chief magistrates and officials of the city.

whither I went, or what I did] More literally ‘whither I had gone and what I was doing.’

neither had I as yet told it] i.e. the prospect of rebuilding the walls.

the Jews … the work] A remarkable division of the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘the Jews’ here are the great mass of the lay population, as distinguished from (a) the priests, (b) ‘the nobles’ ‘Khôrim’, the aristocracy, heads of houses, &c. (cf. Nehemiah 4:13-14, Nehemiah 5:7, Nehemiah 6:17, Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah 13:17), (c) ‘the rulers,’ the official element (segânim), (d) ‘the rest that did the work,’ referring by anticipation to the large body who were shortly afterwards employed on ‘the work’ of building the walls.

17. Nehemiah’s appeal. It is implied that Nehemiah having satisfied himself as to the practicability of his plan called an assembly of those mentioned in the previous verse. How soon after his nocturnal ride is not stated.

the distress] R.V. the evil case, the same word as in Nehemiah 1:1Jerusalem lieth waste, &c.] Cf. Nehemiah 2:3.

that we be no more a reproach] See Nehemiah 1:3, where the words ‘affliction’ and ‘reproach’ are the same as the ‘distress’ or ‘evil case,’ and ‘reproach’ in this verse.

a reproach] i.e. an object of reproach by reason of our inability to defend ourselves, cf. Psalm 22:6, ‘a reproach of men, and despised of the people;’ Joel 2:19, ‘I will no more make you a reproach among the nations.’ Ezekiel 22:4.

18. the hand of my God] Cf. Nehemiah 2:8. The blessing which had so far attended his plan.

as also the king’s words] R.V. as also of, &c. He reported the substance of the king’s words, which the compiler has not given us.

Let us rise up and build] The people responded with enthusiasm.

So they strengthened their hands] The presence of enemies on every side made the undertaking hazardous. At the same time the need of courage will be more obvious if we accept the theory of a recent hostile attack (cf. note on Nehemiah 1:2). The versions render the verb in the passive, LXX. ἐκραταιώθησαν αἱ χεῖρες αὐτῶν, Vulg. confortatae sunt manus eorum, which is followed by Luther, ‘ihre Hände wurden gestärkt.

for this good work] R.V. for the good work. Literally, ‘for the good,’ the same expression as ‘the well-fare’ in Nehemiah 2:10. LXX. εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν, Vulg. in bono.

19, 20. The Derision of the Enemy

19. Sanballat … Tobiah] See Nehemiah 2:10.

Geshem the Arabian] A third prominent adversary of Nehemiah is here introduced. His name occurs again in Nehemiah 6:1-2. In Nehemiah 6:6, the name is written as ‘Gashmu,’ a dialectical variety agreeing, as it is said, with North-Arabian usage. Geshem is clearly the chief of some Arabian tribe. But whether he represented Arabians on the Southern border of Judah or the Arabian community established by Sargon king of Assyria in the depopulated neighbourhood of Samaria (715) is a disputed point. If the former, then the movement, which he now took part in, must be regarded as a coalition of all the neighbouring peoples against the restoration of Jerusalem’s greatness. If the latter, then the movement is to be chiefly connected with the hostility of the Samaritans.

the Arabian] See on Nehemiah 4:7.

laughed us to scorn] A strong word, familiar to us from its occurrence in the Psalter (Psalm 2:4, Psalm 22:7, Psalm 59:8, Psalm 80:6). We are not told whether this scorn was expressed by letter or in a personal interview.

despised us] See the two words occurring together in 2 Kings 19:21; Ezekiel 36:4. The ground of the contempt here expressed is not quite obvious. Some suppose that the enemy scoffed in ignorance of the king’s decree in favour of Nehemiah’s action, and that, regarding the Jews as embarking upon a course of open rebellion, they derided an undertaking which they thought could have but one conclusion. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that Nehemiah would have kept in the background the royal authority for his undertaking. We know he had been to the ‘governors’ of the province (Nehemiah 2:9).

It is more probable that in order to alienate the Persian officials and to frighten the more timid spirits among the Jews, they pretended to interpret Nehemiah’s action as the first step towards a real rebellion. The insignificance of the Jewish community in size and strength—its inability to take any political step of real importance—presented an easy target for ridicule, which was calculated to arouse the suspicions of Persian officials at the same time that it promoted disaffection amongst the waverers in Jerusalem.

will ye rebel] Or ‘are ye rebelling?’ Vulg. Numquid contra regem vos rebellatis? LXX. ἀποστατεῖτε.

20. The God of heaven] see on Nehemiah 1:4.

will prosper us] See Nehemiah 1:11. The Vulgate ‘juvat nos,’ the present tense corresponding to the following clause ‘we are his servants,’ is quite permissible: but is not so suitable to the occasion of Nehemiah’s reply.

we his servants] as in Nehemiah 1:6; Nehemiah 1:10.

arise and build] Nehemiah 2:18. The LXX. by a strange error renders δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ καθαροί‚ καὶ οἰκοδομήσομεν, reading ‘n’qiyyim’ for ‘naqûm.’

no portion, nor right, nor memorial] These words closely resemble the declaration in Ezra 4:3, and imply some sort of claim on the part of these adversaries to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem. If so, the adversaries must be regarded as mainly consisting of the Samaritan community. Nehemiah renouncing connexion with the Samaritans, affirms that they have no share in the present community, no ground for claiming it in the future, no memorial or justification of such claim in the past.

no portion] Cf. 2 Samuel 20:1.

nor right] The word here used has generally the sense of righteousness. Here it means ‘right,’ ‘just claim;’ so in 2 Samuel 19:28 ‘What right therefore have I, &c.;’ and Joel 2:23, ‘he giveth you the former rain in just measure’ (marg. ‘Or in (or for) righteousness’).

nor memorial] i.e. the Samaritans had no memorial nor proof of their past connexion with Jerusalem. The word is rendered ‘remembrance’ in Ecclesiastes 1:11; Ecclesiastes 2:16; ‘memorial,’ Numbers 16:40; Numbers 31:54. Cf. ‘write this for a memorial in a book’ (Exodus 17:14); ‘a book of remembrance’ (Malachi 3:16).