Nehemiah 1_4 notes

Nehemiah, cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes, is plunged into deep affliction by the account which he receives from certain individuals from Judah of the sad condition of his countrymen who had returned to Jerusalem and Judah. He prays with fasting to the Lord for mercy (Neh. 1), and on a favourable opportunity entreats the king and queen for permission to make a journey to Jerusalem, and for the necessary authority to repair its ruined walls. His request being granted, he travels as governor to Jerusalem, provided with letters from the king, and escorted by captains of the army and horsemen (Neh. 2:1–10). Soon after his arrival, he surveys the condition of the walls and gates, summons the rulers of the people and the priests to set about building the wall, and in spite of the obstacles he encounters from the enemies of the Jews, accomplishes this work (Neh. 2:11–6:19). In describing the manner in which the building of the walls was carried on, he first enumerates in succession (Neh. 3:1–32) the individuals and companies engaged in restoring the walls surrounding the city (Neh. 3:1–32), and then relates the obstacles and difficulties encountered (Neh. 3:33–6:19).

Ch. 1.—Nehemiah’s Interest in and Pra

1:1–3 In the Hebrew Bible, the books of Nehemiah and Ezra are combined into one book. Both books describe the challenges faced by the postexilic community in Jerusalem. Nehemiah focuses on rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. The book opens in 445 bc, with Nehemiah who is a Jew, serving in the court of the Persian king Artaxerxes. See note on Ezra 1:1–11.

1:1 The words of Nehemiah While statements attributing the words of a book to a particular person are unusual in Hebrew narrative, they are common in prophetic books (see Jer 1:1; Amos 1:1).

Nehemiah Means “Yahweh comforts”; the name comes from the same root word as the name Nahum, meaning “comfort.” Nehemiah’s father’s name is mentioned to distinguish him from other individuals named Nehemiah (Ezra 2:2; Neh 3:16; 7:7).

the month of Kislev Corresponds to November or December. The ninth month of the Jewish calendar. Hanani likely planned his trip to Judah with the intention of returning to Susa before the onset of winter.

the twentieth year The twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes was 445 bc. See note on Neh 2:1.

Month

Biblical Name

Modern Equivalent

References

Nisan/Abib*

Mar—Apr

Exod 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:1; Neh 2:1; Esth 3:7

Iyyar/Ziv*

Apr—May

1 Kgs 6:1, 37

Sivan

May—Jun

Esth 8:9

Tammuz

Jun—Jul

none

Jul—Aug

none

Elul

Aug—Sep

Neh 6:15

Tishri/Ethanim*

Sep—Oct

1 Kgs 8:2

Heshvan/Bul*

Oct—Nov

1 Kgs 6:38

Kislev

Nov—Dec

Neh 1:1; Zech 7:1

Tebeth

Dec—Jan

Esth 2:16

Shebat

Jan—Feb

Zech 1:7

Adar

Feb—Mar

Ezra 6:15; Esth 3:7, 13; 8:12; 9:1, 15, 17, 19, 21

Second Adar†

Mar—Apr

none

Nehemiah 1:2–3 (NASB95)

2that Hanani, one of my brothers, and some men from Judah came; and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped and had survived the captivity, and about Jerusalem.

3They said to me, “The remnant there in the province who survived the captivity are in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire.”

Nehemiah receives bad news

(Nehemiah 1:1–3)

Nehemiah is a trusted official in the Persian royal court. He is cupbearer to the king, Artaxerxes I. As Nehemiah begins his story, he is in Susa, where Artaxerxes has a winter palace. Kislev is the ninth month of the year.

News comes to Nehemiah from Jerusalem. The Jews who have returned to their capital after years of exile are struggling to survive. In particular, they are without walls or gates to defend their city.

1:2 Hanani A shortened form of Hananiah, which means “Yahweh has been gracious.” Hanani is mentioned again in Neh 7:2.

one of my brothers While the Hebrew term used here could refer broadly to a kinsman, Hanani may be a biological brother of Nehemiah.

had escaped the captivity Refers to those Jews who returned to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, which ended ca. 538 bc.

1:3 the province Refers to the province of the Trans-Euphrates (or “Beyond the River”), of which Judah was a part. See note on Ezra 4:10.

The wall of Jerusalem is broken down More than 90 years had passed since Cyrus’ decree allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 bc. A number of factors probably led to the failure of the returned exiles to rebuild the city during this time, including fear of enemies (Ezra 4:1–4; Neh 4–6) and the denial of permission earlier in Artaxerxes’ reign (see Ezra 4:7–23). In addition, they may have had misplaced priorities, as happened earlier in the case of rebuilding the temple (Hag 1). If the Jews were reluctant to rebuild the temple, they may also have been reluctant to rebuild the city.

1:4 I sat A customary posture during mourning and fasting (Ezra 9:3; Job 2:8, 13).

mourned Nehemiah’s mourning likely went on for four months—until the events of Neh 2.

I. A Pathetic Report (1:1–11)

A. The report (1:1–3). More than half of Nehemiah is a personal record, beginning when he was in the Persian citadel of Susa in the month of Kislev (November–December) in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes I (445 b.c.). Susa was the winter resort of the Persian kings.

One of Nehemiah’s brothers, Hanani, comes from Judah with other men and is questioned about the status of the Judean remnant as well as the city of Jerusalem. Nehemiah is genuinely interested in what has happened to the people who had returned to Judea with Ezra twelve years previously.

The men report that the Judeans are in great trouble and disgrace because the wall of Jerusalem has been broken through in many places and the gates have been burned with fire (v. 3). Hanani is not describing what happened in the days of Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c. when he destroyed the first temple and left the walls of the city in ruins. Nehemiah is listening to an account of how his people have attempted to reconstitute their life in the city of Jerusalem, trying to restore its walls, but the many enemies of Judea are preventing this.

1:1–3 Little is given by way of introduction in this first chapter. We are told only two things about Nehemiah: his father’s name was Hachaliah and he himself was the cupbearer to King Artaxerxes, a very influential position. His reaction to the news concerning Jerusalem shows that he was a man of spiritual character. J. Alec Motyer comments:

It is rather an uncertain time of history, but it seems very likely that some of the enthusiasm engendered by the mission of Ezra took a political or nationalistic direction; enthusiasm was so roused that it began to flow out into an unauthorized rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. Some of the enemies of God’s people in the area reported this matter back to … Artaxerxes, and he commanded that the building work should cease. The enemies of God capitalized on this by going up to Jerusalem with the royal mandate in their hands, causing the work to cease, and tearing down the city walls. It is very likely that it was the news of this action which came to Nehemiah.2

1:4–11 Nehemiah had a burden for the remnant in Judah. Even though he had not experienced their hardships, he identified with them, denying himself the luxuries of the palace in order to fast, mourn, and pray.

1. Nehemiah receives distressing news from Jerusalem (1–3). His confession and prayer (4–11).

1. Note the use of the 1st person, continuing to 7:5, indicating that the source employed here is the personal memoirs of Nehemiah.

Chislev—9th month (Nov.–Dec.).

twentieth year—if of Artaxerxes, it must be an error for nineteenth, since the events of 2:1 occur in the 20th year, and are subsequent to those of chapter 1. Otherwise we must read 21st in 2:1, but 5:14 supports the existing text of 2:1. The 19th year would be 446 b.c.

Shushan, i.e. Susa, one of the four principal cities of the Persian Empire, east of the Persian Gulf, a winter residence of the kings.

2. Hanani—an actual blood brother of Nehemiah, as it seems, from 7:2.

that had escaped—one word in the Hebrew, used also by Ezra (9:15) in reference to the returned exiles.

3. Seems to refer to some recent happening. It cannot refer merely to the event of 586, which would be no ‘news’ for Nehemiah. It may well be that Ezra 4:7–23 is a fragment of a fuller account (now lost) of the episode to which the report to Nehemiah refers.

Neh. 1:1–4. In the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, being then at Susa, received from one of his brethren, and other individuals from Judah, information which deeply grieved him, concerning the sad condition of the captive who had returned to the land of their fathers, and the state of Jerusalem. V. 1a contains the title of the whole book: the History of Nehemiah (see p. 89). By the addition “son of Hachaliah,” Nehemiah is distinguished from others of the same name (e.g., from Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, 3:16). Another Nehemiah, too, returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, Ezra 2:2. Of Hachaliah we know nothing further, his name occurring but once more, 10:2, in conjunction, as here, with that of Nehemiah. Eusebius and Jerome assert that Nehemiah was of the tribe of Judah,—a statement which may be correct, but is unsupported by any evidence from the Old Testament. According to v. 11, he was cup-bearer to the Persian king, and was, at his own request, appointed for some time Pecha, i.e., governor, of Judah. Comp. 5:14, 12:26, and 8:9, 10:2. “In the month Chisleu of the twentieth year I was in the citadel of Susa”—such is the manner in which Nehemiah commences the narrative of his labours for Jerusalem. Chisleu is the ninth month of the year, answering to our December. Comp. Zech. 7:1, 1 Macc. 4:52. The twentieth year is, according to Neh. 2:1, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. On the citadel of Susa, see further details in the remarks on Dan. 8:2. Susa was the capital of the province Susiana, and its citadel, called by the Greeks Memnoneion, was strongly fortified. The kings of Persia were accustomed to reside here during some months of the year.

Neh. 1:2. There came to Nehemiah Hanani, one of his brethren, and certain men from Judah. אֶחָד מֵאַחַי, one of my brethren, might mean merely a relation of Nehemiah, אַחִים being often used of more distant relations; but since Nehemiah calls Hanani אָחִי in 7:10, it is evident that his own brother is meant. “And I asked them concerning the Jews, and concerning Jerusalem.” הַיְּהוּדִים is further defined by הַפְּלֵיטָה וגו׳, who had escaped, who were left from the captivity; those who had returned to Judah are intended, as contrasted with those who still remained in heathen, lands. In the answer, v. 3, they are more precisely designated as being “there in the province (of Judah).” With respect to הַמְּדִינָה, see remarks on Ezra 2:1. They are said to be “in great affliction (רָעָה) and in reproach.” Their affliction is more nearly defined by the accessory clause which follows: and the wall = because the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates burned with fire. מְפֹרֶצֶת, Pual (the intensive form), broken down, does not necessarily mean that the whole wall was destroyed, but only portions, as appears from the subsequent description of the building of the wall, Neh. 3.

Neh. 1:4. This description of the state of the returned captives plunged Nehemiah into such deep affliction, that he passed some days in mourning, fasting, and prayer. Opinions are divided with respect to the historical relation of the facts mentioned v. 3. Some older expositors thought that Hanani could not have spoken of the destruction of the walls and gates of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, because this was already sufficiently known to Nehemiah, but of some recent demolition on the part of Samaritans and other hostile neighbours of the Jews; in opposition to which, Rambach simply replies that we are told nothing of a restoration of the wall of Jerusalem by Zerubbabel and Ezra. More recently Ewald (Geschichte, iv. p. 137f.) has endeavoured to show, from certain psalms which he transposes to post-Babylonian times, the probability of a destruction of the rebuilt wall, but gives a decided negative to the question, whether this took place during the thirteen years between the arrivals of Ezra and Nehemiah (p. 107). “For,” says he, “there is not in the whole of Nehemiah’s record the most distant hint that the walls had been destroyed only a short time since; but, on the contrary, this destruction was already so remote an event, that its occasion and authors were no longer spoken of.” Vaihinger (Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1857, p. 88, comp. 1854, p. 124f.) and Bertheau are of opinion that it indisputably follows from Neh. 1:3, 4, as appearances show, that the walls of Jerusalem were actually rebuilt and the gates set up before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and that the destruction of this laborious work, which occasioned the sending of an embassy to the Persian court, was of quite recent occurrence, since otherwise Nehemiah would not have been so painfully affected by it. But even the very opposite opinion held concerning the impression made upon the reader by these verses, shows that appearances are deceitful, and the view that the destruction of the walls and gates was of quite recent occurrence is not implied by the words themselves, but only inserted in them by expositors. There is no kind of historical evidence that the walls of Jerusalem which had been destroyed by the Chaldeans were once more rebuilt before Nehemiah’s arrival.

The documents given by Ezra 4:8–22, which are in this instance appealed to, so far from proving the fact, rather bear testimony against it. The counsellor Rehum and the scribe Shimshai, in their letter to Artaxerxes, accuse indeed the Jews of building a rebellious and bad city, of restoring its walls and digging its foundations (Ezra 4:12); but they only give the king to understand that if this city be built and its walls restored, the king will no longer have a portion on this side the river (v. 16), and hasten to Jerusalem, as soon as they receive the king’s decision, to hinder the Jews by force and power (v. 23). Now, even if this accusation were quite well founded, nothing further can be inferred from it than that the Jews had begun to restore the walls, but were hindered in the midst of their undertaking. Nothing is said in these documents either of a rebuilding, i.e., a complete restoration, of the walls and setting up of the gates, or of breaking down the walls and burning the gates. It cannot be said that to build a wall means the same as pulling down a wall already built. Nor is anything said in vv. 3 and 4 of a recent demolition. The assertion, too, that the destruction of this laborious work was the occasion of the mission of Hanani and certain men of Judah to the Persian court (Vaihinger), is entirely without scriptural support. In vv. 2 and 3 it is merely said that Hanani and his companions came from Judah to Nehemiah, and that Nehemiah questioned them concerning the condition of the Jews in the province of Judah, and concerning Jerusalem, and that they answered: The Jews there are in great affliction and reproach, for the wall of Jerusalem is broken down (מְפֹרֶצֶת is a participle expressing the state, not the praeter. or perfect, which would be found here if a destruction recently effected were spoken of). Nehemiah, too, in 2:3 and 17, only says: The city of my fathers’ sepulchres (Jerusalem) lieth desolate (חֲרֵבָה is an adjective), not: has been desolated. Nor can a visit on the part of Jews from Judah to their compatriot and relative, the king’s cup-bearer, be called a mission to the Persian court.—With respect also to the deep affliction of Nehemiah, upon which Bertheau lays so much stress, it by no means proves that he had received a terrible account of some fresh calamity which had but just befallen the community at Jerusalem, and whose whole extent was as yet unknown to him. Nehemiah had not as yet been to Jerusalem, and could not from his own experience know the state of affairs in Judah and Jerusalem; hence he questioned the newly arrived visitors, not concerning the latest occurrences, but as to the general condition of the returned captives. The fact of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldees could not, of course, be unknown to him; but neither could he be ignorant that now ninety years since a great number of captives had returned to their homes with Zerubbabel and settled in Judah and Jerusalem, and that seventy years since the temple at Jerusalem had been rebuilt. Judging from these facts, he might not have imagined that the state of affairs in Judah and Jerusalem was so bad as it really was. When, then, he now learnt that those who had returned to Judah were in great affliction, that the walls of the town were still lying in ruins and its gates burned, and that it was therefore exposed defenceless to all the insults of hostile neighbours, even this information might well grieve him. It is also probable that it was through Hanani and his companions that he first learnt of the inimical epistle of the royal officials Rehum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes, and of the answer sent thereto by that monarch and thus became for the first time aware of the magnitude of his fellow-countrymen’s difficulties. Such intelligence might well be such a shock to him as to cause the amount of distress described v. 4. For even if he indulged the hope that the king might repeal the decree by which the rebuilding of the wall had been prohibited till further orders, he could not but perceive how difficult it would be effectually to remedy the grievous state in which his countrymen who had returned to the land of their fathers found themselves, while the disposition of their neighbours towards them was thus hostile. This state was indeed sufficiently distressing to cause deep pain to one who had a heart alive to the welfare of his nation, and there is no need for inventing new “calamities,” of which history knows nothing, to account for the sorrow of Nehemiah. Finally, the circumstance that the destruction of the walls and burning of the gates are alone mentioned as proofs of the affliction and reproach which the returned exiles were suffering, arises simply from an intention to hint at the remedy about to be described in the narrative which follows, by bringing this special kind of reproach prominently forward.

1:11. cupbearer. The cupbearer in the ancient Near Eastern court held a very important position. He had direct access to the king and thus had great influence. Texts and reliefs describe cupbearers in Assyrian and Persian courts. The cupbearer was in close proximity to the king’s harem and thus was often a eunuch, although there is no evidence that this was the case with Nehemiah. Later sources identify the cupbearer as the wine taster. In addition he was the bearer of the signet ring and was chief financial officer.

Related Media

Related Sermons