{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"NEH","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Nehemiah","commonName":"Nehemiah","introduction":"The Book of Nehemiah\n\nIntroduction\n\n1. Contents, Division, and Object of the Book of Nehemia\n\nThis book, according to its title, contains נחמיה דּברי, and in it Nehemiah relates, almost always in the first person, his journey to Jerusalem, and the work which he there effected. נחמיה דּברי, used as the title of a work, signifies not narratives, but deeds and experiences, and consequently here the history of Nehemiah. Apart from the contents of the book, this title might, in conformity with the twofold meaning of דברים, verba and res, designate both the words or discourses and the acts or undertakings of Nehemiah. But דּברי means words, discourses, only in the titles of prophetical or didactic books, i.e., writings of men whose vocation was the announcement of the word: comp. e.g., Jer 1:1; Hos 1:1, and others. In historical writings, on the contrary, the דּברי of the men whose lives and acts are described, are their deeds and experiences: thus דויד דּברי, Ch1 29:29; שׁלמה דּברי, written שׁלמה דּברי ספר על Kg1 11:41, comp. Ch2 9:29, - the history of David, of Solomon; ירבעם דּברי, Kg1 14:19, the acts of Jeroboam, which are more exactly defined by the addition אשׁר נלחם ועשׁר מלך. So, too, in the case of the other kings, when reference is made to historical works concerning their reigns. It is in this sense that the title of the present book must be understood; and hence both Luther and de Wette have correctly translated it: the history of Nehemiah. Hence the title only testifies to the fact, that the work at the head of which it stands treats of the things, i.e., of the acts, of Nehemiah, and the events that happened to him, without stating anything concerning its author. That Nehemiah was himself the historian of his own deeds, appears only from the circumstance that the narrative is written in the first person.\n\nThe contents of the book are as follows: Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah, a Jew, of whom nothing further is known, and cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus, is plunged into deep affliction by the account he receives from his brother Hanani, and certain other men from Judah, of the sad condition of those who had returned from Babylon, and especially of the state of the ruined walls and gates of Jerusalem. He entreats with fervent supplications the mercy of God (Neh 1:1-11), and shortly after seizes a favourable opportunity to request the king to send him to Judah to build the city of his fathers' sepulchres, and to give him letters to the governors on the other side of Euphrates, that they may provide him with wood for building from the royal forests. This petition being graciously acceded to by the monarch, he travels, accompanied by captains of forces and horsemen, to Jerusalem, and soon after his arrival rides by night round the city, accompanied by some few companions, to ascertain the state of the walls. He then communicates to the rulers of the people his resolution to build and restore the walls, and invites them to undertake this work with him (Neh 2). Then follows in Neh 3 a list of the individuals and families who built the several portions of the wall with their gates; and in Neh 4:1-6:19, an account of the difficulties Nehemiah had to overcome in the prosecution of the work, viz.: (1) the attempts of the enemies of the Jews forcibly to oppose and hinder the building, by reason of which the builders were obliged to work with weapons in their hands (4:1-4:17); (2) the oppression of the poorer members of the community by wealthy usurers, which Nehemiah put a stop to by seriously reproving their injustice, and by his own great unselfishness (Neh 5); and (3) the plots made against his life by his enemies, which he frustrated by the courageous faith with which he encountered them. Thus the building of the wall was, notwithstanding all these difficulties, brought to a successful termination (Neh 6). - This work accomplished, Nehemiah directed his efforts towards securing the city against hostile attacks by appointing watches at the gates (Neh 7:1-3, and increasing the numbers of the dwellers in Jerusalem; in pursuance of which design, he assembled the nobles and people for the purpose of enrolling their names according to their genealogy (Neh 7:4-5). While occupied with this matter, he found a list of those houses of Judah that had returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua; and this he gives, Neh 7:6-73. Then, on the approach of the seventh month of the year, the people assembled at Jerusalem to hear the public reading of the law by Ezra, to keep the new moon and the feast of this month, and, after the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, to observe a day of prayer and fasting, on which occasion the Levites making confession of sin in the name of the congregation, they renewed their covenant with God by entering into an oath to keep the law. This covenant being committed to writing, was sealed by Nehemiah as governor, by the chiefs of the priests, of the Levites, and of the houses of the people, and the contributions for the support of the worship of God and its ministers arranged (Neh 8-10). The decision arrived at concerning the increase of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was next carried into execution, one of every ten dwellers in the provinces being chosen by lot to go to Jerusalem and dwell there (Neh 11:1-2). Then follow lists, (1) of the houses and races who dwelt in Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah and Benjamin (11:3-36); (2) of the priestly and Levitical families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and of the heads of priestly and Levitical families in the days of Joiakim the high priest, Nehemiah, and Ezra (Neh 12:1-26). These are succeeded by an account of the solemn dedication of the walls (Neh 12:27-43). Then, finally, after some general remarks on certain institutions of divine worship, and an account of a public reading of the law (Neh 12:44-13:3), the book concludes with a brief narration of what Nehemiah effected during his second sojourn there, after his journey to the court in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and his return for the purpose of putting a stop to certain illegal acts which had prevailed during his absence, such as marriages with heathen women, non-payment of tithes and dues to Levites, desecration of the Sabbath by field-labour, and by buying and selling (Neh 13:4-31).\n\nAccording to what has been stated, this book may be divided into three sections. The first, chs. 1-6, treats of the building of the walls and gates of Jerusalem through the instrumentality of Nehemiah; the narrative concerning the occasion of his journey, and the account of the journey itself (Neh 1:1-2:10), forming the introduction. The second, chs. 7-12:43, furnishes a description of the further efforts of Nehemiah to increase and ensure the prosperity of the community in Judah and Jerusalem, first, by securing Jerusalem from hostile attacks; then, by seeking to increase the population of the city; and, lastly, by endeavouring to bring the domestic and civil life of the people into conformity with the precepts of the law, and thus to furnish the necessary moral and religious basis for the due development of the covenant people. The third, Neh 12:44-13:31, states how Nehemiah, during his second sojourn at Jerusalem, continued these efforts for the purpose of ensuring the permanence of the reform which had been undertaken.\n\nThe aim of Nehemiah's proceedings was to place the civil prosperity of the Israelites, now returned from exile to the land of their fathers, on a firm basis. Briefly to describe what he effected, at one time by direct personal effort, at another in conjunction with his contemporary Ezra the priest and scribe, is the object of his record. As Nehemiah's efforts for the civil welfare of his people as the congregation of the Lord were but a continuation of those by which Zerubbabel the prince, Joshua the high priest, and Ezra the scribe had effected the foundation of the community of returned exiles, so too does his book form the continuation and completion of that of Ezra, and may in this respect be regarded as its second part. It is, moreover, not merely similar in kind, to the book of Ezra, especially with regard to the insertion of historical and statistical lists and genealogical registries, but has also the same historical object, viz., to show how the people of Israel, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, were by the instrumentality of Nehemiah fully re-established in the land of promise as the congregation of the Lord.\n\n2. Integrity of the Book of Nehemiah, and Date of Its Composition\n\nNehemiah gives his account of the greater part of his labours for the good of his fellow-countrymen in the first person; and this form of narrative is not only uniformly maintained throughout the first six chapters (from Neh 1:1-7:5), but also recurs in Neh 12:27-43, and from Neh 13:6 to the end. The formula too: Think upon me, my God, etc., peculiar to Nehemiah, is repeated Neh 5:19; Neh 6:14; Neh 13:14, Neh 13:22, Neh 13:29, Neh 13:31. Hence not only has the composition of the larger portion of this book been universally admitted to be the work of Nehemiah, but the integrity of its first section (Neh 1-6) has been generally acknowledged. On the composition and authorship of the second section, 7:73b-12:26, on the contrary, the verdict of modern criticism is almost unanimous in pronouncing it not to have been the work of Nehemiah, but composed from various older documents and records by the compiler of the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah - the so-called chronicler who lived a hundred years later - and by him interpolated in \"the record of Nehemiah.\" This view has been chiefly based upon the facts, that in chs. 8-10 the style is different; that Nehemiah himself is not the prominent person, Ezra occupying the foreground, and Nehemiah being merely the subject of a passing remark (Neh 8:9 and Neh 10:2); that there is in Neh 8:14 no reference to Ezr 3:4 with respect to the feast of tabernacles; and that Ezr 3:1 is in verbal accordance with Neh 8:1 (Bertheau, Comm. p. 11, and de Wette-Schrader, Einl. in das A. T. 236). Of these reasons, the first (the dissimilarity of style) is an assertion arising from a superficial examination of these chapters, and in support of which nothing further is adduced than that, instead of Elohim, and especially the God of heaven, elsewhere current with Nehemiah when speaking of God, the names Jehovah, Adonai, and Elohim are in this section used promiscuously. In fact, however, the name Elohim is chiefly used even in these chapters, and Jahve but seldom; while in the prayer Neh 9 especially, such other appellations of God occur as Nehemiah, with the solemnity befitting the language of supplication, uses also in the prayer in Neh 1:1-11.\n\n(Note: Compare the exact statement of the case in my Lehrbuch, 149, note 4, which opponents have ignored, because nothing in the way of facts can be brought against it.)\n\nThe other three reasons are indeed correct, in so far as they are actual facts, but they prove nothing. It is true that in Neh 8-10 Nehemiah personally occupies a less prominent position than Ezra, but this is because the actions therein related, viz., the public reading of the law, and the direction of the sacred festivals, belonged not to the office of Nehemiah the Tirshatha and royal governor, but to that, of Ezra the scribe, and to the priests and Levites. Even here, however, Nehemiah, as the royal Tirshatha, stands at the head of the assembled people, encourages them in conjunction with Ezra and the priests, and is the first, as praecipuum membrum ecclesiae (Neh 10:2), to seal the document of the covenant just concluded. Again, though it is certain that in the description of the feast of tabernacles, Ezr 8:14., there is no express allusion to its former celebration under Zerubbabel and Joshua, Ezr 3:4, yet such allusions are unusual with biblical writers in general. This is shown, e.g., by a comparison of Ch2 35:1, Ch2 35:18 with Ch2 30:1, Ch2 30:13-26; and yet it has never struck any critic that an argument against the single authorship of 2 Chr. might be found in the fact that no allusion to the earlier passover held under Hezekiah, 2 Chron 30, is made in the description of the passover under Josiah, 2 Chron 35. Finally, the verbal coincidence of Neh 8:1 (properly Neh 7:73 and Neh 8:1) with Ezr 3:1 amounts to the statement that \"when the seventh month was come, all Israel gathered out of their cities as one man to Jerusalem.\" All else is totally different; the assembly in Neh 8 pursues entirely different objects and undertakes entirely different matters from that in Ezr 3:1-13. The peculiarities, moreover, of Nehemiah's style could as little appear in what is narrated, chs. 8-10, as in his description of the building of the wall, Neh 3, or in the list of the families who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua, Neh 7 - portions which no one has yet seriously objected to as integral parts of the book of Nehemiah. The same remark applies to the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the province, 11:3-36, which even Bertheau and Schrader admit to have originated from the record of Nehemiah, or to have been composed by Nehemiah. If, however, Nehemiah composed these lists, or incorporated them in his record, why should it not also be himself, and not the \"subsequent chronicler,\" who inserted in his work the lists of priests and Levites, 12:1-26, when the description of the dedication of the wall which immediately follows them is evidently his own composition?\n\nOne reason for maintaining that these lists of priests and Levites are of later origin than the times of Nehemiah is said to be, that they extend to Jaddua the high priest, who was contemporary with Alexander the Great. If this assertion were as certain as it is confidently brought forward, then indeed these lists might well be regarded as a subsequent interpolation in the book of Nehemiah. For Nehemiah, who was at least thirty years of age when he first came to Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., b.c. 445, could hardly have lived to witness the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by Alexander, b.c. 330; or, even if he did attain the age of 145, would not have postponed the writing of his book to the last years of his life. When, however, we consider somewhat more closely the priests and Levites in question, we shall perceive that Neh 12:1-9 contains a list of the chiefs of the priests and Levites who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua, which consequently descends from the times before Nehemiah; Neh 12:12-21, a list of the heads of the priestly houses in the days of the high priest Joiakim, the son of Joshua; and Neh 12:24, Neh 12:25, a list of the heads of chiefs of Levi (of the Levites), with the closing remark, Neh 12:26 : \"These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Joshua, and in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra,\" Now the high priest Joiakim, the son of Joshua, the contemporary of Zerubbabel, was the predecessor and father of the high priest Eliashib, the contemporary of Nehemiah. Consequently both these lists descend from the time previous to Nehemiah's arrival at Jerusalem; and the mention of Ezra and Nehemiah along with Joiakim proves nothing more than that the chiefs of the Levites mentioned in the last list were still living in the days of Nehemiah. Thus these three lists contain absolutely nothing which reaches to a period subsequent to Nehemiah. Between the first and second, however, there stands (Neh 12:10, Neh 12:11) the genealogical notice: Joshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim begat Eliashib, Eliashib begat Jonathan (correct reading, Johanan), and Jonathan begat Jaddua; and between the second and third it is said, Neh 12:22 : With respect to the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, the heads of houses are recorded, and the priests under the reign of Darius the Persian; and Neh 12:23 : With respect to the sons of Levi, the heads of houses are recorded in the book of the Chronicles even to the days of Johanan. From these verses (Neh 12:10, Neh 12:11, and Neh 12:22, Neh 12:23) it is inferred that the lists descend to the time of the high-priesthood of Jaddua, the contemporary of Alexander the Great. To this we reply, that viewing the circumstance that Eliashib was high priest in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:1; Neh 13:4, Neh 13:7), it cannot be an absolute objection that Jaddua was still living in the days of Alexander the Great, since from the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, i.e., from b.c. 433, to the destruction of the Persian empire b.c. 330, there are only 103 years, a period for which three high priests, each exercising his office thirty-five years, would suffice. But on the other hand, it is very questionable whether in Neh 12:11 and Neh 12:12 Jaddua is mentioned as the officiating high priest, or only as the son of Johanan, and grandson of Joiada the high priest. The former of these views receives no corroboration from Neh 12:11, for there nothing else is given but the genealogy of the high-priestly line. Nor can it any more be proved from Neh 12:22 that the words, \"in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, were the Levites recorded or enrolled,\" are to be understood of four different lists made under four successive high priests. The most natural sense of the words, on the contrary, is that one enrollment took place in the days of these four individuals of the high-priestly house. If Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were all alive at the same time, this, the most natural view, must also be the correct one, because in each of the other lists of the same chapter, the times of only one high priest are mentioned, and at the close of the list, Neh 12:26, it is expressly stated that the (previously enrolled) Levites were chiefs in the days of Joiakim, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It is not, moreover, difficult to prove that Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were living contemporaneously. For Eliashib, whom Nehemiah found high priest at his arrival at Jerusalem (Neh 3:1), being the grandson of Joshua, who returned from Babylon in the year 536 with Zerubbabel, would in 445 be anything but a young man. Indeed, he must then have been about seventy-five years old. Moreover, it appears from Jos 13:4 and Jos 13:7, that in 433, when Nehemiah returned to Artaxerxes, he was still in office, though on Nehemiah's return he was no longer alive, and that he therefore died soon after 433, at the age of about ninety. If, however, this was his age when he died, his son Joiada might then be already sixty-three, his grandson Johanan thirty-six, his great-grandson Jaddua nine, if each were respectively born in the twenty-seventh year of his father's lifetime.\n\n(Note: If Jaddua were on the death of his great-great-grandfather (between 433 and 430 b.c.) about ten years old, he might also live to witness the appearance of Alexander the Great before Jerusalem, 330 b.c. (mentioned by Josephus, Ant. xi. 8. 4), since he would then have attained the age of 110, which does not seem incredible, when it is considered that Jehoiada, the high priest in the reign of Joash, was 130 when he died (Ch2 24:15).)\n\nThe view (of Neh 12:11, Neh 12:12, and Neh 12:22) just stated, is confirmed both by Neh 12:22 and Neh 12:23, and by Neh 13:28. According to Neh 13:22, the chiefs or heads of the priestly houses were enrolled under the government of Darius the Persian. Now there is no doubt that this Darius is Darius Nothus, the successor of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned from 424 to 404. The notion that Darius Codomanus is intended, rests upon the mistaken view that in Neh 13:11 Jaddua is mentioned as the high priest already in office. According to Neh 13:23, the heads of the houses of the Levites were enrolled in the book of the Chronicles even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. The days of Johanan - that is, the period of his high-priesthood - are here named as the latest date to which the author of this book extends the genealogical lists of the Levites. And this well agrees with the information, Neh 13:18, that during Nehemiah's absence at Jerusalem, one of the sons of Joiada the high priest allied himself by marriage with Sanballat the Horonite, i.e., married one of his daughters, and was driven away by Nehemiah. If Joiada had even in the days of Nehemiah a married son, Johanan the first-born son of Joiada, the presumptive successor to the high-priesthood, might well have been at that time so long a married man as to have already witnessed the birth of his son Jaddua.\n\nTo complete our proof that the contents of Neh 12 do not extend to a period subsequent to Nehemiah, we have still to discuss the question, how long he held office in Judaea, and when he wrote the book in which he relates what he there effected. Both these questions can be answered with sufficient accuracy for our purpose, though the exact year cannot be named. Concerning the time he held office in Jerusalem, he only remarks in his book that he was governor from the twentieth to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and that in the thirty-second year of that monarch he again returned to the court, and afterwards, ימים לקץ, came back to Jerusalem (Neh 5:14, and Neh 13:6). The term ימים לקץ is very indefinite; but the interpretation, \"at the end of the year,\" is incorrect and unsupported. It is quite evident, from the irregularities and transgressions of the law which occurred in the community during his absence from Jerusalem, that Nehemiah must have remained longer than a year at the court, and, indeed, that he did not return for some years. Besides the withholding of the dues to the Levites (Neh 13:10.) and the desecration of the Sabbath (Neh 13:15.), - transgressions of the law which might have occurred soon after Nehemiah's departure, - Eliashib had not only the priest fitted up a chamber in the fore-court of the temple as a dwelling for his connection Tobiah (Neh 13:4), but Jews had also married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab, and had children by them who spake not the Jews' language, but only that of Ashdod, in the interval (Neh 13:23). These facts presuppose an absence of several years on the part of Nehemiah, even if many of these unlawful marriages had been previously contracted, and only came to his knowledge after his return. - Neither are there adequate grounds for the notion that Nehemiah lived but a short time after his return to Jerusalem. The suppression of these infringements of the law, which is narrated Neh 13:7-31, might, indeed, have been accomplished in a few months; but we are by no means justified in inferring that this was the last of his labours for the welfare of his fellow-countrymen, and that his own life terminated soon after, because he relates nothing more than his procedure against these transgressions. After the removal of these irregularities, and the re-establishment of legal order in divine worship and social life, he might have lived for a long period at Jerusalem without effecting anything, the record of which it might be important to hand down to posterity. If we suppose him to have been from thirty-five to forty years of age when, being cupbearer to Artaxerxes, he was sent at his own request, in the twentieth year of that monarch's reign (445 b.c.), as governor to Judah, he might well have exercised his office in Judah and Jerusalem from thirty-five to forty years, including his journey back to the court in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, i.e., till 405 b.c. This would make him live till the nineteenth year of Darius Nothus, and not die till he was from seventy-five to eighty years of age. If we further suppose that he composed this book some ten years before his death, i.e., thirty years after his first arrival at Jerusalem, when he had, as far as lay in his power, arranged the affairs of Judah, it would then be possible for him to relate and describe all that is contained in the canonical book of Nehemiah. For in the year 415 b.c., i.e., in the ninth year of Darius Nothus, genealogical lists of priests and Levites of the time of Joiakim the high priest, reaching down to the days of Johanan the son (grandson) of Eliashib, and of the time of the reign of Darius Nothus, might already be written in the book of the Chronicles, as mentioned Neh 12:23, compared with Neh 12:22 and Neh 12:26. Then, too, the high priest Joiada might already have been dead, his son Johanan have succeeded to the office, and Jaddua, the son of the latter, have already attained the age of twenty-five. - This book would consequently contain no historical information and no single remark which Nehemiah might not himself have written. Hence the contents of the book itself furnish not the slightest opposition to the view that the whole was the work of Nehemiah.\n\nWhen, however, we turn our attention to its form, that unity of character to which modern criticism attaches so much importance seems to be wanting in the second half. We have, however, already remarked that neither the lack of prominence given to the person of Nehemiah, nor the circumstance that he is in these chapters spoken of in the third person, furnish incontestable arguments against the integrity of this book. For in the section concerning the dedication of the wall, Neh 12:27-43, Nehemiah's authorship of which no critic has as yet impugned, he only brings himself forward (Neh 12:31 and Neh 12:38) when mentioning what he had himself appointed and done, while the rest of the narrative is not in the communicative form of speech: we sought the Levites, we offered, etc., which he employs in the account of the making of a covenant, but in the objective form: they sought the Levites, they offered, etc. (Neh 12:27 and Neh 12:43). The want of connection between the several sections seems to us far more striking. Chs. 8-10 form, indeed, a connected section, the commencement of which (Neh 7:73) by the circumstantial clause, \"when the children of Israel dwelt in their cities,\" combines it, even by a repetition of the very form of words, which the preceding list; but the commencement of Neh 11 is somewhat abrupt, while between Neh 12:11 and Neh 12:12 and between Neh 12:26 and Neh 12:27 of Neh 12 there is nothing to mark the connection. This gives the sections, chs. 8-10 and 12:1-26, the appearance of being subsequent interpolations or insertions in Nehemiah's record; and there is thus much of real foundation for this appearance, that this book is not a continuous narrative or description of Nehemiah's proceedings in Judah, - historical, topographical, and genealogical lists, which interrupt the thread of the history, being inserted in it. But it by no means follows, that because such is the nature of the book, the inserted portions must therefore have been the subsequent interpolations of another hand, in the record composed by Nehemiah. This inference of modern criticism is based upon an erroneous conception of the nature and intention of this book, which is first of all regarded, if not as a biography or diary of Nehemiah, yet as a \"record,\" in which is noted down only the most important facts concerning his journey to Jerusalem and his proceedings there. For this preconception, neither the canonical book of Nehemiah, nor a comparison of those sections which are universally admitted to be his, furnish any adequate support. For with regard, first, to these sections, it is obvious from Neh 5:14, where Nehemiah during the building of the wall reproaches the usurers, saying, \"From the time that I was appointed to be governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth to the two-and-thirtieth year of Artaxerxes, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor,\" that Nehemiah wrote the account of his labours in Judah from memory after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. When we compare with this the manner in which he speaks quite incidentally (Neh 13:6.) of his absence from Jerusalem and his journey to the court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and connects the account of the chamber vacated for Tobiah in the fore-court of the temple (Neh 13:4) with the previous narrative of the public reading of the law and the severance of the strangers from Israel by the formula מזּה ולפני, \"and before this,\" making it appear as though this public reading of the law and severance of strangers had followed his return from the court; and further, consider that the public reading of the law mentioned, Neh 13:1, is combined with the section, Neh 12:44, and this section again (Neh 12:44) with the account of the dedication of the wall by the formula, \"at that time;\" it is undoubtedly obvious that Nehemiah did not write his whole work till the evening of his days, and after he had accomplished all that was most important in the labours he undertook for Jerusalem and his fellow-countrymen, and that he makes no decided distinction between his labours during his second sojourn at Jerusalem and those of his former stay of twelve years.\n\nIf, then, these circumstances indisputably show that the work composed by Nehemiah himself did not bear the form of a diary, the admission into it of the list of those who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua (Neh 7:6-73) makes it manifest that it was not his intention to give an unbroken narrative, of his efforts and their results in Jerusalem. This list, moreover, which he found when occupied with his plan for increasing the population of Jerusalem, is shown by the words, \"I found therein written,\" to have been admitted by himself into his work, and inserted in his account of what God had put it into his heart to do with respect to the peopling of Jerusalem (Neh 7:5), and of the manner in which he had carried out his resolution (Neh 11:1-2), as a valuable document with respect to the history of the community, although the continuous thread of the narrative was broken by the interpolation. From his admission of this list, we may infer that he also incorporated other not less important documents, such as the lists of the priests and Levites, Neh 12:1-26, in his book, without troubling himself about the continuous progress of the historical narrative, because it was his purpose not merely to portray his own labours in Jerusalem, but to describe the development and circumstances of the reinstated community under his own and Ezra's leadership.\n\n(Note: \"Nehmie,\" remarks Ed. Barde in his Etude critique et exegetique, p. 48, \"n'crit pas sa biographie: son but est l'histoire de la restauration de Jrusalem et du culte, pour montrer l'accomplissement des promesses de Dieu.\")\n\nThis being the case, there can be no reason whatever for denying Nehemiah's authorship of the account of the religious solemnities in chs. 8-10, especially as the communicative form in which the narrative is written, bears witness that one of the leaders of that assembly of the people composed this account of it, and the expression, \"we will not forsake the house of our God,\" with which it closes (Neh 10:39), is a form of speech peculiar to Nehemiah, and repeated by him Neh 13:11. Such considerations seem to us to do away with any doubts which may have been raised as to the integrity of the whole book, and the authorship of Nehemiah.\n\nFor the exegetical literature, see my Lehrb. p. 460. Comp. also Ed. Barde, Nhmie tude critique et exegetique, Tbing. 1861, and Bertheau's Commentary already quoted, p. 18.","order":16,"numberOfChapters":13,"sha256":"467b773304e07c78a51cbd7875ae82bc750f56c5e11f2fe67b9eec136d412e42","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/NEH/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"NEH","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":13,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/NEH/13.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"NEH","chapter":13},"totalNumberOfVerses":91},"chapter":{"number":6,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["When Sanballat and the enemies associated with him were unable to obstruct the building of the wall of Jerusalem by Open violence (Neh 4), they endeavoured to ruin Nehemiah by secret snares. They invited him to meet them in the plain of Ono (Neh 6:1, Neh 6:2); but Nehemiah, perceiving that they intended mischief, replied to them by messengers, that he could not come to them on account of the building. After receiving for the fourth time this refusal, Sanballat sent his servant to Nehemiah with an open letter, in which he accused him of rebellion against the king of Persia. Nehemiah, however, repelled this accusation as the invention of Sanballat (Neh 6:3-9). Tobiah and Sanballat, moreover, hired a false prophet to make Nehemiah flee into the temple from fear of the snares prepared for him, that they might then be able to calumniate him (Neh 6:10-14). The building of the wall was completed in fifty-two days, and the enemies were disheartened (Neh 6:15-17), although at that time many nobles of Judah had entered into epistolary correspondence with Tobiah, to obstruct the proceedings of Nehemiah (Neh 6:18, Neh 6:19).\nNeh 6:1-2\nThe attempts of Sanballat and his associates to ruin Nehemiah. - Neh 6:1, Neh 6:2. When Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arabian, and the rest of the enemies, heard that the wall was built, and that no breaches were left therein, though the doors were then not yet set up in the gates, he sent, etc. לו נשׁמע, it was heard by him, in the indefinite sense of: it came to his ears. The use of the passive is more frequent in later Hebrew; comp. Neh 6:6, Neh 6:7, Neh 13:27; Est 1:20, and elsewhere. On Sanballat and his allies, see remarks on Neh 2:19. The \"rest of our enemies\" were, according to Neh 4:1 (Neh 4:7, A.V.), Ashdodites, and also other hostile individuals. וגו העת עד גּם introduces a parenthetical sentence limiting the statement already made: Nevertheless, down to that time I had not set up the doors in the gates. The wall-building was quite finished, but doors to the gates were as yet wanting to the complete fortification of the city. The enemies sent to him, saying, Come, let us meet together (for a discussion) in the villages in the valley of Ono. - In Neh 6:7, נוּערה of the present verse. The form כּפרים, elsewhere only כּפר, Ch1 27:25, or כּפר, village, Sa1 6:18, occurs only here. כּפירה, however, being found Ezr 2:25 and elsewhere as a proper name, the form כּפיר seems to have been in use as well as כּפר. There is no valid ground for regarding כּפרים as the proper name of a special locality. To make their proposal appear impartial, they leave the appointment of the place in the valley of Ono to Nehemiah. Ono seems, according to Ch1 8:12, to have been situate in the neighbourhood of Lod (Lydda), and is therefore identified by Van de Velde (Mem. p. 337) and Bertheau with Kefr Ana (Arab. kfr ‛ânâ) or Kefr Anna, one and three-quarter leagues north of Ludd. But no certain information concerning the position of the place can be obtained from Ch1 8:12; and Roediger (in the Hallische Lit. Zeitung, 1842, No. 71, p. 665) is more correct, in accordance both with the orthography and the sense, in comparing it with Beit Unia (Arab. byt ûniya), north-west of Jerusalem, not far from Beitin (Bethel); comp. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 351. The circumstance that the plain of Ono was, according to the present verse, somewhere between Jerusalem and Samaria, which suits Beit Unia, but not Kefr Ana (comp. Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. xii. p. 759), is also in favour of the latter view. \"But they thought to do me harm.\" Probably they wanted to make him a prisoner, perhaps even to assassinate him.\nNeh 6:3\nNehemiah sent messengers to them, saying: \"I am doing a great work, and I cannot come down thither. Why should the work cease whilst I leave it and come down to you?\" That is, he let them know that he could not undertake the journey, because his presence in Jerusalem was necessary for the uninterrupted prosecution of the work of building.\nNeh 6:4\nThey sent to him four times in the same manner (הזּה כּדּבר, comp. Sa2 15:6), and Nehemiah gave them the same answer.\nNeh 6:5-6\nThen Sanballat sent his servant in this manner, the fifth time, with an open letter, in which was written: \"It is reported (נשׁמע, it is heard) among the nations, and Gashmu saith, (that) thou and the Jews intend to rebel; for which cause thou buildest the wall, and thou wilt be their king, according to these words.\" \"The nations\" are naturally the nations dwelling in the land, in the neighbourhood of the Jewish community. On the form Gashmu, comp. rem. on Neh 2:19. הוה, the particip., is used of that which any one intends or prepares to do: thou art intending to become their king. על־כּן, therefore, for no other reason than to rebel, dost thou build the wall.\nNeh 6:7-8\nIt was further said in the letter: \"Thou hast also appointed prophets to proclaim concerning thee in Jerusalem, saying, King of Judah; and now it will be reported to the king according to these words (or things). Come, therefore, and let us take counsel together,\" sc. to refute these things as groundless rumours. By such accusations in an open letter, which might be read by any one, Sanballat thought to oblige Nehemiah to come and clear himself from suspicion by an interview.\nNeh 6:8\nNehemiah, however, saw through his stratagem, and sent word to him by a messenger: \"There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.\" בּודאם, a contraction of בּודאם, from בּדא, which occurs again only in Kg1 12:33, to invent, to feign, especially evil things.\nNeh 6:9\n\"For,\" adds Nehemiah when writing of these things, \"they all desired to make us afraid, thinking (לאמר) their hands will cease from the work, that it be not done.\" The last words, \"And now strengthen my hands,\" are to be explained by the fact that Nehemiah hastily transports himself into the situation and feelings of those days when he prayed to God for strength. To make this request fit into the train of thought, we must supply: I however thought, or said, Strengthen, O God, my hands. חזּק is imperative. The translation, in the first pers. sing. of the imperfect, \"I strengthened\" (lxx, Vulg., Syr.), is only an attempt to fit into their context words not understood by the translators. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["A false prophet, hired by Tobiah and Sanballat, also sought, by prophesying that the enemies of Nehemiah would kill him in the night, to cause him to flee with him into the holy place of the temple, and to protect his life from the machinations of his enemies by closing the temple doors. His purpose was, as Nehemiah subsequently learned, to seduce him into taking an illegal step, and so give occasion for speaking evil of him.\nNeh 6:10\n\"And I came into the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, the son of Mehetabeel, who was shut up.\" Nothing further is known of this prophet Shemaiah. From what is here related we learn, that he was one of the lying prophets employed by Sanballat and Tobiah to ruin Nehemiah. We are not told what induced or caused Nehemiah to go into the house of Shemaiah; he merely recounts what the latter was hired by his enemies to effect. From the accessory clause, \"and he was shut up,\" we may perhaps infer that Shemaiah in some way or other, perhaps by announcing that he had something of importance to communicate, persuaded Nehemiah to visit him at his house. עצוּר והוּא does not, however, involved the meaning which Bertheau gives it, viz., that Nehemiah went to Shemaiah's house, because the latter as עצוּר could not come to him. The phrase says only, that when Nehemiah entered Shemaiah's house, he found him עצוּר, which simply means shut up, shut in his house, not imprisoned, and still less in a state of ceremonial uncleanness (Ewald), or overpowered by the hand of Jahve - laid hold on by a higher power (Bertheau). It is evident from his proposal to Nehemiah, \"Let us go together to the house of God,\" etc., that he was neither imprisoned in his house, nor prevented by any physical cause from leaving home. Hence it follows that he had shut himself in his house, to intimate to Nehemiah that also he felt his life in danger through the machinations of his enemies, and that he was thus dissimulating in order the more easily to induce him to agree to his proposal, that they should together escape the snares laid for them by fleeing to the temple. In this case, it may be uncertain whether Shemaiah had shut himself up, feigning that the enemies of Judah were seeking his life also, as the prophet of Jahve; or whether by this action he was symbolically announcing what God charged him to make known to Nehemiah. Either view is possible; while the circumstance that Nehemiah in Neh 6:12 calls his advice to flee into the temple a נבוּאה against him, and that it was quite in character with the proceedings of such false prophets to enforce their words by symbolical signs (comp. Kg1 22:11), favours the former. The going into the house of God is more closely defined by ההיכל אל־תּוך, within the holy place; for they (the enemies) will come to slay thee, and indeed this night will they come to slay thee.\" He seeks to corroborate his warning as a special revelation from God, by making it appear that God had not only made known to him the design of the enemies, but also the precise time at which they intended to carry it into execution.\nNeh 6:11\nNehemiah, however, was not to be alarmed thereby, but exclaimed: Should such a man as I flee? and what man like me could go into the holy place and live? I will not go in. וחי is the perf. with Vav consecutive: that he may live. This word is ambiguous; it may mean: to save his life, or: and save his life, not, expiate such a transgression of the law with his life. Probably Nehemiah used it in the latter sense, having in mind the command, Num 18:7, that the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.\nNeh 6:12\nAnd I perceived, - viz. from the conduct of Shemaiah on my refusal to follow his advice, - and, lo, not God had sent him (i.e., had not commissioned or inspired him to speak these words; לא emphatically precedes אלהים: not God, but himself), but that he pronounced this prophecy against me, because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. The verb שׂכרו (sing.) agrees only with the latter word, although in fact it refers to both these individuals.\nNeh 6:13-14\n\"On this account was he hired that I might be afraid, and do so; and if I had sinned (by entering the holy place), it (my sin) would have been to them for an evil report, that they might defame me.\" The use of למאן before two sentences, the second of which expresses the purpose of the first, is peculiar: for this purpose, that I might fear, etc., was he hired. To enter and to shut himself within the holy place would have been a grave desecration of the house of God, which would have given occasion to his enemies to cast suspicion upon Nehemiah as a despiser of God's commands, and so to undermine his authority with the people. - In Neh 6:14 Nehemiah concludes his account of the stratagems of his enemies, with the wish that God would think upon them according to their works. In expressing it, he names, besides Tobiah and Sanballat, the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets who, like Shemaiah, would have put him in fear: whence we perceive, 1st, that the case related (Neh 6:10-13) is given as only one of the chief events of the kind (מיראים, like Neh 6:9, Neh 6:19); and 2nd, that false prophets were again busy in the congregation, as in the period preceding the captivity, and seeking to seduce the people from hearkening to the voice of the true prophets of God, who preached repentance and conversation as the conditions of prosperity. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["The wall completed, and the impression made by this work upon the enemies of the Jews. - Neh 6:15 The wall was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul, i.e., of the sixth month, in fifty-two days. According to this statement, it must have been begun on the third day of the fifth month (Ab). The year is not mentioned, the before-named (Neh 2:1) twentieth year of Artaxerxes being intended. This agrees with the other chronological statements of this book. For, according to Neh 2:1, it was in Nisan (the first month) of this year that Nehemiah entreated permission of the king to go to Jerusalem; and we learn from Neh 5:14 and Neh 13:6 that he was governor in Jerusalem from the twentieth year onwards, and must therefore have set out for that place immediately after receiving the royal permission. In this case, he might well arrive in Jerusalem before the expiration of the fourth month. He then surveyed the wall, and called a public assembly for the purpose of urging the whole community to enter heartily upon the work of restoration (Neh 2:11-17). All this might take place in the course of the fourth month, so that the work could be actually taken in hand in the fifth. Nor is there any reasonable ground, as Bertheau has already shown, for doubting the correctness of the statement, that the building was completed in fifty-two days, and (with Ewald) altering the fifty-two days into two years and four months.\n(Note: Ewald, Gesch. iv. p. 178, thinks that traces of the correct reading of this verse are found in the statement of Josephus, Ant. xi. 5. 7f., that the wall of Jerusalem was finished in two years and four months, and that the word וּשׁנתים may have been omitted from Neh 6:15 by an ancient clerical error, though he is obliged to admit that Josephus in other instances gives no trustworthy dates concerning Nehemiah, whom he makes arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth, and complete the wall in the twenty-eight year of Xerxes. On the other hand, Bertheau has already remarked, that even if שׁנתים is supplied, no agreement with the statement of Josephus is obtained, since the question still remains how four months can be made out of fifty-two days, or vice versa, fifty-two days of four months. In fact, it is vain to seek for any common ground on which these two different statements can be harmonized; and hence the two years and four months of Josephus can scarcely be regarded as furnishing traces of another reading of the text.)\nFor we must in this case consider, 1st, the necessity for hastening the work repeatedly pointed out by Nehemiah; 2nd, the zeal and relatively very large number of builders - the whole community, both the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Jericho, Tekoa, Gibeon, Mizpah, etc. having combined their efforts; 3rd, that the kind of exertion demanded by such laborious work and unintermitted watchfulness as are described Neh 4, though it might be continued for fifty-two days, could scarcely endure during a longer period; and lastly, the amount of the work itself, which must not be regarded as the rebuilding of the whole wall, but only as the restoration of those portions that had been destroyed, the repair of the breaches (Neh 1:3; Neh 2:13; Neh 6:1), and of the ruined gates, - a large portion of wall and at least one gate having remained uninjured.). To this must be added that the material, so far as stone was concerned, was close at hand, stone needing for the most part to be merely brought out of the ruins; besides which, materials of all kind might have been collected and prepared beforehand. It is, moreover, incorrect to compute the extent of this fortified wall by the extent of the wall of modern Jerusalem.\nNeh 6:16\nThe news that the wall was finished spread fear among the enemies, viz., among the nations in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (comp. Neh 4:1; Neh 5:9); they were much cast down, and perceived \"that this work was effected with the help of our God.\" The expression בעניהם יפּלוּ occurs only here, and must be explained according to פּניו יפּלוּ, his countenance fell (Gen 4:5), and לב יפּל, the heart fails (i.e., the courage) (Sa1 17:32): they sank in their own eyes, i.e., they felt themselves cast down, discouraged. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["To this Nehemiah adds the supplementary remark, that in those days even nobles of Judah were in alliance and active correspondence with Tobiah, because he had married into a respectable Jewish family.\nNeh 6:17\n\"Also in those days the nobles of Judah wrote many letters (אגּרתיהם מרבּים, they made many, multiplied, their letters) passing to Tobiah, and those of Tobiah came to them.\"\nNeh 6:18\nFor many in Judah were sworn unto him, for he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah; and his son Johanan had taken (to wife) the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. In this case Tobiah was connected with two Jewish families, - a statement which is made to confirm the fact that many in Judah were שׁבוּעה בּעלי, associates of an oath, joined to him by an oath, not allies in consequence of a treaty sworn to (Bertheau). From this reason being given, we may conclude his affinity by marriage was confirmed by an oath. Shecaniah ben Arah was certainly a respectable Jew of the race of Arah, Ezr 2:5. Meshullam ben Berechiah appears among those who shared in the work of building, Neh 3:4 and Neh 3:30. According to Neh 13:4, the high priest Eliashib was also related to Tobiah. From the fact that both Tobiah and his son Jehohanan have genuine Jewish names, Bertheau rightly infers that they were probably descended from Israelites of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes. With this the designation of Tobiah as \"the Ammonite\" may be harmonized by the supposition that his more recent or remote ancestors were naturalized Ammonites.\nNeh 6:19\n\"Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him.\" טּובתיו, the good things in him, or \"his good qualities and intentions\" (Bertheau). The subject of the sentence is the nobles of Judah. לו מוציאים, they were bringing forth to him. On this matter Bertheau remarks, that there is no reason for assuming that the nobles of Judah endeavoured, by misrepresenting and distorting the words of Nehemiah, to widen the breach between him and Tobiah. This is certainly true; but, at the same time, we cannot further infer from these words that they were trying to effect an understanding between the two, and representing to Nehemiah how dangerous and objectionable his undertaking was; but were by this very course playing into the hands of Tobiah. For an understanding between two individuals, hostile the one to the other, is not to be brought about by reporting to the one what is the other's opinion of him. Finally, Nehemiah mentions also that Tobiah also sent letters to put him in fear (יראני, infin. Piel, like Ch2 32:18; comp. the participle above, Neh 6:9 and Neh 6:14). The letters were probably of similar contents with the letter of Sanballat given in Neh 6:6. \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/NEH/6.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"NEH","chapter":6},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/NEH/7.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"NEH","chapter":7},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/NEH/5.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"NEH","chapter":5},"numberOfVerses":4}