Nehemiah, are stated to have followed the company of those who gave thanks; but that Byn in this verse is not used to designate the people as such, but is only a general expression for the individuals following the company of singers, is placed beyond doubt by ver. 40, where DVH is replaced by D*33Dn ^n; while, beside the half of the rulers, with Nehemiah, only priests with trumpets and Levites with stringed instruments (ver. 41) are enumerated as composing the second procession. Since, then, the priests with trumpets and Levites with musical instruments are mentioned in the first procession (vers. 35 and 36), the names enumerated in vers. 33 and 34 can be only those of the one half of the D"3jp of the people, i.e. the one half of the princes of Judah. The princes of Judah, i.e. of the Jewish community, consisted not only of laymen, but included also the princes, i.e. heads of priestly and Levitical orders; and hence priestly and Levitical princes might also be among the seven whose names are given in vers. 33 and 34. A strict severance, moreover, between lay and priestly princes cannot be made by the names alone; for these five names, which may designate priestly orders, pertain in other passages to laymen, viz.: Azariah, in iii. 23; Ezra, as of the tribe of Judah, 1 Chron. iv. 17; Meshullam, Neh. iii. 4, x. 21, and elsewhere; Shemaiah, Ezra vi. 13, x. 31, 1 Chron. iii. 22, iv. 37 (of Judah), v. 4 (a Reubenite), and other passages (this name being very usual; comp. Simonis Onomast. p. 546); Jeremiah, 1 Chron.
v. 24 (a Manassite), xii. 4 (a Benjamite), xii. 10 (a Gadite). Even the name Judah is met with among the priests (ver. 36), and among the Levites, ver. 8, comp. also xi. 9, and that of Benjamin, iii. 33 and Ezra x. 32. In the present verses, the two names are not those of tribes, but of individuals, nomina duorum principum (R. Sal.). — Ver. 35. The princes of the congregation were followed by certain u of the sons of the priests" (seven in number, to judge from ver. 41) with trumpets; also by Jonathan the son of Zechariah, who, as appears from the subsequent Vn&O, was at the head of the Levitical musicians, i.e. the section of them that followed this procession. His brethren, i.e. the musicians of his section, are enumerated in ver. 36, — eight names being given, among which are a Shemaiah and a Judah. " With the musical instruments of David, the man of God:" comp. 2 Chron. xxix. 26; 1 Chron. xv. 16, xxiii. 5; Ezra iii. 10. "And Ezra the scribe before them," viz. before the individuals enumerated from ver. 32, immediately after the company of those who gave thanks, and before the princes, like Nehemiah, ver. 38. — Ver. 37. After this insertion of the names of the persons who composed the procession, the description of the route it took is continued. From " upon the wall, toward the dung-gate (31), it passed on" to the fountain-gate; and D'nM, before them (i.e. going straight forwards; comp. Josh. v. 6, 20, Amos iv. 3), they went up by the stairs of the city of David, the ascent of the wall, up over the house of David, even unto the water-gate eastward. These statements are not quite intelligible to us. The stairs of the city of David are undoubtedly u the stairs that lead down from the city of David" (iii. 15). These lay on the eastern slope of Zion, above the fountain-gate and the Pool of Siloam. nipinp rpyftn might be literally translated "the ascent to the wall," as by Bertheau, who takes the sense as follows: (The procession) went up upon the wall by the ascent formed by these steps at the northern part of the eastern side of Zion. According to this, the procession would have left the wall by the stairs at the eastern declivity of Zion, to go up upon the wall again by this ascent. There is, however, no reason for this leaving of the wall, and that which Bertheau adduces is connected with his erroneous transposition of the fountaingate to the place of the present dung-gate. riftin? npy^n seems to be the part of the wall which, according to ill. 19, lay opposite the WpEin pt?3n rfty, a place on the eastern edge of Zion, where the wall was carried over an elevation of the ground, and where consequently was an ascent in the wall. Certainly this cannot be insisted upon, because the further statement TT1 TP2??Vft is obscure, the preposition p sVft admitting of various interpretations, and the situation of the house of David being uncertain. Bertheau, indeed, says: " HJfl in the following words corresponds with pV"0 before TH m?: a wall over the house of David is. not intended; and the meaning is rather, that after they were come as far as the wall, they then passed over the house of David, i.e. the place called the house of David, even to the water-gate." But the separation of?VQ from Tffi 1V3? is decidedly incorrect,? '$? being in the preceding and following passages always used in combination, and forming one idea; comp. ver. 31 (twice) and vers. 38 and 39. Hence it could scarcely be taken here in ver. 37 in a different sense from that which it has in 31 and 38. Not less objectionable is the notion that the house of David is here put for a place called the house of David, on which a palace of David formerly stood, and where perhaps the remains of an ancient royal building might still have been in existence. By the house of David is meant, either the royal palace built (according to Thenius) by Solomon at the north-eastern corner of Zion, opposite the temple, or some other building of David, situate south of this palace, on the east side of Zion. The former view is more probable than the latter. We translate '"J JTO? byn, past the house of David. For, though HDinp pyo must undoubtedly be so understood as to express that the procession went upon the wall (which must be conceived of as tolerably broad), yet ^UE? <TO, ver. 38, can scarcely mean that the procession also went up over the tower which stood near the wall. In the case of the gates, too, p pV'O cannot mean over upon; for it is inconceivable that this solemn procession should have gone over the roof of the gates; and we conclude, on the contrary, that it passed beside the gates and towers. Whether the route taken by the procession from the house of David to the water-gate in the east were straight over the ridge of Ophel, which ran from about the horse-gate to the water-gate, or upon the wall round Ophel, cannot be determined, the description being incomplete. After the house of David, no further information as to its course is given; its halting-place, the water-gate, being alone mentioned.
The route taken by the second company is more particularly described. — Vers. 38 and 39. " And the second company of them that gave thanks, which went over against, and which I and the (other) half of the people followed, (went) upon the waH past the tower of the furnaces, as far as the broad wall; and past the gate of Ephraim, and past the gate of the old (wall), and past the fish-gate, and past the tower Hananeel and the tower Hammeah, even to the sheepgate: and then took up its station at the prison-gate." PNiDp (in this form with K only here; elsewhere ^iD, Deut. i. 1, or Sd), over against, opposite, sc. the first procession, therefore towards the opposite side, i.e. to the left; the first having gone to the right, viz. from the valley-gate northwards upon the northern wail, 'til fTHntf ijto (anc[ I behind them) is a circumstantial clause, which we may take relatively. The order of the towers, the lengths of wall, and the gates, exactly answer to the description in chap. iii. 1-12, with these differences: — a. The description proceeds from the sheepgate in the east to the valley-gate in the west; while the procession moved in the opposite direction, viz. from the valley-gate to the sheep-gate. b. In the description of the building of the wall, chap, iii., the gate of Ephraim is omitted (see rem. on iii. 8, p. 170). c. In the description, the prisongate at which the procession halted is also unmentioned, undoubtedly for the same reason as that the gate of Ephraim is omitted, viz. that not having been destroyed, there was no need to rebuild it. »T}BBn "W is translated, gate of the prison or watch: its position is disputed; but it can scarcely be doubted that nnts^n is the court of the prison mentioned lit. 25 (^ttttn ivn), by or near the king's house. Starting from the assumption that the two companies halted or took up positions opposite each other, Hupfeld (in his before-cited work, p. 321) transposes both the court of the prison and the king's house to the north of the temple area, where the citadel, >T}Elj fiapw, was subsequently situated. But " this being forbidden," as Arnold objects (in his before-cited work, p. 628), " by the order in the description of the building of the wall, iii. 25, which brings us absolutely to the southern side," Bertheau supposes that the two processions which would arrive at the same moment at the temple, — the one from the north-east, the other from the south-east, — here passed each other, and afterwards halted opposite eacli other in such wise, that the procession advancing from the southwest stood on the northern side, and that from the northwest at the southern side of the temple area. This notion, however, having not the slightest support from the text, nor any reason appearing why the one procession should pass the other, it must be regarded as a mere expedient. In ver. 40 it is merely said, the two companies stood in the house of God; and not even that they stood opposite each other, the one on the north, the other on the south side of the temple. Thus they may have stood side by side, and together have praised the Lord. Hence we place the prisongate also on the south-eastern corner of the temple area, and explain the name from the circumstance that a street ran from this gate over Ophel to the court of the prison near the king's house upon Zion, which, together with the gate to which it led, received its name from the court of the prison. Not far from the prison-gate lay the water-gate in the east, near which was an open space in the direction of the temple area (viii. 1). On this open space the two companies met, and took the direction towards the temple, entering the temple area from this open space, that they might offer their thankofferings before the altar of burnt-offering (ver. 43). Besides, the remark upon the position of the two companies (ver. 40) anticipates the course of events, the procession following the second company being first described in vers. 40&-42. At the end of ver. 40 the statement of ver. 38 — I and the half of the people behind — is again taken up in the words: I and the half of the rulers with me. The D^jp are, as in ver. 32, the princes of the congregation, who, with Nehemiah, headed the procession that followed the company of those who gave thanks. Then followed (ver. 41) seven priests with trumpets, whose names are given, answering to the sons of the priests with trumpets (ver. 36a) in the first procession. These names are all met with elsewhere of other persons. These were succeeded, as in ver. 36, by eight Levites — eight individuals, and not eight divisions (Bertheau). And the singers gave forth sound, i.e. of voices and instruments, — whether during the circuit or after the two companies had taken their places at the temple, is doubtful. The president of the Levitical singers was Jezrahiah. — Yer. 43. The solemnity terminated with the offering of great sacrifices and a general festival of rejoicing. In the matter of sacrificing, the person of Nehemiah would necessarily recede; hence he relates the close of the proceedings objectively, and speaks in the third person, as he had done when speaking of the preparations for them, ver. 27, etc., only using the first (vers. 31, 38, 40) person when speaking of what was appointed by himself, or of his own position. The B^rnT were chiefly thankofferings which, terminating in feasting upon the sacrifices, — and these feasts in which the women and children participated, — contributed to the enhancement of the general joy, the joy which God had given them by the success He had accorded to their work of building their wall. For a description of their rejoicing, comp. 2 Chron. xx. 27, Ezra vi. 22, and iii. 13.
The joint efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra succeeded both in restoring the enactments of the law for the performance and maintenance of the public worship, and in carrying out the separation of the community from strangers, especially by the dissolution of unlawful marriages (xii. 44— xiii. 3). When Nehemiah, however, returned to the king at Babylon, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and remained there some time, the abuses which had been abolished were again allowed by the people. During Nehemiah's absence, Eliashib the priest prepared a chamber in the fore-court of the temple, as a dwelling for his son-in-law Tobiah the Ammonite. The delivery of their dues to the Levites (the firstfruits and tenths) was omitted, and the Sabbath desecrated by field-work and by buying and selling in Jerusalem; Jews married Ashdodite, Ammonitish, and Moabitish wives; even a son of the high priest Joiada allying himself by marriage with Sanballat the Horonite. All these illegal acts were energetically opposed by Nehemiah at his return to Jerusalem, when he strove both to purify the congregation from foreigners, and to restore the appointments of the law with respect to divine worship (xiii. 4-31).
The narration of these events and of the proceedings of Nehemiah in the last section of this book, is introduced by a brief summary (in chap. xii. 44— xiii. 3) of what was done for the ordering of divine worship, and for the separation of Israel from strangers; and this introduction is so annexed to what precedes, not only by the formula W^ri Di52 (xii. 44 and xiii. 1), but also by its contents, that it might be regarded as a summary of what Nehemiah had effected during his first stay at Jerusalem. It is not till the connective ITO "obSj "and before this" (xiii. 4), with which the recital of what occurred during Nehemiah's absence from Jerusalem, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, begins, that we perceive that this description of the restored legal appointments relates not only to the time before the thirtysecond year of Artaxerxes, but applies also to that of Nehemiah's second stay at Jerusalem, and bears only the appearance of an introduction, being in fact a brief summary of all that Nehemiah effected both before and after the thirtysecond year of Artaxerxes. This is a form of statement which, as already remarked, p. 152, is to be explained by the circumstance that Nehemiah did not compile this narrative of his operations till the evening of his days.
Chap. xii. 44-xiii. 3. The reformations in worship and in social life effected by Nehemiah, — Vers. 44-47. Appointments concerning divine worship. Ver. 44. And at that time were certain appointed over the chambers of store-places for the heave-offerings, the first-fruits, and the tenths, to gather into them, according to the fields of the cities, the portions appointed by the law for the priests and Levites. Though the definition of time W^7\ Di*3 corresponds with the wnr\ Dis3 of ver. 43, it is nevertheless used in a more general sense, and does not refer, as in ver. 43, to the day of the dedication of the wall, but only declares that what follows belongs chiefly to the time hitherto spoken of. D^ means, not merely a day of twelve or twenty-four hours, but very frequently stands for the time generally speaking at which anything occurs, or certum quoddam temporis spatium; and it is only from the context that we can perceive whether Dis is used in its narrower or more extended meaning. Hence K^nn Di52 is often used in the historical and prophetical books, de die, or de tempore modo memorato, in contradistinction to n)n Disn? the time present to the narrator; comp. 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, xxx. 25, and the discussion in Gesen. Thes. p. 369. That the expression refers in the present verse not to any particular day, but to the time in question generally, is obvious from the whole statement, vers. 44-47. nmi*6 ntoKO are not chambers for the treasures, i.e. treasure-chambers; but both here and xiii. 12, nrwiN signify places where stores are kept, magazines; hence: these are chambers for store-places for the heave-offerings, etc.; comp. x. 38-40. With respect to ni2BO, see rem. on iii. 30. D'HUH "HB9, according to the fields of the cities, according to the delivery of the tenth of the crop from the fields of the different cities. These contributions necessitated the appointment of individuals to have the care of the store-chambers; il for Judah rejoiced in the priests and the Levites who were ministering," and therefore contributed willingly and abundantly a the portions of the law,"
i.e. the portions prescribed in the law. The form JliWD is exchanged for XlfaB, ver. 47 and xiii. 10. DHB'yn is a shorter expression for (W *0Dp DHD'yn, Deut. x. 8: standing before the Lord, i.e. ministering. — Ver. 45. And they cared for the care of their God, etc.; i.e. they observed all that was to be observed, both with respect to God and with respect to purification, i.e. they faithfully and punctually performed their office. On niDW 106?, see rem. on Gen. xxvi. 5 and Lev. viii. 35. "And (so also) the singers and doorkeepers," i.e. they, too, observed the duties incumbent on them. This must be mentally supplied from the beginning of the verse. u According to the commandment of David and of Solomon his son;" comp. 2 Chron. viii. 14 and 1 Chron. xxiv. 26. 1 must be inserted before nb'5^ as in the LXX. and Yulgate, after the analogy of 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7 and xxxv. 4; for an asyndeton would be here too harsh. As 1 is here omitted, so does it also appear superfluously before *]D?> ver. 46, probably by a clerical error. The verse can be only understood as saying: u for in the days of David, Asaph was of old chief of the singers, and of the songs of praise, and of the thanksgiving unto God." 1 before Asaph is here out of place; for to take it as introducing a conclusion: in the days of David, therefore, was Asaph.., seems unnatural. The) probably came into the text through a reminiscence of 2 Chron. xxix. 30 and xxxv. 15. The matter, however, of these passages is consistent with the naming of David and Asaph, while such a co-ordination is unsuitable in the present passage. The Masoretes have indeed attempted to make sense of the words by altering the singular D'fcTi into the plural ^N"}; but the Keri ^N") is nothing more than a worthless conjecture, arising partly from the unsuitableness of 1 before *]Djjs and partly from the consideration that Henan and Ethan were, as well as Asaph, chiefs of bands of singers. Nehemiah, however, was not concerned in this passage about exactness of statement, — the mention of Asaph as chief of the singers being quite sufficient for the purpose of his remark, that from the times of David onward orders of singers had existed. — In ver. 47 this subject is concluded by the general statement that all Israel, i.e. the whole community, in the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, gave the portions prescribed in the law for the ministers of the sanctuary, singers, doorkeepers, Levites, and priests. D^'^ipo, they were sanctifying, i.e. consecrabant. ^i??, to sanctify, said of the bringing of gifts and dues to the ministers of the sanctuary; comp. 1 Chron. xxvi. 27, Lev. xxvii. 14. On the matter itself, comp. x. 38 sq. and Num. xviii. 26-29.
Chap. xiii. 1-3. Public reading of the laiv, and separation from strangers. — Ver. 1. At a public reading of the law, it was found written therein, that no Ammonite or Moabite should come into the congregation of God, because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam to curse them, though God turned the curse into a blessing. This command, found in Deut. xxiii. 4-6, is given in full as to matter, though slightly abbreviated as to form. The sing. 13^ relates to Balak king of Moab, Num. xxii. 2 sq., and the suffix of Ivy to Israel as a nation; see the explanation of Deut. xxiii. 4 sq. — Ver. 3. This law being understood, all strangers were separated from Israel. y)V is taken from Ex. xii. 38, where it denotes the mixed multitude of non-Israelitish people who followed the Israelites at their departure from Egypt. The word is here transferred to strangers of different heathen nationalities living among the Israelites. The date of the occurrence here related cannot be more precisely defined from the wnn Di*3. Public readings of the law frequently took place in those days, as is obvious from chap. viii. and ix., where we learn that in the seventh month the book of the law was publicly read, not only on the first and second days, but also daily during the feast of tabernacles, and again on the day of prayer and fasting on the twenty-fourth of the month. It appears, however, from TO '3B7, ver. 4, compared with ver. 6, that the reading vers. 1-3 took place in the interval between Nehemiah's first and second stay at Jerusalem. This view is not opposed by the facts mentioned vers. 4 sq. and 23 sq. The separation of the 2}JJ could not be carried out at once; and hence, notwithstanding repeated resolutions to sever themselves from strangers (ix. 2, x. 31), cases to the contrary might be discovered, and make fresh separations needful.
Vers. 4-31. Nehemiah, on Iris return to Jerusalem, reforms the irregularities that had broken out during his absence. — Vers. 4-9. While Nehemiah was at Babylon with King Artaxerxes, Eliashib the high priest had given up to his relative, Tobiah the Ammonite (ii. 10, iii. 35, and elsewhere), a large chamber in the temple, i.e. in the fore-court of the temple (ver. 7), probably for his use as a dwelling when he visited Jerusalem (see rem. on ver. 8). On his return, Nehemiah immediately cast all the furniture of Tobiah out of this chamber, purified the chambers, and restored them to their proper use as a magazine for the temple stores. ^3? TO, before this (comp. Ewald, § 315, c), refers to the beforementioned separation of the 3iy from Israel (ver. 3). Eliashib the priest is probably the high priest of that name (iii. 1, xii. 10, 22). This may be inferred from the particular: set over (he being set over) the chambers of the house of our God; for such oversight of the chambers of the temple would certainly be entrusted to no simple priest, though this addition shows that this oversight did not absolutely form part of the high priest's office. For jrij, in the sense of to set, to place over, comp. 1 Kings ii. 35; the construction with 3 instead of sV is, however, unusual, but may be derived from the local signification of 3, upon, over. Ewald and Bertheau are for reading rb£y instead of the sing. nSKv, because in ver. 5 it is not H3K?n that is spoken of, but a large chamber. n?By may, howe*ver, be also understood collectively. Eliashib, being a relation of Tobiah (3i"ij3 like Ruth ii. 20), prepared him a chamber. The predicate of the sentence, ver. 4, follows in ver. 5 with VV% in the form of a conclusion following the accessory sentence of the subject. How Tobiah was related to Eliashib is nowhere stated. Bertheau conjectures that it was perhaps only through the circumstance that Johanan, the son of Tobiah, had married a daughter of Meshullam ben Berechiah (vi. 18), who, according to iii. 30, was a priest or Levite, and might have been nearly related to the high priest. " A great chamber," perhaps made so by throwing several chambers into one, as older expositors have inferred from ver. 9, according to which Nehemiah, after casting out the goods of Tobiah, had the chambers (plural) cleansed. The statement also in ver. 55, that there (in this great chamber) were aforetime laid up not only the meatofferings (i.e. oil and flour, the materials for them), the incense, and the sacred vessels, but also the tithe of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, and the heave-offerings of the priests, seems to confirm this view. This tenth is designated as Dspn nttfp? the command of the Levites, i.e. what was apportioned to the Levites according to the law, the legal dues for which ttSK>'p is elsewhere usual; comp. Deut. xviii. 3, 1 Sam. ii. 13. The heave-offering of the priest is the tenth of their tenth which the Levites had to contribute, x. 39. — Ver. 6. In all this, i.e. while this was taking place, I was not in Jerusalem; for in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes I went to the king, and after the lapse of some days I entreated the king (Wa like 1 Sam. xx. 6, 28). What he entreated is not expressly stated; but it is ob\ i)us from what follows, " and I came to Jerusalem," that it was permission to return to Judea. Even at his first journey to Jerusalem, Nehemiah only requested leave to make a temporary sojourn there, without giving up his post of royal cup-bearer; comp. ii. 5 sq. Hence, after his twelve years' stay in Jerusalem, he was obliged to go to the king and remain some time at court, and then to beg for fresh leave of absence. How long he remained there cannot be determined, — D^OJ ftv, after the lapse of days, denoting no definite interval; comp. Gen. iv. 3. The view of several expositors, that D*DJ means a year, is devoid of proof. The stay of Nehemiah at court must, as already remarked, p. 149, have lasted longer than a year, since so many illegal acts on the part of the community as Nehemiah on his return discovered to have taken place, could not have occurred in so short a time. Artaxerxes is here called king of Babylon, because the Persian kings had conquered the kingdom of Babylon, and by this conquest obtained dominion over the Jews. Nehemiah uses this title to express also the fact that he had travelled to
Babylon. — Ver. 7. At his return he directed his attention to the evil committed by Eliasliib in preparing a chamber in the court of the temple (3 pan like Ezra viii. 15) for Tobiah. — Vers. 8, 9. This so greatly displeased him, that he cast out all the household stuff of Tobiah, and commanded the chamber to be purified, and the vessels of the house of God, the meat-offering and the frankincense, and probably the tenths and heave-offerings also, the enumeration being here only abbreviated, to be again brought into it. From the words household stuff, it appears that Tobiah used the chamber as a dwelling when he came from time to time to Jerusalem.
Vers. 10-14. The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. — Ver. 10. "And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field." The Levites, i.e. the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministrv their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (xii. 47). When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (xii. 28 sq.), and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the ma to flee to the fields. — Ver. 11. "Then I contended with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? " It was the duty of the D^JP, the heads of the community (comp. ii. 16), to see that the tithes, etc., were regularly brought to the house of God. Hence Nehemiah rebukes them by asking: Why is the house of God forsaken? i.e. through the non-delivery of the dues. On 3TJW, comp. x. 40. This rebuke made the impression desired. Nehemiah assembled the Levites and set them in their place (comp. ix. 3, 2 Chron. xxx. 16, xxxv. 10), i.e. he brought them back to the performance of their official duties, and (ver. 12) all Judah (the whole community) brought the tithe of the corn, etc., into the store-chambers of the temple; comp. x. 38 sq., 2 Chron. xi. 11. — Ver. 13. "And I appointed as managers of the stores (or storehouses, i.e. magazines) Shemaiah the priest," etc. HTflrtW, Hiphil, for H'J^SiK, is a denominative from "&ffe*, to set some one over the treasure. Whether Shemaiah and Zadok are the individuals of these names mentioned in iii. 30, 29, cannot be determined. Zadok is called a "iSHD, a writer or secretary, not a scribe in the Jewish sense of that word. A Pedaiah occurs viii. 4. DX?#!» and at their hand Hanan, probably as an understeward. These four were placed in this position because they were esteemed faithful. Eiivltt, and it was (incumbent) on them (comp. 1 Chron. ix. 27, Ezra x. 12) to distribute to their brethren, i.e. to the priests and Levites, the portions due to them (ver. 10). Nehemiah concludes his account of this matter with the wish, that God may remember him concerning it (comp. v. 19), and not wipe out the kindnesses which lie has shown to the house of God and its watches. nori, abbreviated from the Hiphil nnpri, to cause to wipe out. DHDn like 2 Chron. xxxv. 26. ttTDBto (this form occurring only here), properly watches, watch-posts, here the office of attending on the service of the temple.
Vers. 15-22. Field-work and trading on the Sabbath done away with. — Ver. 15. In those days, i.e. when he was occupied with the arrangements for worship, Nehemiah saw in Judah (in the province) some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses, and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, and bringing it to Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day. The DW30 is again taken up by the second D*fcP3Wj and more closely defined by the addition: to Jerusalem. Robinson describes an ancient wine-press in li is Biblical Researches, p. 178. On N&D"?3, comp. Jer. xvii. 21 sq. *1WJ, and I testified (against them), i.e. warned them on the day wherein they sold victuals. *)% food, victuals; Ps. cxxxii. 15, Josh. ix. 5, 14. He warned them no longer to sell victuals on the Sabbath-day. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that Nehemiah saw how the market people in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem started while it was still the Sabbath, not for the purpose of selling during that day, but for that of being early in the market on the next day, or the next but one. The text, however, offers no support to sucli a notion. In ver. 16 it is expressly said that selling took place in Jerusalem on the Sabbath; and the very bringing thither of wine, grapes, etc., on the Sabbath, presupposes that the sale of these articles was transacted on that day. — Ver. 16. Tyrians also were staying therein, bringing fish and all kind of ware ("V?*?), and sold it on the Sabbath to the sons of Judah and in Jerusalem. 3B* is by most expositors translated, to dwell; but it is improbable that Tyrians would at that time dwell or settle at Jerusalem: hence 3K^ here means to sit, i.e. to stay awhile undisturbed, to tarry. — Vers. 17, 18. Nehemiah reproved the nobles of Judah for this profanation of the Sabbath, reminding them how their fathers (forefathers) by such acts (as rebuked e.g. by Jeremiah, chap. xvii. 21 sq.) had brought upon the people and the city great evil, i.e. the misery of their former exile and present oppression; remarking in addition, u and ye are bringing more wrath upon Israel, profaning the Sabbath," i.e. you are only increasing the wrath of God already lying upon Israel, by your desecration of the Sabbath. Comp. on the last thought, Ezra x. 10, 14. He also instituted measures for the abolition of this trespass. — Ver. 19. He commanded that the gates of Jerusalem should be closed when it began to be dark before the Sabbath, and not re-opened till the Sabbath was over. In the description of this measure the command and its execution are intermixed, or rather the execution is brought forward as the chief matter, and the command inserted therein. il And it came to pass, as soon as the gates of Jerusalem were dark (i.e. when it was dark in the gates) before the Sabbath, I commanded, and the gates were shut; and I commanded that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath," i.e. after sunset on the Sabbath-day. OT, in the sense of to grow dark, occurs in Hebrew only here, and is an Aramaean expression. Nehemiah also placed some of his servants at the gates, that no burdens, i.e. no wares, victuals, etc., might be brought in on the Sabbath. "lE'K is wanting before KtaJ &&; the command is directly alluded to; and, with the command, must be supplied before W3* N«>. The placing of the watch was necessary, because the gates could not be kept strictly closed during the whole of the day, and ingress and egress thus entirely forbidden to the inhabitants. — Ver. 20. Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of ware remained throughout the night outside Jerusalem, once and twrice. Thus, because egress from the city could not be refused to the inhabitants, the rest of the Sabbath was broken outside the gates. Nehemiah therefore put an end to this misdemeanour also. — Ver. 21. He warned the merchants to do this no more, threatening them: "If you do (this) again (i.e. pass the night before the walls), I will lay hands on you," i.e. drive you away by force. The form D*J? for &j? occurs only here as a "semi-passive" formation; comp. Ewald, § 151, b. From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath. — Ver. 22. A further measure taken by Nehemiah for the sanctification of the Sabbath according to the law, is so briefly narrated, that it does not plainly appear in what it consisted. " I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and they should come keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath-day." The meaning of the words 0^3 Dv"ijf$n DnDb> is doubtful. The Masoretes have separated D^NS from Dv"pb> by Sakeph; while de Wette, Bertheau, and others combine these words: and that they should come to the keepers of the doors. This translation cannot be justified by the usage of the language; for Kia with an accusative of the person occurs only, as may be proved, in prophetical and poetical diction (Job xx. 22; Prov. x. 24; Isa. xli. 25; Ezek. xxxii. 11), and then in the sense of to come upon some one, to surprise him, and never in the meaning of to come or go to some one. Nor does this unjustifiable translation give even an appropriate sense. Why should the Levites go to the doorkeepers to sanctify the Sabbath? Bertheau thinks it was for the purpose of solemnly announcing to the doorkeepers that the holy day had begun, or to advertise them by some form of consecration of its commencement. This, however, would have been either a useless or unmeaning ceremony. Hence we must relinquish this connection of the words, and either combine ^"Wn D^ftb> as an asyndeton with D*K3: coming and watching the gates, or: coming as watchers of the gates; and then the measure taken would consist in the appointment of certain Levites to keep the gates on the Sabbath, as well as the ordinary keepers, thus consecrating the Sabbath as a holy day above ordinary days. Nehemiah concludes the account of the abolition of this irregularity, as well as the preceding, by invoking a blessing upon himself; comp. rem. on ver. 14. bv flDin like Joel ii. 17.
wives; and half of their children spoke the speech of Ashdod, because they understood not how to speak the Jews' language, and according to the speech of one and of another people." It is not said, I saw Jews; but, the Jews who...
found an opportunity of seeing them, perhaps upon a journey through the province. From the circumstance, too, that a portion of the children of these marriages were not able to speak the language of the Jews, but spoke the language of were descended, we may conclude with tolerable certainty, that these people dwelt neither in Jerusalem nor in the midst of the Jewish community, but on the borders of the nations to which their wives belonged. 3^'in like Ezra x. 2.
i.e. spake the language, of this and that people (of their mothers). The speech of Ashdod is that of the Philistines, which, according to Hitzig ( Urgeschichte u. Mythol. der languages, however, of the Moabites and Ammonites were undoubtedly Shemitic, but so dialectically different from the Hebrew, that they might be regarded as foreign tongues. — Ver. 25. With these people also Nehemiah contended (3*19 like vers. 11 and 17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair (019, see rem« on Ezra ix. 3), and made them swear by God: Ye shall not give your daughters, etc.; comp. x. 31. On the recurrence of such marriages after the separations effected by Ezra of those existing at his arrival at Jerusalem, comp. the remark, p. 135 sq. Nehemiah did not insist on the immediate dissolution of these marriages, but caused the men to swear that they would desist from such connections, setting before them, in ver. 26, how grievous a sin they were committing. u Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these? " (n?K?y, on account of strange wives). And amon^ many nations there was no king like him (comp. 1 Kings iii. 12 sq., 2 Chron. i. 12); and he was beloved of his God (alluding to 2 Sam. xii. 24), and God made him king over all Israel (1 Kings iv. 1); and even him did foreign women cause to sin (comp. 1 Kings xi. 1-3). u And for you is it heard to do (that ye do) all this great evil, to transgress against our God, and to marry strange wives?" Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: " If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved God, found in his relation to God no defence against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil?" He also rightly explains JM?850n according to Deut. ix. 32; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Rambach, as the first person imperf.: nobisne morem geramus faciendo; or: Should we obey you to do so great an evil? (de Wette); which meaning — apart from the consideration that not obedience, but only toleration of the illegal act, is here in question — greatly weakens, if it does not quite destroy, the contrast between Solomon and D2<\ — Ver. 28. Nehemiah acted with greater severity towards one of the sons of Joiada the high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat. He drove him from him 0??P> that he might not be a burden to me). The reason for this is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanballat, i.e. had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (ii. 10), who was so hostile to Nehemiah and to the Jewish community in general, and would not comply with the demand of Nehemiah that he should dismiss this wife. In this case, Nehemiah was obliged to interfere with authority. For this marriage was a pollution of the priesthood, and a breach of the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Hence he closes the narrative of this occurrence with the wish, ver. 29, that God would be mindful of them (Br1?, of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc., i.e. would punish or chastise them for it. vN3, stat, constr.pl. from /K3, pollution (plurale tant.). It was a pollution of the priesthood to marry a heathen woman, such marriage being opposed to the sacredness of the priestly office, which a priest was to consider even in the choice of a wife, and because of which he might marry neither a whore, nor a feeble nor a divorced woman, while the high priest might marry only a virgin of his own people (Lev. xxi. 7, 14). The son of Joiada who had married a daughter of Sanballat was not indeed his presumptive successor (Johanan, xii. 11), for then he would have been spoken of by name, but a younger son, and therefore a simple priest; he was, however, so nearly related to the high priest, that by his marriage with a heathen woman the holiness of the high-priestly house was polluted, and therewith also "the covenant of the. priesthood," i.e. not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God granted to Phinehas for his zeal (Num. xxv. 13), but the covenant which God concluded with the tribe of Levi, the priesthood, and the Levites, by choosing the tribe of Levi, and of that tribe Aaron and his descendants, to be His priest (fa wnap, Ex. xxviii. 1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be u holy to the Lord " (Lev. xxi. G, 8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace.
Josephus (Ant. xi. 7. 2) relates the similar fact, that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married
Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Cutliite; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excluded him from the priesthood, he established, by the assistance of his fatherin-law, the temple and worship on Mount Gerizim (xi. 8. 2-4), and that many priests made common cause with him. Now, though Josephus calls this Manasseh a brother of Jaddua, thus making him a grandson of Joiada, and transposing the establishment of the Samaritan worship on Gerizim to the last years of Darius Codomannus and the first of Alexander of Macedon, it can scarcely be misunderstood that, notwithstanding these discrepancies, the same occurrence which Nehemiah relates in the present verses is intended by Josephus. The view of older theologians, to which also Petermann (art. Samaria in Herzog's Healenc. xiii. p. 366 sq.) assents, that there were two Sanballats, one in the days of Nehemiah, the other in the time of Alexander the Great, and that both had sons-in-law belonging to the high-priestly family, is very improbable; and the transposition of the fact by Josephus to the times of Darius Codomannus and Alexander accords with the usual and universally acknowledged incorrectness of his chronological combinations. He makes, e.g., Nehemiah arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes, instead of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, while Xerxes reigned only twenty years.
Vers. 30 and 31. Nehemiah concludes his work with a short summary of what he had effected for the community. "I cleansed them from all strangers" (comp. ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1 sq.), u and appointed the services for the priests and Levites, each in his business, and for the wood-offering at times appointed (x. 35), and for the first-fruits " (x. 36 sq.). The suffix to DWntpi refers to the Jews. Taj, strange, means foreign heathen customs, and chiefly marriages with heathen women, ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1. rrfiEK>p Toyn, properly to set a watch, here used in the more general sense of to appoint posts of service for the priests and Levites, i.e. to arrange for the attendance upon those offices which they had to perform at their posts in the temple, according to the law; comp. x. 37, 40, xii. 44-46, xiii. 13. I^pTi'and tfTOsfo, ver. 31, still depend on nnp^b nTOJRJ: I appointed the attendance for the delivery of the wood for the altar at appointed times (comp. x. 35), and for the first-fruits, i.e. for bringing into the sanctuary the heave-offering for the priests. The D*"tt33 are named as pars pro toto, instead of all the rtoiri prescribed by the law. On the arrangements connected with these two subjects, viz. the purification from heathen practices, and the restoration of the regular performance of divine worship, was Nehemiah's whole energy concentrated, after the fortification of Jerusalem by a wall of circumvallation had been completed. He thus earned a lasting claim to the gratitude of the congregation of his fellow-countrymen that returned from Babylon, and could conclude his narrative with the prayer that God would remember him for good. On this frequently-repeated supplication (comp. vers. 14, 22, and v. 19) liambach justly remarks: magnam Nehemice pictatem spiral. This piety is, however — as we cannot fail also to perceive — strongly pervaded by the legal spirit of post-Babylonian Judaism.
HIS book bears the name of I^DN or "»WD£ rfelD, book of Esther, also briefly that of n?JE with the Rabbis, from Esther the Jewess, afterwards raised to the rank of queen, to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance from the destruction with which they were threatened, as related in this book.