Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

1 Bertheau's view, that these stairs were situated where Mount Zion, upon which stood the city of David, descends abruptly towards the east, and therefore on the precipice running from south to north, which still rises ninety-one feet above the ground northwards of the now socalled Bab el Mogharibeh or dung-gate, opposite the southern part of the west wall of the temple area, is decidedly incorrect. For this place is two thousand feet, i.e. more than one thousand cubits, distant from the pool of Siloah, while our text places them immediately after the length of wall by this pool. The transposition of these u steps " to a position within the present wall of the city is, in Bertheaus case, connected with

Vers. 16-19. The wall from the steps leading from the city of David to the angle opposite the armoury. From ver. 16 onwards we find for the most part P^— j a^er him, instead of IT?yy which only occurs again in vers. 17 and 19. Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of half the district of Beth-zur (see rem. on 2 Chron. xi. 7), repaired the wall as far as u opposite the sepulchres of David, and unto the pool that was made, and to the house of the heroes." The sepulchres of David are the sepulchres of the house of David in the city of David (comp. 2 Chron. xxxii. 33). u Opposite the sepulchres of David" is the length of wall on the eastern side of Zion, where was probably, as Thenius the erroneous notion that the fountain -gate (ver. 15 and ii. 14) stood on the site of the present dung-gate {Bab el Mvgharibeh), for which no other reason appears than the assumption that the southern wall of the city of David, before the captivity, went over Zion, in the same direction as the southern wall of modern Jerusalem, only perhaps in a rather more southerly direction, — an assumption shown to be erroneous, even by the circumstance that in this case the sepulchres of David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah would have stood outside the city wall, on the southern part of Zion; while, according to the Scripture narrative, David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah were buried in the city of David (1 Kings ii. 10, xi. 42, xiv. 31, xv. 8, and elsewhere). But apart from this consideration, this hypothesis is shattered by the statements of this fifteenth verse, which Bertheau cannot explain so inconsistently with the other statements concerning the building of the wall, as to make them say that any one coming from the west and going round by the south of the city towards the east, would first arrive at the fountain-gate, and then at the portion of wall in question; but is obliged to explain, so that the chief work, the building of the fountain-gate, is mentioned first; then the slighter work, the reparation of a length of wall as supplementary; and this makes the localities enumerated in ver. 13 succeed each other in the following order, in a direction from the west by south and east towards the north: " Valley-gate — one thousand cubits of wall as far as the dung-gate; dung-gate — the wall of the conduit towards the king's garden, as far as the stairs which lead from the city of David — fountaingate." No adequate reason for this transposition of the text is afforded by the circumstance that no portion of wall is mentioned (vers. 14 and 15) as being repaired between the dung-gate and the valley-gate. For how do we know that this portion on the southern side of Zion was broken down and needing repair? Might not the length between these two gates have been left standing when the city was burnt by the Chaldeans?

endeavours to show in the Zeitschr. of the deutscli morgeul. Gesellsch. xxi. p. 495 sq., an entrance to the burying-place of the house of David, which was within the city. The u pool that was made" must be sought at no great distance, in the Tyropcean valley, but has not yet been discovered. The view of Krafft {Topographie von Jerusalem, p. 152), that it was the reservoir artificially constructed by Hezekiah, between the two walls for the water of the old pool (Isa. xxii. 11), rests upon incorrect combinations. " The house of the heroes" is also unknown. In vers. 17 and 18, the lengths of wall repaired by the three building parties there mentioned are not stated. a The Levites, Rehum the son of Bani," stands for: the Levites under Rehum the son of Bani. There was a Rehum anions those who returned with Zerubbabel, xii. 3, Ezra ii. 2; and a Bani occurs among the Levites in ix. 5. After him repaired Hashabiah, the ruler of half the district of Keilah, for his district. Keilah, situate, according to Josh. xv. 44 and 1 Sam. xxiii. 1, in the hill region, is probably the village of Kila, discovered by Tobler (vol. iii. p. 151), eastward of Beit Dshibrin. By the addition is???, for his district, i.e. that half of the whole district which was under his rule, " it is expressly stated that the two halves of the district of Keilah worked apart one from the other" (Bertheau). The other half is mentioned in the verse next following. — Ver. 18. " Their brethren" are the inhabitants of the second half, who were under the rule of Bavai the son of Henadad. — Ver. 19. Next to these repaired Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah, another piece (on JVJt? rPJD? see rem. on ver. 11) opposite the ascent to the armoury of the angle. P0.O or pV}J} (in most editions) is probably an abbreviation of PBOTTP3, arsenal, armoury; and yiVfprpn is, notwithstanding the article in P&?J}9 genitive: for to combine it as an accusative with fifty, and read, " the going up of the armoury upon the angle," gives no suitable meaning. The locality itself cannot indeed be more precisely stated. The armoury was probably situate on the east side of Zion, at a place where the wall of the city formed an angle; or it occupied an angle within the city itself, no other buildings adjoining it on the south. The opinion of Bertheau, that the armoury stood where the tower described by Tobler (Dritte Wand. p. 228) stands, viz. about midway between the modern Zion gate and the dung-gate, and of which he says that u its lower strata of stones are undoubtedly of a remoter date than the rebuilding of the wall in the sixteenth century," coincides with the assumption already refuted, that the old wall of the city of David passed, like the southern wall of modern Jerusalem, over Mount Zion.

Vers. 20-25. The wall from the angle to the place of the court of the prison by the king's upper house. — Ver. 20. After him Baruch the son of Zabbai emulously repaired a second length of wall, from the ano-le to the door of the house of Eliashib the high priest. Bertheau objects to the reading •"■"jr^, and conjectures that it should be STJJtJ, u up the hill." But the reason he adduces, viz. that often as the word P^nn occurs in this description, a further definition is nowhere else added to it, speaks as much against, as for his proposed alteration; definitions of locality never, throughout the entire narrative, preceding?^.^}, but uniformly standing after it, as also in the present verse. Certainly fTjnn cannot here mean either to be angry, or to be incensed, but may without difficulty be taken, in the sense of the Tiphal "TJJRJj to emulate, to contend (Jer. xxii. 15, xii. 5), and the perfect adverbially subordinated to the following verb (comp. Gesen. Gramm. § 142, 3, a). The Keri offers ^T instead of "•ST, probably from Ezra ii. 9, but on insufficient grounds, the name '•ST occurring also Ezra x. 28. Of the position of the house of Eliashib the high priest, we know nothing further than what appears from these verses (20 and 21), viz. that it stood at the northern part of the eastern side of Zion (not at the south-western angle of the temple area, as Bertheau supposes), and extended some considerable distance from south to north, the second length of wall built by Meremoth reaching from the door at its southern end to the nv3^, termination, at its northern end. On Meremoth, see rem. on ver. 4. — Ver. 22. Farther northwards repaired the priests, the men of the district of Jordan. ^33 does not, as Bertheau infers from xii. i8, signify the country round Jerusalem, but here, as there, the valley of the Jordan. See rem. on xii. 28 and on Gen. xiii. 10. Hence this verse informs us that priests were then dwelling in the valley of the Jordan, probably in the neighbourhood of Jericho. The length of wall built by these priests is not further particularized.— Ver. 23. Further on repaired Benjamin and Hashub over against their house, and Azariah the son of Maaseiah, by his house. Nothing further is known of these individuals. — Ver. 24. Next repaired Binnui the son of Henadad, a second portion from the house of Azariah, to the angle and to the corner; and further on (ver. 25) Palal the son of Uzzai, from opposite the angle and the high tower which stands out from the king's house by the court of the prison. We join Pv^ to W^D, though it is also verbally admissible to combine it with "H^l1 JV3, u the tower which stands out from the king's upper house," because nothing is known of an upper and lower king's house. It would be more natural to assume (with Bertheau) that there was an upper and a lower tower at the court of the prison, but this is not implied by fiyVn. The word means first, high, elevated, and its use does not assume the existence of a lower tower; while the circumstance that the same tower is in ver. 27 called the great (^"U?) tells in favour of the meaning high in the present case. The court of the prison was, according to Jer. xxxii. 2, in or near the king's house; it is also mentioned Jer. xxxii. 8, 12, xxxiii. 1, xxxvii. 21, xxxviii. 6, 13, 28, and xxxix. 14. But from none of these passages can it be inferred, as by Bertheau, that it was situate in the neighbourhood of the temple. His further remark, too, that the king's house is not the royal palace in the city of David, but an official edifice standing upon or near the temple area, and including the court of the prison with its towers, is entirely without foundation.1 The royal palace lay, according

1 Equally devoid of proof -is the view of Ewald, Diestel (in Herzog's Kealencycl. xiii. p. 325), Arnold, and others, that the royal palace stood upon Moriah or Ophel on the south side of the temple, in support of to Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. 2, opposite the temple {avTiKpv? e^cov vaov), i.e. on the north-eastern side of Zion, and this is quite in accordance with the statements of this verse; for as it is not till ver. 27 that the description of the wall-building reaches the walls of Ophel, all t\e localities and buildings spoken of in vers. 24-2 la must be sought for on the east side of Zion. The court of the prison formed, accord ing to Eastern custom, part of the royal fortress upon Zion The citadel had, moreover, a high tower. This is obvious from Cant. iv. 4, though the tower of David there mentioned, on which hung a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men, may not be identical with the tower of the king's house in this passage; from Mic. iv. 8, where the tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, is the tower of the royal citadel; and from Isa. xxxii. 14. where citadel and tower (in?, properly watch-tower) answer to the PB"]*? of the royal citadel, which lay with its forts upon the hill of Zion. This high tower of the king's house, i.e. of the royal citadel, stood, according to our verses, in the immediate neighbourhood of the angle and the corner (n3Qn); for the section of wall which reached to the H|Q lay opposite the angle and the high tower of the king's house. The wall here evidently formed a corner, running no longer from south to north, but turning eastwards, and passing over Ophel, the southern spur of Moriah. A length from this corner onwards was built bv Pedaiah the son of Parosh: comp. Ezra ii. 3.

Vers. 26 and 27. Having now reached the place where the wall encloses Ophel, a remark is inserted, ver. 26, on the dwellings of the Nethinim, i.e. of the temple servants. The Nethinim dwelt in Ophel as far as (the place) before the water-gate toward the east, and the tower that standeth out. '*•! siytpn still depends upon *1J3 *U>. The water-gate towards the east, judging from xii. 37, lay beyond the southeastern corner of the temple area. Bertheau, reasoning upon the view that the open space of the house of God, which Diestel adduces Neh. iii. 25. See the refutation of this view in the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 12 (note).

where Ezra spoke to the assembled people (Ezra x. 9), is identical with the open place before the water-gate mentioned Neh. viii. 1, 3, 16, places it on the east side of the temple area, near where the golden gate (Rab er Rahme) now stands. This identity, however, cannot be proved; and even if It could, it would by no means follow that this open space lay on the east side of the temple area. And as little does it follow from xii. 37, as we shall show when we reach this passage. N^5? <^®0 *s sa^ ^y Bertheau to have belonged perhaps to the water-gate towards the east, since, by reason of the statements contained in vers. 31 and 32, we must not seek it so far northwards on the east side of the temple area, as to combine it with the remains of a tower projecting seven and a half feet from the line of wall at the north-east corner, and described by Robinson (Biblical Researches^ p. 226). But even if the tower in question must not be identified with these remains, it by no means follows that it stood in the neighbourhood of the golden gate. Even Arnold, in his work already cited, p. 636, remarks, in opposition to Bertbeau's view, that M it is evident from the whole statement that the tower standing out from the king's house, in vers. 25, 26, and 27, is one and the same, and that Bertheau's view of our having here three separate towers can hardly be maintained," although he, as well as Bertheau, transposes both the king's house and the court of the prison to the south of the temple area. The similar appellation of this tower as N^s;] in the three verses speaks so decidedly for its identity, that very forcible reasons must be adduced before the opposite view can be adopted. In ver. 26 it is not a locality near the water-gate in the east which is indicated by N^isn ^iSHj but the western boundary of the dwellings of the Nethinim lying opposite. They dwelt, that is, upon Ophel, southwards of the temple area, on a tract of land reaching from the water-gate in the east to opposite the outstanding tower of the royal citadel in the west, i.e. from the eastern slope of the ridge of Ophel down to the Tyropcean valley. — Ver. 27. After them the Tekoites repaired a second piece from opposite the great tower that standeth out to the wall of Ophel. The great (high) tower of the king*s house within the city wall being some distance removed therefrom, the portion of wall on the eastern ridge of Zion from south to north, reaching as far as the turning and the corner, and the commencement of the wall running from this corner eastwards, might both be designated as lying opposite to this tower. The portion mentioned in our verse passed along the Tyropcean valley as far as the wall of Ophel. King Jotham had built much on the wall of Ophel (2 Chron. xxvii. 3); and Manasseh had surrounded Ophel with a very high wall (2 Chron. xxxiii. 14), i.e. carried the wall round its western, southern, and eastern sides. On the north no wall was needed, Ophel being protected on this side by the southern wall of the temple area.

Vers. 28-32. The wall of Ophel and the eastern side of the temple area. — Ve'r. 28. Above the horse-gate repaired the priests, each opposite his own house. The site of the horsegate appears, from 2 Chron. xxiii. 15 compared with 2 Kings xi. 6, to have been not far distant from the temple and the royal palace; while according to the present verse, compared with ver. 27, it stood in the neighbourhood of the wall of Ophel, and might well be regarded as even belonging to it. Hence we have, with Thenius, to seek it in the wall running over the Tyropoean valley, and uniting the eastern edge of Zion with the western edge of Ophel in the position of the present dung-gate (Bab el Mogharibeli). This accords with Jer. xxxi. 40, where it is also mentioned; and from which passage Bertheau infers that it stood at the western side of the valley of Kidron, below the east corner of the temple area. The particular?$ft, " from over," that is, above, is not to be understood of a point northivards of the horse-gate, but denotes the place where the wall, passing up from Zion to Ophel, ascended the side of Ophel east of the horse-gate. If, then, the priests here repaired each opposite his house, it is evident that a row of priests' dwellings were built on the western side of Ophel, south of the south-western extremity of the temple area. — Ver. 29. Zadok ben Immer (Ezra ii. 37) was probably the head of the priestly order of Immer.

Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah, the keeper of the east gate, can hardly be the same as the Shemaiah of the sons of Shecaniah entered among the descendants of David in 1 Chron. iii. 22. He might rather be regarded as a descendant of the Shemaiah of 1 Chron. xxvi. 6 sq., if the latter had not been enumerated among the sons of Obed-Edom, whose duty was to guard the south side of the temple. The east gate is undoubtedly the east gate of the temple, and not to be identified, as by Bertheau, with the water-gate towards the east (ver. 26). The place where Shemaiah repaired is not more precisely defined; nor can we infer, with Bertheau, from the circumstance of his being the keeper of the east gate, that he, together with his subordinate keepers, laboured at the fortification of this gate and its adjoining section of wall. Such a view is opposed to die order of the description, which passes on to a portion of the wall of Ophel; see rem. on ver. 31. — Ver. 30. ^W here and in ver. 31 gives no appropriate sense, and is certainly only an error of transcription arising from the scriptio defect, YJHK. Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, are not further known. The name of Meshullam the son of Berechiah occurs previously in ver. 4; but the same individual can hardly be intended in the two verses, the one mentioned in ver. 4 being distinguished from others of the same name by the addition ben Meshezabeel. W for JW8P (vers. 27, 24, and elsewhere) is grammatically incorrect, if not a mere error of transcription. iri320 TI3, before his dwelling. na&w occurs only here and xiii. 7, and in the plural rnatwn, xii. 44; it seems, judging from the latter passage, only another form for i"i3^?, chamber; while in xiii. 7, on the contrary, H3B0 is distinguished from H3B7, xiii. 4, 5. Its etymology is obscure. In xiii. 7 it seems to signify dwelling. — Ver. 31. *Q"}J?n is not a proper name, but an appellative, son of the goldsmith, or perhaps better, member of the goldsmiths' guild, according to which ^"isfn does not stand for n?.^, but designates those belonging to the goldsmiths. The statements, (he repaired) unto the house of the Nethinim, and of the merchants opposite the gate "li^n, and to the upper chamber of the corner, are obscure. This rendering is according to the Masoretic punctuation; while the LXX., on the contrary, translate according to a different division of the words: Malchiah repaired as far as the house of the Nethinim, and the spice-merchants (repaired) opposite the gate Miphkad, and as far as the ascent of the corner. This translation is preferred by Bertheau, but upon questionable grounds. For the objection made by him, that if the other be adopted, either the same termination would be stated twice in different forms, or that two different terminations are intended, in which case it does not appear why one only should first be mentioned, and then the other also, is not of much importance. In ver. 24 also two terminations are mentioned, while in ver*. 16 we have even three together. And why should not this occur here also^ Of more weight is the consideration, that to follow the Masoretic punctuation is to make the house of the Nethinim and of the merchants but one building. Since, however, we know nothing further concerning the edifice in question, the subject is not one for discussion. The rendering of the LXX., on the other hand, is opposed by the weighty objection that there is a total absence of analogy for supplying ^Jpn Vinsi; for throughout this long enumeration of forty-two sections of wall, the verb P7D? or *P7!!!l?> or some corresponding verb, always stands either before or after every name of the builders, and even the ViriK is omitted only once (ver. 25). To the statement, " as far as the house of the Nethinim and the merchants," is appended the further definition: before (opposite) the gate "iijatpn. This word is reproduced in the LXX. as a proper name (rov MafafcdS), as is also BWlfn rP3, eco<; BeOav Na6ivifi); in the Vulgate it is rendered appellatively: contra portam judicialem; and hence by Luther, Rathsthor. Thenius translates (Stadt, p. 9): the muster or punishment gate. "JjJBJ? does not, however, signify punishment, although the view may be correct that the gate took the name 1|J?tt? from the JV3n 1|??9 mentioned Ezek. xliii. 21, where the bullock of the sin-offering was to be burnt without the sanctuary; and it may be inferred from this passage that near the temple of Solomon also there was an appointed place for burning the flesh of the sin-offering without the sanctuary. In Ezekiel's temple vision, this H*3H "Tj5DD is probably to be sought in the space behind the sanctuary, i.e. at the western end of the great square of five hundred cubits, set apart for the temple, and designated the Gizra, or separate place. In the temples of Solomon and Zerubbabel, however, the place in question could not have been situate at the west side of the temple, between the temple and the city, which lay opposite, but only on the south side of the temple area, outside the court, upon Ophel, where Thenius has delineated it in his plan of Jerusalem before the captivity. Whether it lay, however, at the southwestern corner of the temple space (Thenius), or in the middle, or near the east end of the southern side of the external wall of the temple or temple court, can be determined neither from the present passage nor from Ezekiel's vision. Not from Ezek. xliii. 21, because the temple vision of this prophet is of an ideal character, differing in many points from the actual temple; not from the present passage, because the position of the house of the Nethinim and the merchants is unknown, and the definition "U3, (before) opposite the gate Miphkad, admits of several explanations. Thus much only is certain concerning this Miphkad gate, — on the one hand, from the circumstance that the wall was built before (ptt) or opposite this gate, on the other, from its omission in xii. 39, where the prison-gate is mentioned as being in this neighbourhood in its stead, — that it was not a gate of the city, but a gate through which the ^££0 was reached. A^ain, it is evident that the n^y of the corner which is mentioned as the length of wall next following, must be sought for at the south-eastern corner of the temple area. Hence the house of the temple servants and the merchants must have been situate south of this, on the eastern side of Ophel, where it descends into the valley of Kidron. n^sn nvy, the upper chamber of the corner, was perhaps a v-rrepwov of a corner tower, not at the north-eastern corner of the external circumvallation of the temple area (Bertheau), but at the south-eastern corner, which was formed by the junction at this point of the wall of Ophel with the eastern wall of the temple area. If these views are correct, all the sections mentioned from ver. 28 to ver. 31 belong to the wall surrounding Ophel. This must have been of considerable length, for Ophel extended almost to the pool of Siloam, and was walled round on its western, southern, and eastern sides. — Ver. 32. The last section, between the upper chamber of the corner and the sheep- gate, was repaired by the goldsmiths and the merchants. This* is the whole length of the east wall of the temple as far as the sheep-gate, at which this description began (ver. 1). The eastern wall of the temple area might have suffered less than the rest of the wall at the demolition of the city by the Chaldeans, or perhaps have been partly repaired at the time the temple was rebuilt, so that less restoration was now needed.

A survey of the whole enumeration of the gates and lengths of wall now restored and fortified, commencing and terminating as it does at the sheep-gate, and connecting almost always the several portions either built or repaired by the words (d7t) ^ ^ cr ^I^j gives good grounds for inferring that in the forty-two sections, including the gates, particularized vers. 1-32, we have a description of the entire fortified wall surrounding the city, without a single gap. In ver. 7, indeed, as we learn by comparing it with xii. 29, the mention of the gate of Ephraim is omitted, and in 30 or 31, to judge by xii. 39, the prison-gate; while the wall lying between the dung-gate and the fountain-gate is not mentioned between vers. 14 and 15. The non-mention, however, of these gates and this portion of wall may be explained by the circumstance, that these parts of the fortification, having remained unharmed, were in need of no restoration. We read, it is true, in 2 Kings xxv. 10 and 11, that Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of Nebuchadnezzar, burnt the king's house and all the great houses of the city, and that the army of the Chaldees broke down or destroyed (fro) the walls of Jerusalem round about; but these words must not be so pressed as to make them express a total levelling of the surrounding wall. The wall was only so far demolished as to be incapable of any longer serving as a defence to the city. And this end was fully accomplished when it was partially demolished in several places, because the portions of wall, and even the towers and gates, still perhaps left standing, could then no longer afford any protection to the city. The danger that the Jews might easily refortify the city unless the fortifications were entirely demolished, was sufficiently obviated by the carrying away into captivity of the greater part of the population. This explains the fact that nothing is said in this description of the restoration of the towers of Hananeel and Hammeah (ver. 11), and that certain building parties repaired very long lengths of wall, as e.g. the 1000 cubits between the fountain-gate and the dung-gate, while others had very short portions appointed them. The latter was especially the case with those who built on the east side of Zion, because this being the part at which King Zedekiah fled from the city, the wall may here have been levelled to the ground.

From the consideration of the course of the wall, so far as the description in the present chapter enables us to determine it with tolerable certainty, and a comparison with the procession of the two bands of singers round the restored wall in chap. xii. 31-40, which agrees in the chief points with this description, it appears that the wall on the northern side of the city, before the captivity, coincided in the main with the northern wall of modern Jerusalem, being only somewhat shorter at the north-eastern and north-western corners; and that it ran from the valley (or Jaffa) gate by the tower of furnaces, the gate of Ephraim, the old gate, and the fish-gate to the sheep-gate, maintaining, on the whole, the same direction as the second wall described by Josephus {bell. Jud. v. 4. 2.) In many places remains of this wall, which bear testimony to their existence at a period long prior to Josephus, have recently been discovered. In an angle of the present wall near the Latin monastery are found " remains of a wall built of mortice-edged stones, near which lie blocks so lan^e that we at first took them for portions of the natural rock, but found them on closer inspection to be morticed stones removed from their place. A comparatively large number of stones, both in the present wall between the north-west corner of the tower and the Damascus gate, and in the adjoining buildings, are morticed and hewn out of ancient material, and we can scarcely resist the impression that this must have been about the direction of an older wall." So Wolcott and Tipping in Robinson's New Biblical Researches. Still nearer to the gate, about three hundred feet west of it, Dr. Wilson remarks {Lands of the Bible, i. p. 421), " that the wall, to some considerable height above its foundation, bears evidence, by the size and peculiarity of its stones, to its high antiquity," and attributes this portion to the old second wall (see Robinson). " Eastward, too, near the Damascus gate, and even near the eastern tower, are found very remarkable remains of Jewish antiquity. The similarity of these remains of wall to those surrounding the site of the temple is most surprising" (Tobler, Dritte Wand. p. 339). From these remains, and the intimations of Josephus concerning the second wall, Robinson justly infers that the ancient wall must have run from the Damascus gate to a place in the neighbourhood of the Latin monastery, and that its course thence must have been nearly along the road leading northwards from the citadel to the Latin monastery, while between the monastery and the Damascus gate it nearly coincided with the present wall. Of the length from the Damascus gate to the sheep-gate no certain indications have as yet been found. According to Robinson's ideas, it probably went from the Damascus gate, at first eastwards in the direction of the present wall, and onwards to the highest point of Bezetha; but then bent, as Bertheau supposes, in a south-easterly direction, and ran to a point in the present wall lying north-east of the Church of St. Anne, and thence directly south towards the north-east corner of the temple area. On the south side, on the contrary, the whole of the hill of Zion belonged to the ancient city; and the wTall did not, like the modern, pass across the middle of Zion, thus excluding the southern half of this hill from the city, but went on the west, south, and south-east, round the edge of Zion, so that the city of Zion was as large again as that portion of modern Jerusalem lying on the hill of Zion, and included the sepulchres of David and of the kings of Judah, which are now outside the city wall. Tobler (Dritte Wand. p. 336) believes that a trace of the course of the ancient wall has been discovered in the cutting in the rock recently uncovered outside the city, where, at the building of the Anglican Episcopal school, which lies two hundred paces westward under En-Nebi-Daud, and the levelling of the garden and cemetery, were found edged stones lying scattered about, and " remarkable artificial walls of rock," whose direction shows that they must have supported the oldest or first wall of the city; for they are just so far distant from the level of the valley, that the wall could, or rather must, have stood there. " And," continues Tobler, u not only so, but the course of the wall of rock is also to a certain extent parallel with that of the valley, as must be supposed to be the case with a rocky foundation to a city wall." Finally, the city was bounded on its western and eastern sides by the valleys of Gihon and Jehoshaphat respectively.

Vers. 33-38 (chap. iv. 1-6, A. V.). The ridicule of Tobiali and Sanballat. — Vers. 33 and 34. As soon as Sanballat heard that we wrere building (0*^5, partic, expresses not merely the resolve or desire to build, but also the act of commencing), he was wroth and indignant, and vented his anger by ridiculing the Jews, saying before his brethren, i.e. the rulers of his people, and the army of Samaria (?*n, like Esth. i. 3, 2 Kings xviii. 17), — in other words, saying publicly before his associates and subordinates, — " What do these feeble Jews? will they leave it to themselves? will they sacrifice? will they finish it to-day? will they revive the stones out of the heaps that are burned?" DW SID, not, What will they do? (Bertheau), for the participle is present, and does not stand for the future; but, What are they doing? The form fes, withered, powerless, occurs here only. The subject of the four succeeding interrogative sentences must be the same. And this is enough to render inadmissible the explanation offered by older expositors of Dn> ^TOVi: Will they leave to them, viz. will the neighbouring nations or the roval prefects allow them to build? Here, as in the case of the following verbs, the subject can only be the Jews. Hence Ewald seeks, both here and in ver. 8, to give to the verb TO the meaning to shelter: Will they make a shelter for themselves, i.e. will they fortify the town? But this is quite arbitrary. Bertheau more correctly compares the passage, Ps. x. 14, &'?%. by ^TO5 we leave it to God; but incorrectly infers that here also we must supply DM^X by, and that, Will they leave to themselves? means, Will they commit the matter to God? This mode of completing the sense, however, can by no means be justified; and Bertheau's conjecture, that the Jews now assembling in Jerusalem, before commencing the work itself, instituted a devotional solemnity which Sanballat was ridiculing, is incompatible with the correct rendering of the participle. TO construed with? means to leave, to commit a matter to any one, like Ps. x. 14, and the sense is: Will they leave the building of the fortified walls to themselves? i.e. Do they think they are able with their poor resources to carry out this great work? This is appropriately followed by the next question: Will they sacrifice? i.e. bring sacrifices to obtain God's miraculous assistance? The ridicule lies in the circumstance that Sanballat neither credited the Jews with ability to carry out the work, nor believed in the overruling providence of the God whom the Jews worshipped, and therefore casts scorn by *n3£ij both upon the faith of the Jews in their God and upon the living God Himself. As these two questions are internally connected, so also are the two following, by which Sanballat casts a doubt upon the possibility of the work being executed. Will they finish (the work) on this day, i.e. to-day, directly? The meaning is: Is this a matter to be as quickly executed as if it were the work of a single day? The last question is: Have they even the requisite materials? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish which are burnt?

The building-stone of Jerusalem was limestone, which gets softened by fire, losing its durability, and, so to speak, its vitality. This explains the use of the verb n»n} to revive, to give fresh vital power. To revive burnt stones means, to bestow strength and durability upon the softened crumbled stones, to -fit the stones into a new building (Ges. Lex.). The construction rrtSTKP nrarn is explained by the circumstance that Q^3X is by its form masculine, but by its meanins feminine, and that nran agrees with the form D^3«. — Ver. 35. Tobiah the Ammonite, standing near Sanballat, and joining in in his raillery, adds: u Even that which they build, if a fox go up he will break their stone wall;" i.e., even if they build up walls, the light footsteps of the stealthy fox will suffice to tread them down, and to make breaches in their work. — Vers. 36 and 37. When Nehemiah heard of these contemptuous words, he committed the matter to God, entreating Him to hear how they (the Jews) were become a scorn, i.e. a subject of contempt, to turn the reproach of the enemies upon their own head, and to give them up to plunder in a land of captivity, i.e. in a land in which they would dwell as captives. He supplicates, moreover, that God would not cover, i.e. forgive (Ps. Ixxxv. 3), their iniquity, and that their sin might not be blotted out from before His face, i.e. might not remain unpunished, u for they have provoked to wrath before the builders," i.e. openly challenged the wrath of God, by despising Him before the builders, so that they heard it. DsJ?2n without an object, spoken of provoking the divine wrath by grievous sins; comp. 2 Kings xxi. 6 with 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. — Ver. 38. The Jews continued to build without heeding the ridicule of their enemies, 11 and all the wall was joined together unto the half thereof," i.e. the wall was so far repaired throughout its whole circumference, that no breach or gap was left up to half its height; u and the people had a heart to work," i.e. the restoration went on so quickly because the people had a mind to work.

Chap. iv. The attempts of the enemies to hinder the work by force, and Nehemialis precautions against them. — Vers. 1-8. When the enemies learnt that the restoration of the wall was evidently getting on, they conspired together to fight against Jerusalem (vers. 1 and 2). The Jews then prayed to God, and set a watch (ver. 3). When the courage of the people began to fail, and their enemies spread a report of sudden attack being imminent, Nehemiah furnished the people on the wall with weapons, and encouraged the nobles and rulers to fight boldly for their brethren, their children, and their possessions (vers, 4-8). The Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdodites are here enumerated as enemies, besides Sanballat and Tobiah (vers. 2, 10, 19). The Arabians were incited to hostilities against the Jews by Geshem (11, 19), and the Ammonites by Tobiah; the Ashdodites, the inhabitants of the city and territory of Ashdod, in the coast district of Philistia, were perhaps encouraged to renew their old hatred of Judah by Sanballat the Horonite. When these enemies heard that the walls of Jerusalem were bandaged, i.e. that the breaches and damages in the wall were repaired, they were filled with wrath. The biblical expression, to lay on a bandage, here and 2 Chron. xxiv. 13, Jjer. viii. 22, xxx. 17, xxxiii. 6, is derived from the healing of wounds by means of a bandage, and is explained by the sentence following: that the breaches began to be closed or stopped. The enemies conspired together to march against Jerusalem and injure it. v, because the people of the town are meant, nyin occurs but once more, viz. in Isa. xxxii. 6, in the sense of error; here it signifies calamities, for, as Aben Ezra well remarks, qui in angustiis constitutus est, est velut erranSy qui nescit quid agat quove se vertat. — Ver. 3. The Jews, on the other hand, made preparation by prayer, and by setting a watch ("^'P, comp. vii. 3, xiii. 30) day and night. We, viz. Nehemiah and the superintendents of the work, prayed and set a watch B^vV, against them, to ward off a probable attack. B^V.??? for fear of them, comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 4. The placing of the watch day and night, and the continuous labour, must have pressed heavily upon the people; therefore Judah said: u The strength of the bearers of burdens fails, and there is much rubbish; we are not able to build the wall." That is to say, the labour is beyond our power, we cannot continue it. — Ver. 5. Their discouragement was increased by the words of their enemies, who said: They (the Jews) shall not know nor see, till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and cause the work to cease. — Ver. 6. When, therefore, the Jews who dwelt near them, i.e. in the neighbourhood of the adversaries, and heard their words, came to Jerusalem, " and said to us ten times (i.e. again and again), that from all places ye must return to us, then I placed," etc. Jews came from all places to Jerusalem, and summoned those who were building there to return home, for adversaries were surrounding the community on all sides: Sanballat and the Samaritans on the north, the Ammonites on the east, the Arabians on the south, and the Philistines (Ashdodites) on the west. i^N before UiKTi introduces their address, instead of *3; being thus used, e.g., before longer speeches, 1 Sam. xv. 20, 2 Sam. i. 4; and for "'3 generally, throughout the later books, in conformity to Aramasan usage. "Return to us" Q>V 3*8?, as in 2 Chron. xxx. 9, for?K 3tt5*), said the Jews who came from all quarters to Jerusalem to their fellow-townsmen, who from Jericho, Gibeon, and Tekoa (comp. iii. 2, 3, 5, 7) were working on the wall of Jerusalem. These words express their fear lest those who were left at home, especially the defenceless women, children, and aged men, should be left without protection against the attacks of enemies, if their able-bodied men remained any longer in Jerusalem to take part in the building of the wall. — Ver. la is hardly intelligible. We translate it: Then I placed at the lowest places behind the wall, at the dried-up places, I (even) placed the people, after their families, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. Dips? ni'nnnn is a stronger expression for Dip©/ linnp when used to indicate position, and \Q points out the direction. The sense is: at the lowest places from behind the wall. Dinars gives the nature of the places where the people were placed with arms, rvnx anc[ nrriTC mean a dry or bare place exposed to the heat of the sun: bare, uncovered, or empty places, perhaps bare hills, whence approaching foes might be discerned at a distance. The second TDJM is but a reiteration of the verb, for the sake of combining it with its object, from which the *H?PK] at the beginning of the verse was too far removed by the circumstantial description of the locality.1 — Ver. 8. " And I looked, and rose up, and said." These words can only mean: When I saw the people thus placed with their weapons, I went to them, and said to the nobles, etc., u Be not afraid of them (the enemies); remember the Lord, the great and the terrible," who will fight for you against your enemies (Deut. fii. 22, xx. 3, and xxxi. 6), " and fight ye for your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your houses," whom the enemies would destroy.

Vers. 9-17. Thus was the design of the enemy circumvented, and the Jews returned to their work on the wall, which they had forsaken to betake themselves to their weapons. The manner in which they resumed their building work was, that one half held weapons, and the other half laboured with weapons in hand. — Ver. 9. When our enemies heard that it (their intention) was known to us, and (that) God had brought their counsel to nought (through the measures with which we had met it), we returned all of us to the wall, every one to his work. The conclusion does not begin till 3lB*31j '?Kn ID*} belonging to the premiss, in continuation of JHH ^3. — Ver. 10. From that day the half of my servants wrought at the work, and the other half of them held the

1 Bertheau considers the text corrupt, regarding the word DVfinnft as the object of TD^X and alters it into nncnD or nijh^n engines for hurling missiles (2 Chron. xxvi. 15), or into nVinEO (a word of his own invention), instruments for hurling. But not only is this conjecture critically inadmissible, it also offers no appropriate sense. The LXX. reads the text as we do, and merely renders D^nnVS conjecturally by h rol; <jx,i7zuvdi$. Besides, it is not easy to see how ryU3£TJ could have arisen from a false reading of nvnnriD; and it should be remembered that niDCTIS does not mean a machine for hurling, while nViriDD is a mere fabrication. To this must be added, that such machines are indeed placed upon the walls of a fortress to hurl down stones and projectiles upon assaulting foes, and not behind the walls, where they could only be used to demolish the walls, and so facilitate the taking of the town by the enemy.

spears and shields, the bows and the armour, i.e. carried the arms. The servants of Nehemiah are his personal retinue, ver. 17, v. 10, 16, namely, Jews placed at his disposal as Pechah for official purposes. The l before ^npin was probably placed before this word, instead of before the E^tsn following, by a clerical error; for if it stood before the latter also, it miMit be taken in the sense of et — et. D^ino instead of beino- construed with 3, is in the accusative, as also in ver. 11, and even in Jer. vi. 23 and Isa. xli. 9, 13. Unnecessary and unsuitable is the conjecture of Bertheau, that the word D^noia originally stood after D^tnn and that a fresh sentence begins with D^ncnfjl: and the other half held the spears; and the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the armour, and the rulers, were behind the whole house of Judah, — a strange combination, which places the weapons and rulers behind the house of Judah. Besides, of the circumstance of the weapons being placed behind the builders, so that they might at any moment seize them, we not only read nothing in the text; but in vers. 11 and 12 just the contrary, viz. that the builders wrought with one hand, and with the other held a weapon. " The rulers were behind all the house of Judah," i.e. each was behind, his own people who were employed on the work, to encourage them in their labour, and, in case of attack, to lead them against the enemv. — In ver. 11 D^ian nDirQ is prefixed after the manner of a title. With respect to those who built the wall, both the bearers of burdens were lading with the one hand of each workman, and holding a weapon with the other, and the builders were building each with his sword girt on his side. The 1 prefixed to D^fekn and D'Jan means both; and?3D2 kbb, bearers of burdens, who cleared away the rubbish, and worked as labourers. These, at all events, could do their work with one hand, which would suffice for emptying rubbish into baskets, and for carrying material in handle baskets. 1*1) J"inX3? literally, with the one (namely) of his hands that was doing the work. The suffix of ST points to the genitive following, rinsi nriN, the one and the other hand. np#n? not a missile, but a weapon that was stretched out, held forth, usually a sword or some defensive weapon: see rem. on Josh. ii. 8, 2 Chron. xxxii. 5. The builders, on the contrary, needed both hands for their work: hence they had swords girt to their sides. " And he that sounded the trumpet was beside me." Nehemiah, as superintendent of the work, stood at the head of his servants, ready to ward off any attack; hence the trumpeter was beside him, to be able to give to those employed on the wall the signal for speedy muster in case danger should threaten. — Ver. 13 sq. Hence he said to the nobles, the rulers, and the rest of the people, i.e. all employed in building, " The work is much (great) and wide, and we are separated upon the wall one far from another; in what place ye hear the sound of the trumpet, assemble yourselves to me: our God will fight for us." — In ver. 15 the whole is summed up, and for this purpose the matter of ver. 10 is briefly repeated, to unite with it the further statement that they so laboured from early morning till late in the evening. " We (Nehemiah and his servants) laboured in the work, and half of them (of the servants) held the spears from the grey of dawn till the stars appeared." — Ver. 16. He took, moreover, a further precaution: he said to the people (i.e. to the labourers on the wall, and not merely to the warriors of the community, as Bertheau supposes): Let every one with his servant lodge within Jerusalem, i.e. to remain together during the night also, and not be scattered through the surrounding district, u that they may be guardianship for us by night and labour by day." The abstracts, guardianship and labour, stand for the concretes, guards and labourers. As ^7, to ws, refers to the whole community separated on the walls, so is VW^ B^K to be understood of all the workers, and not of the fighting men only. From B^K VWJ it only appears that the fathers of families and master builders had servants with them as labourers. — Ver. 17. Nehemiah, moreover, and his brethren (his kinsmen and the members of his house), and his servants, and the men of the guard in his retinue, were constantly in their clothes ("not putting off our clothes" to rest). The last words, D^rt infe B*N, are very obscure, and give no tolerable sense, whether we explain BW of water for drinking or washing. Luther translates, Every one left off washing; but the words, Every one's weapon was water, can never bear this sense. Koediger, in Gesen. Thes. s.v. TVW, seeks to alter D^on into lT3, to which Bottcher (N. krit. Aehrenl. iii. p. 219) rightly objects: " how could iT3 have been altered into D^PC, or D^n have got into the text at all, if some portion of it had not been originally there? What this iT3 expresses, would be far more definitely given with the very slight correction of changing the closing D of DW, and reading won = WW (comp. 2 Sam. xiv. 19); thus each had taken his missile on the right (in his right hand), naturally that he might be ready to discharge it in case of a hostile attack." This conjecture seems to us a happy emendation of the unmeaning text, since « might easily have been changed into D; and we only differ in this matter from Bottcher, by taking n?E> in its only legitimate meaning of weapon, and translating the words: And each laid his weapon on the right, viz. when he laid himself down at night to rest in his clothes, to be ready for fighting at the first signal from the watch.

The events related in this and the following chapter also occurred during the building of the wall. Zealously as the rulers and richer members of the community, following the example of Nehemiah, were carrying on this great undertaking by all the means in their power, the work could not fail to be a heavy burden to the poorer classes, who found it very difficult to maintain their families in these expensive times, especially since they were still oppressed by wealthy usurers. Hence great discontent arose, which soon vented itself in loud complaints. Those who had no property demanded corn for the support of their numerous families (ver. 2); others had been obliged to pledge their fields and vineyards, some to procure corn for their hunger, some to be able to pay the king's tribute; and these complained that they must now give their sons and daughters to bondage (vers.

3-5). When these complaints came to the ears of Nehemiah, he was angry with the rulers; and calling an assembly, he set before them the great injustice of usury, and called upon them to renounce it, to restore to their brethren their mortgaged lands, and to give them what they had borrowed (vers. 6-11). His address made the impression desired. The noble and wealthy resolved to perform what was required; whereupon Nehemiah caused them to take a solemn oath to this effect, indicating by a symbolical act that the heavy wrath of God would fall upon all who should fail to act according to their promise. To this the assembly expressed their Amen, and the people carried out the resolution (vers. 12, 13). Nehemiah then declared with what unselfishness he had exercised his office of governor, for the sake of lightening the heavy burden laid upon the people (vers.

Vers. 1-5. The people complain of oppression. — Ver. 1. There arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews, i.e., as appears from what follows (ver. 7), against the nobles and rulers, therefore against the richer members of the community. This cry is more particularly stated in vers. 2-5, where the malcontents are divided into three classes by vfa, vers. 2, 3, 4. — Ver. 2. There were some who said: Our sons and our daughters are many, and we desire to receive corn, that we may eat and live. These were the words of those workers who had no property. nnj53 (from ni?^), not to take by force, but only to desire that corn may be provided. — Ver. 3. Others, who were indeed possessed of fields, vineyards, and houses, had been obliged to mortgage them, and could now reap nothing from them. 31JJ, to give as a pledge, to mortgage. The use of the participle denotes the continuance of the transaction, and is not to be rendered, We must mortgage our fields to procure corn; but, We have been obliged to mortgage them, and we desire to receive corn for our hunger, because of the dearth. For (1) the context shows that the act of mortgaging had already taken place, and was still continuing in force (we have been obliged to pledge them, and they are still pledged); and (2) nnjJJ must not be taken here in a different sense from ver. 2, but means, We desire that corn may be furnished us, because of the dearth; not, that we may not be obliged to mortgage our lands, but because they are already mortgaged. ->"J?> too, does not necessarily presuppose a scarcity in consequence of a failure of crops or other circumstances, but only declares that they who had been obliged to pledge their fields were suffering from liunger. — Ver. 4. Others, again, complained: We have borrowed money for the king's tribute upon our fields and vineyards. nj? means to be dependent, nexum esse, and transitively to make dependent, like S7D, to be full, and to make full: We have made our fields and our vineyards answerable for money for the king's tribute (Bertheau), i.e. we have borrowed money upon our fields for... This they could only do by pledging the crops of these lands, or at least such a portion of their crops as might equal the sum borrowed; comp. the law, Lev. xxv. 14-17. — Ver. 5. "And now our flesli is as the flesh of our brethren, and our sons as their sons; and lo, we are obliged to bring our sons and our daughters into bondage, and some of our daughters are already brought into bondage; and we have no power to alter this, and our fields and vineyards belong to others." "Our brethren" are the richer Jews who had lent money upon pledges, and D|TO3 are their sons. The sense of the first half of the verse is: We are of one flesh and blood with these rich men, i.e., as Ramb. already correctly explains it: non sumus deterioris conditionis quam tributes nostri divites, nee tamen nostras iuojnce ex lege divina Deut. xv. 7, 8, subvenitur, nisi maximo cum faenore. The law not only allowed to lend to the poor on a pledge (Deut. xv. 8), but also permitted Israelites, if they were poor, to sell themselves (Lev. xxv. 39), and also their sons and daughters, to procure money. It required, however, that they who were thus sold should not be retained as slaves, but set at liberty without ransom, either after seven years or at the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 39-41; Ex. xxii. 2 sq.). It is set forth as a special hardship in this verse that some of their daughters were brought into bondage for maid-servants.

^Tr '*?? P??> literally, our hand is not to God, i.e. the power to alter it is not in our hand; on this figure of speech, comp. Gen. xxxi. 29. The last clause gives the reason: Our fields and our vineyards belonging to others, what they yield does not come to us, and we are not in a position to be able to put an end to the sad necessity of selling our daughters for servants.

Vers. 6-13. 77ie abolition of usury. — Yer. 6. Xehemiah was very angry at this complaint and these things, i.e. the injustice which had been brought to his knowledge. — Ver. 7. " And my heart took counsel upon it ("H?^ according to the Chaldee use of?]?p, Dan. iv. 24), and I contended with the nobles and rulers, and said to them, Ye exact usury every one of his brother."* 3 N^'J means to lend to any one, and K«5to, also riKBto3 Deut. xxiv. 10, Prov. xxii. 26, and KBto, is the thing lent, the loan, what one borrows from or lends to another. Consequently Nt?D KC0 is to lend some one a loan; comp. Deut. xxiv. 10. This does not seem to suit this verse. For Nehemiah cannot reproach the nobles for lending loans, when he and his servants had, according to ver. 10, done so likewise. Hence the injustice of the transaction which he rebukes must be expressed in the emphatic precedence given to Nk'D. Bertheau accordingly regards N$o not as the accusative of the object, but as an independent secondary accusative in the sense of: for the sake of demanding a pledge, ye lend. But this rendering can be neither grammatically nor lexically justified. In the first respect it is opposed by riKBk) KBfrl. Deut. xxiv. 10, which shows that N^D in conjunction with Kf'J is the accusative of the object; in the other, by the constant use of N$D in all passages in which it occurs to express a loan, not a demand for a pledge. From Ex. xxii. 24, where it is said, <: If thou lend money (nvFi) to the poor, thou shalt not be to him HW3, shalt not lay upon him usury," it is evident that HtW is one who lends money on usury, or carries on the business of a money-lender. This evil secondary meaning of the word is here strongly marked by the emphatic prseposition of NBto; hence Nehemiah is speaking of those who practise usury. a And I appointed a groat assembly on their account," to put a stop to the usury and injustice by a public discussion of the matter. cns?y, not against them (the usurers), but on their account. — Ver. 8. In tills assembly he reproached them with the injustice of their behaviour. " We " (said he) " have, after our ability, redeemed our brethren the Jews which were sold unto the heathen; yet ye would sell your brethren, and they are to be sold to us." We (i.e. Nehemiah and the Jews living in exile, who were like-minded with him) have bought, in contrast to ye sell. They had redeemed their Jewish brethren who were sold to the heathen. «3 H3 for «3 IBfc *13, i.e. j not according to the full number of those who were amonii us, meaning as often as a sale of this kind occurred (Bertheau); for *n does not mean completeness, multitude, but only sufficiency, supply, adequacy of means (Lev. xxv. 26); hence tt3 H2 is: according to the means that we had: secundum sufficientiam vel facultatem, quce in nobis est (Ramb.), or secundum possibilitatem nostram (Vulg.). The contrast is still more strongly expressed by the placing of 03 before Efltf, so that U2[ acquires the meaning of nevertheless (Ewald, § 354, a). The sale of their brethren for bond-servants was forbidden by the law, Lev. xxv. 42. The usurers had nothing to answer to this reproach. u They held their peace, and found no word," sc. in justification of their proceedings.— Ver. 9. Nehemiah, moreover, continued ("IDXVI, the Chethiv, is evidently a clerical error for "IBJO, for the Niphal "*??y does not suit): " The thing ye do is not good: ought ye not (= ye surely ought) to walk in the fear of our God, because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies'?" i.e., we ought not, by harsh and unloving conduct towards our brethren, to give our enemies occasion to calumniate us. — Ver. 10. " I, likewise my brethren and my servants (comp. iv. 17), have lent them money and corn; let us, I pray, remit (not ask back) this loan! " The participle D^J says: we are those who have lent. Herewith he connects the invitation, ver. 11: " Restore unto them, I pray you, even this day (DW3, about this day, i.e. even to-day, 1 Sam. ix. 13), their fields, their vineyards, their olive gardens, and their houses, and the hundredth of the money, and of the corn, wine, and oil which you have lent them." Nehemiah requires, 1st, that those who held the lands of their poorer brethren in pledge should restore them their property without delay: 2J, that they should remit to their debtors all interest owing on money, corn, etc. that had been lent; not, as the words have been frequently understood, that they should give back to their debtors such interest as they had already received. That the words in ver. 11a bear the former, and not the latter signification, is obvious from the reply, ver. 12, of those addressed: " We will restore, sc. their lands, etc., and will not require of them, sc. the hundredth; so will we do as thou sayest." Hence we must not translate DH3 D^J DfiX tj*'h, u which you had taken from them as interest" (de Wette), — a translation which, moreover, cannot be justified by the usao;e of the lanfrua£e, for 3 ntw does not mean to take interest from another, to lend to another on interest. The "it-'tf relates not to n&HM, but to TOO]... 1^? 5 and n^:n, to restore, to make good, is used of both the transactions in question, meaning in the first clause the restoration of the lands retained as pledges, and in the second, the remission (the non-requirement) of the hundredth. The hundredth taken as interest is probably, like the centesima of the Romans, to be understood of a monthly payment. One per cent, per month was a very heavy interest, and one which, in the case of the poor, might be exorbitant. The law, moreover, forbade the taking of any usury from their brethren, their poor fellow-countrymen, Ex. xxii. 25 and Lev. xxv. 36 sq. When the creditors had given the consent required, Nehemiah called the priests, and made them (the creditors) swear to do according to this promise, i.e. conscientiously to adhere to their agreement. Nehemiah obtained the attendance of the priests, partly for the purpose of giving solemnity to the oath now taken, and partly to give to the declaration made in the presence of the priests legal validity for judicial decisions. — Ver. 13. To make the agreement thus sworn to still more binding, Nehemiah confirmed the proceeding by a symbolical action: Also I shook my lap, and said, So may God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth (fulfilled)) not this promise, and thus may he be shaken out and emptied, lyn means the lap of the garment, in which things are carried (Isa. xlix. 22), where alone the word is again found. The symbolical action consisted in Nehemiah's gathering up his garment as if for the purpose of carrying something, and then shaking it out with the words above stated, which declared the meaning of the act. The whole congregation said Amen, and praised the Lord, sc. for the success with which God had blessed his efforts to help the poor. And the people did according to this promise, i.e. the community acted in accordance with the agreement entered into.

Vers. 14-19. Neliemiati s unselfish conduct. — The transaction above related gave Nehemiah occasion to speak in his narrative of the unselfishness with which he had filled the office of governor, and of the personal sacrifices he had made for the good of his fellow-countrymen. — Ver. 14. The statement following is compared with the special occurrence preceding it by E3. As in this occurrence he had used his credit to do away with the oppression of the people by wealthy usurers, so also had he shown himself unselfish during his whole official career, and shunned no sacrifice by which he might lighten the burdens that lay upon his fellow-countrymen. u From the time that he appointed me to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two-and-thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, I and my servants have not eaten the bread of the governor." The subject of nj¥ is left undefined, but is obviously King Artaxerxes. Bn2, their (the Jews') governor. This he was from the twentieth (comp. ii. 1) to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, in which, according to xiii. 6, he again visited the court of this monarch, returning after a short interval to Jerusalem, to carry out still further the work he had there undertaken. uThe bread of the Pechah" is, according to ver. 15, the food and wine with which the community had to furnish him. The meaning is: During this whole period I drew no allowances from the people. — Ver. 15. The former governors who had been before me in Jerusalem — Zerubbabel and his successors— had received allowances, Di?n?y WMn, had burdened the people, and had taken of them (their fellow-countrymen) for bread and wine (i.e. for the requirements of their table), " afterwards in money forty shekels." Some difficulty is presented by the word "iHN, which the LXX. render by ea^arov, the Vulgate quotidie. The meaning ultra, prceter, besides (Ew. § 217, 1), can no more be shown to be that of "inK, than over can, which Bertheau attempts to justify by saying that after forty shekels follow forty-one, forty-two, etc. The interpretation, too: reckoned after money (Bottcher, de Inferis, § 409, b, and N. krit. Aehrenl. iii. p. 219), cannot be supported by the passages quoted in its behalf, since in none of them is *>ns used de Mo quod norma? est, but has everywhere fundamentally the local signification after. Why, then, should not "inx be here used adverbially, afterwards, and express the thought that this money was afterwards demanded from the community for the expenses of the governor's table? " Even their servants bare rule over the people." tip*^ denotes arbitrary, oppressive rule, abuse of power for extortions, etc. Nehemiah, on the contrary, had not thus acted because of the fear of God. — Ver. 16. "And also I took part in the work of this wall; neither bought we any land, and all my servants were gathered thither unto the work." 2 P^tnn - 3T pnnn to set the hand to something; here, to set about the work. The manner in which Nehemiah, together with his servants, set themselves to the work of wall-building is seen from iv. 10, 12, 15, and 17. Neither have we (I and my servants) bought any land, i.e. have not by the loan of money and corn acquired mortgages of land; comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 17. But this was not all; for Nehemiah had also fed a considerable number of persons at his table, at his own expense. " And the Jews, both one hundred and fifty rulers, and the men who came to us from the nations round about us, were at my table," i.e. were my guests. The hundred and fifty rulers, comp. ii. 16, were the heads of the different houses of Judah collectively. These were always guests at Nehemiah's table, as were also such Jews as dwelt anions the surrounding nations, when thev came to Jerusalem. — Ver. 18. " And that which was prepared for one (i.e. a single) day was one ox, six choice (therefore fat) sheep, and fowls; they were prepared for me, i.e. at my expense, and once in ten days a quantity of wine of all kinds." The meaning of the last clause seems to be, that the wine was furnished every ten days: no certain quantity, however, is mentioned, but it is only designated in general terms as very great, i"i3")np. n? DJH, and with this, i.e. notwithstanding this, great expenditure, I did not require the bread of the Pechah (the allowance for the governor, comp. ver. 14), for the service was heavy upon the people. n*ihy|i is the service of building the walls of Jerusalem. Thus Nehemiah, from compassion for his heavily burdened countrymen, resigned the allowance to which as governor he was entitled. — Ver. 19. u Think upon me, my God, for good, all that I have done for this people." Compare the repetition of this desire, xiii. 14 and 31.?V n'wy in the sense of? ^V, properly for the sake of this people, i.e. for them.

When Sanballat and the enemies associated with him were unable to obstruct the building of the wall of Jerusalem by open violence (chap, iv.), they endeavoured to ruin Nehemiah by secret snares. They invited him to meet them in the plain of Ono (vers. 1, 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 (vers. 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 (10-14). The building of the wall was completed in fifty-two days, and the enemies were disheartened (15-17), although at that time many nobles of Judah had entered into epistolary correspondence with Tobiah, to obstruct the proceedings of Nehemiah (18, 19).

Vers. 1-9. The attempts of Sanballat and his associates to ruin Nehemiah. — Vers. 1, 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. \? W?P1, 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. vers. 6, 7, xiii. 27, Esth. i. 20, and elsewhere. On Sanballat and his allies, see remarks on ii. 19. The "rest of our enemies" were, according to iv. 1 (iv. 7, A. V.), Ashdodites, and also other hostile individuals. 'W nyn ij; D2 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 ver. 7, •TO]?}?, let us take counsel together, is synonymous with ^¥.}J of the present verse. The form ^"123, elsewhere only 1fi3? 1 Chron. xxvii. 25, or "1B3, village, 1 Sam. vi. 18, occurs only here. ^J*??} however, being found Ezra ii. 25 and elsewhere as a proper name, the form "V^3 seems to have been in use as well as 1S3. There is no valid ground for regarding D^1S3 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 1 Chron. viii. 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 (\jU jg) or Kefr Anna, one and threequarter leagues north of Ludd. But no certain information concerning the position of the place can be obtained from 1 Chron. viii. 12; and Roediger (in the Ilallische Lit. ZeitunQy 1842, No. 71, p. 665) is more correct, in accordance both with the orthography and the sense, in comparing it with Beit Unia (\jjA ij^jj\ 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. u But they thought to do me harm." Probably they wanted to make him a prisoner, perhaps even to assassinate him. — Ver. 3. Nehemiah 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 wrork of building. — Ver. 4. They sent to him four times in the same manner (Hjn I^JS, comp. 2 Sam. xv. 6), and Nehemiah gave them the same answer. — Ver. 5. Then Sanballat sent his servant in this manner, the fifth time, with an open letter, in which w7as written: "It is reported (V?^, 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 ii. 19. H}n, the particip., is used of that which any one intends or prepares to do: thou art intending to become their king. \3T?V} therefore, for no other reason than to rebel, dost thou build the wall. — Ver. 7. It 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. — Ver. 9. Nehemiah, 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." &X"li:i a contraction of CXIiB, from tnii, which occurs again only in 1 Kings xii. 33, to invent, to feign, especially evil things. — Ver. 9. "For," adds Nehemiah when writing of these things, " they all desired to make us afraid, thinking pfaK?) 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. P1J1 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.

Vers. 10-14. 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 wras, as Nehemiah subsequently learned, to seduce him into taking an illegal step, and so give occasion for speaking evil of him. — Ver. 10. "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 wras 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. 'WBJ ^rn- (^oes 110^' however, involve the meaning which Bertheau gives it, viz. that Nehemiah went to Shemaiah's house, because the latter as "fi¥^ could not come to him. The phrase says only, that when Nehemiah entered Shemaiah's house, he found him "^'V, 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, Ci 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 ver. 12 calls his advice to flee into the temple a ntttZU against him, ai?d that it was quite in character with the proceedings of such false prophets to enforce their words by symbolical signs (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 11), favours the former. The going into the house of God is more closely defined by 'J^nn ^n"?¥, within the holy place, where, as is well known, no layman was allowed to enter. u And let us shut the doors of 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. —

Ver. 11. Nehemiah, 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. *nj 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. xviii. 7, that the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. — Ver. 12. And 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; n5> emphatically precedes DwX: not God, but himself), but that he pronounced this prophecy against me, because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. The verb S~\2W (sing.) agrees only with the latter word, although in fact it refers to both these individuals. — Ver. 13. " 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 |JTO 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 ver. 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 (vers. 10-13) is given as only one of the chief events of the kind (D*KTD, like vers. 9, 19); and 2d, 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 conversion as the conditions of prosperity.

Vers. 15 and 16. The wall completed, and the impression made by this work upon the enemies of the Jews. — Ver. 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 (ii. 1) twentieth year of Artaxerxes being intended. This agrees with the other chronological statements of this book. For, according to ii. 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 v. 14 and xiii. 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 (ii. 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 wras completed in fifty-two days, and (with Ewald) altering the fiftytwo days into two years and four months.1 For we must

1 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. 7 sq., that the wall of Jerusalem was finished in two years and four months, and that the word DTDS'* may have been omitted from Neh. vi. 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- eighth year of Xerxes. On the other hand, Bertheau has already remarked,.that even if DTI3B> is supplied, no agree* ment with the statement of Josephus is obtained, since the question still remains how four months can be made out of fifty-two days, or in this case consider, 1st, the necessity for hastening the work repeatedly pointed out by Nehemiah; 2c?, 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; od, that the kind of exertion demanded by such laborious work and unintermitted watchfulness as are described chap, iv., though it might be continued for fiftytwo 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 (i. 3, ii. 13, vi. 1), and of the ruined gates, — a large portion of wall and at least one gate having remained uninjured (see p. 180). 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 fort i Med wall by the extent of the wall of modern Jerusalem. — Ver. 1G. The news that the wall was finished spread fear anions the enemies, viz. amonp; the nations in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (comp. iv. 1, v. 9); they were much cast down, and perceived " that this work was effected with the help of our God." The expression ttfWJS *'?! occurs only here, and must be explained according to VJB vB^ his countenance fell (Gen. iv. 5), and 2??3*, the heart fails (i.e. the courage) (1 Sam. xvii. 32): they sank in their own eyes, i.e. they felt themselves cast down, discouraged.

Vers. 17-19. 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 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.

had married into a respectable Jewish family. — Ver. 17. 11 Also in those days the nobles of Jiulah wrote many letters (DiTThaX D^STIDj they made many, multiplied, their letters) passing to Tobiah, and those of Tobiah came to them." — Ver. 18. For many in Judah were sworn unto him, for he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arab; 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 nyu^ yV2y 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, Ezra ii. 5. Meshullam ben Berechiah appears among those who shared in the work of building, iii. 4 and 30. According to xiii. 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. — Ver. 19. "Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him.', vnbiD, the good things in him, or " his good qualities and intentions " (Bertheau). The subject of the sentence is the nobles of Judah. v D^ftWrtDj 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 others opinion of him. Finally, Nehemiah mentions also that Tobiah also sent letters to put him in fear 0^"^, infin. Piel, like 2 Chron. xxxii. 18; comp. the participle above, vers. 9 and 14). The letters were probably of similar contents with the letter of Sanballat given in ver. 6.

The building of the wall being now concluded, Nehemiah first made arrangements for securing the citv against hostile attacks (vii. 1—3); then took measures to increase the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vii. 4-73 and xi. 1 and 2); and finally endeavoured to fashion domestic and civil life according to the precepts of the law (chap, viii.-x.), and, on the occasion of the solemn dedication of the wall, to set in order the services of the Levites (chap. xii.).

CHAP. VII. — THE WATCHING OF THE CITY. MEASURES TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ITS INHABITANTS. LIST OF THE HOUSES THAT RETURNED FROM BABYLON WITH ZERUBBABEL.

Vers. 1-3. The watching of the city provided for. — Ver. 1. When the wall was built, Nehemiah set up the doors in the gates, to complete the fortification of Jerusalem (comp. vi. 1). Then were the gatekeepers, the singers, and the Levites entrusted with the care pi?5>n, prcefici; comp. xii. 14). The care of watching the walls and gates is meant in this connection. According to ancient appointment, it was the duty of the doorkeepers to keep watch over the house of God, and to open and close the gates of the temple courts; comp. 1 Chron. ix. 17-19, xxvi. 12-19. The singers and the Levites appointed to assist the priests, on the contrary, had, in ordinary times, nothing to do with the service of watching. Under the present extraordinary circumstances, however, Nchemiah committed also to these two organized corporations the task of keeping watch over the walls and gates of the city, and placed them under the command of his brother Hanani, and of Hananiah the ruler of the citadel. This is expressed by the words, ver. 2: I gave Hanani... and Hananiah... charge over Jerusalem. ^yin is the fortress or citadel of the city lying to the north of the temple (see rem. on ii. 8), in which was probably located the royal garrison, the commander of which was in the service of the Persian king. The choice of this man for so important a charge is explained by the additional clause: a for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many." The 3 before K^K is the so-called Caph veritatis, which expresses a comparison with the idea of the matter: like a man whom one may truly call faithful. B^O is comparative: more God-fearing than many. — Ver. 3. The Chethiv 1D601 is both here and v. 9 certainly a clerical error for the Keri I*?**}, though in this place, at all events, we might read "H?£!2i it was said to them. " The gates of Jerusalem are not to be opened till the sun be hot; and while they (the watch) are yet at their posts, they are to shut the doors and lock them; and ye shall appoint watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, some to be at their watch-posts, others before their house." *B^J in Hebrew is used only here, though more frequently in the Talmud, of closing the doors, tnaj, to make fast, i.e. to lock, as more frequently in Syriac. The injin. absol. ^OJin instead of the temp. Jin, is emphatic: and you are to appoint. The sense is: the gates are to be occupied before daybreak by the Levites (singers and other Levites) appointed to guard them, and not opened till the sun is hot and the watch already at their posts, and to be closed in the evening before the departure of the watch. After the closing of the gates, i.e. during the night, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are to keep watch for the purpose of defending the city from any kind of attack, a part occupying the posts, and the other part watching before their (each

Vers. 4-73a. The measures taken by Nehemiah for increasing the number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. — Ver. 4. The city was spacious and great, and the people few therein, and houses were not built. DH"1 mm broad on both sides, that is, regarded from the centre towards either the right or left hand. The last clause does not say that there were no houses at all, for the city had been re-inhabited for ninety years; but only that houses had not been built in proportion to the size of the city, that there was still much unoccupied space on which houses might be built. — Ver. 5. And God put into my heart, i.e. God inspired me with the resolution; comp. ii. 12. What resolution, is declared by the sentences following, which detail its execution. The resolution to gather together the nobles and rulers of the people for the purpose of making a list of their kinsmen, and thus to obtain a basis for the operations contemplated for increasing the inhabitants of Jerusalem. D^JJBSTI Dnhn are combined, as in ii. 16. On BWnn, comp. 1 Chron. v. 17.

While this resolve was under consideration, Nehemiah found the register, i.e. the genealogical registry, of those who came up at first (from Babylon). rulB^na, at the beginning, i.e. with Zerubbabel and Joshua under Cyrus (Ezra ii.), and not subsequently with Ezra (Ezra vii.). "And I found written therein." These words introduce the list now given. This list, vers. 6-73a, is identical with that in Ezra ii., and has been already discussed in our remarks on that chapter.

CHAP. VIII.-X. — PUBLIC READING OF THE LAW. THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. A PUBLIC FAST HELD, AND A COVENANT MADE TO KEEP THE LAW.

These three chapters form a connected whole, and describe acts of worship and solemnities conducted by Ezra and other priests and Levites, Nehemiah as the secular governor being only twice mentioned in them (viii. 9, x. 2). The contents of the throe chapters are as follows: On the approach of the Beventh month, which opened with the feast of trumpets, and durine which occurred hoth the feast of tabernacles and the great day of atonement, the people were gathered to Jerusalem; and Ezra, at the request of the congregation, read to the assembled people out of the book of the law on the first and second days. It being found written in the law, that the Israelites were to dwell in booths during the seventh month, it was resolved to keep the festival in accordance with this direction; and this resolution was carried into execution by erecting booths made with branches of trees on housetops, in courts, and in the public places of the city, and celebrating the seven-days' festival by a daily public reading of the law (chap. viii.). On the twenty-fourth day of the same month, the congregation airain assembled, with fasting and mourning, to make a public confession of their sins, and to renew their covenant with God (chap. ix. x.).

The second clause of vii. 73 belongs to chap, viii., and forms one sentence with viii. 1. "When the seventh month came, and the children of Israel were in their cities, the whole people gathered themselves together as one man in the open space that was before the water-gate," etc. The capitular division of the Masoretic text is erroneous, and makes the words, " and the children of Israel were in their cities," appear a mere repetition of the sentence, "and all Israel dwelt in their cities." The chronological statement, " when the seventh month came," without mention of the year, points back to the date in vi. 15: the twenty-fifth Elul, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; on which day the building of the wall was completed. Elul, the sixth month, is followed by Tishri, the seventh, and there is nothing against the inference that the seventh month of the same year is intended; the dedication of the wall not being related till chap, xii., and therefore occurring subsequently, while all the facts narrated in chap, viii.-xi. might, without any difficulty, occur in the interval between the completion of the wall and its dedication. For, besides the public reading of the law on the first two days of the seventh month, the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and the public fast on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (chap, viii.-xi.), nothing more is recorded (xi. 1, 2) than the execution of the resolve made by Nehemiah, immediately after the completion of the wall (vii. 4), viz. to increase the inhabitants of Jerusalem, by appointing by lot one of every ten dwellers in the surrounding country to go to Jerusalem and dwell there. This is succeeded by lists of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the cities of Benjamin and Judah, and lists of the priests and Levites (xi. 3-xii. 26):

Chap. viii. 1-8. The public reading of the law. — Vers. 1-3. The introduction to this narrative (vii. 73^-viii. la) is identical with Ezra iii. 1. The same matter, the assembling of the people on the approach of the seventh month, is described in the same words. But the object of this assembling of the people was a different one from that mentioned in Ezra iii. Then they met to restore the altar of burntoffering and the sacrificial worship; now, on the contrary, for the due solemnization of the seventh month, the festal month of the year. For this purpose the people came from the cities and villages of Judah to Jerusalem, and assembled a in the open space before the water-gate," i.e. to the south-east of the temple space. On the situation of the water-gate, see rem. on iii. 26, xii. 37 sq., and Ezra x. 9. "And they spake unto Ezra the scribe " (see rem. on Ezra vii. 11). The subject of VttMfa is the assembled people. These requested, through their rulers, that Ezra should fetch the book of the law of Moses, and publicly read it. This reading, then, was desired by the assembly. The motive for this request is undoubtedly to be found in the desire of the congregation to keep the new moon of the seventh month, as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious assistance they had received from the Lord during the building of the wall, and through which it had been speedily and successfully completed, in spite of the attempts of their enemies to obstruct the work. This feeling of thankfulness impelled them to the hearing of the word of God for the purpose of making His law their rule of life. The assembly consisted of men and women indiscriminately

(nil's n>n trx, like Josh. \i. 21, viii. 25, 1 Sam. xxii. 19, 1 Cliron. xvi.;>), and $?bB? P?5 '3, every one that understood in hearing, which would certainly include the elder children. The first day of the seventh month was distinguished above the other new moons of the year as the feast of trumpets, and celebrated as a high festival by a solemn assembly and a cessation from labour; com p. Lev. xxiii. 2,3-25, Num. xxix. 1-6. — Yer. 3. Ezra read out of the law u from the light {i.e. from early morning) till mid-day;" therefore for about six hours. Not, however, as is obvious from the more particular description vers. 4-8, without cessation, but in such wise that the reading went on alternately with instructive lectures on the law from the Levites. "And the ears of all the people were directed to the law," i.e. the people listened attentively. D'ritan must be understood according to S^X? pao?3 of ver. 2. In vers. 4-8 the proceedings at this reading are more nearly described. — Ver. 4. Ezra stood upon a raised stage of wood which had been made for the purpose ("9^?, for the matter). ^*?, usually a tower, here a high scaffold, a pulpit. Beside him stood six persons, probably priests, on his right, and seven on his left hand. In 1 Esdras, seven are mentioned as standing on his left hand also, the name Azariah being inserted between Anaiah and Urijah. It is likely that this name has been omitted from the Hebrew text, since it is improbable that there was one person less on his right than on his left hand. " Perhaps Urijah is the father of the Meremoth of iii. 4, 21; Maaseiah, the father of the Azariah of iii. 23; Pedaiah, the individual named iii. 21; the Azariah to be inserted, according to 1 Esdras, the same named iii. 23; a Meshullam occurs, iii. 4, 6; and a Malchiah, iii. 11, 14, 31" (Bertheau). — Ver. 5. Ezra, standing on the raised platform, was above the assembled people (he was DVH v3 tJJD). When he opened the book, it was " in the sight of all the people," so that all could see his action; and "all the people stood up" (^PJJ). It cannot be shown from the O. T. that it had been from the days of Moses a custom with the Israelites to stand at the reading of the law, as the Rabbis assert; comp. Vitringa, de Si/nag. vet. p. 167. — Ver. 6.

Ezra began by blessing the Lord, the great God, perhaps with a sentence of thanksgiving, as David did, 1 Chron. xxix. 10, but scarcely by using a whole psalm, as in 1 Chron. xvi. 8 sq. To this thanksgiving the people answered Amen, Amen (comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 36), lifting up their hands (?Vfoa ^'TT.j with lifting up of their hands; the form?J?b occurring only here), and worshipping the Lord, bowing down towards the ground. — Yer. 7. And Jeshua, Bani, etc., the Levites, expounded the law to the people (r?l?» to cause to understand, here to instruct, by expounding the law). The 1 copulative before E^y? must certainly have been inserted in the text by a clerical error; for the previously named thirteen (or fourteen) persons are Levites, of whom Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, and Hodijah occur again, ix. 4, 5. The names Jeshua, Sherebiah, Shabtai, and Jozabad are also met with xii. 14, xi. 16, but belong in these latter passages to other individuals who were heads of classes of Levites. — Ver. 8. "And they (the Levites) read in (out of) the book of the law of God, explained and gave the sense; and they (the assembled auditors) were attentive to the reading." The Rabbis understand KHbp = the Chaldee W~}%V, of a rendering of the law into the vulgar tongue, i.e. a paraphrase in the Chaldee language for those who were not acquainted with the ancient Hebrew. But this cannot be shown to be the meaning of tfhD, this word being used in the Targums for the Hebrew Dp: (pl\>), €.g. Lev. xxiv. 16, and for "W3, Deut. i. 5. It is more correct to suppose a paraphrastic exposition and application of the law (Pfeiffer, dubia vex. p. 480), but not "a distinct recitation according to appointed rules" (Gusset, and Bertheau). Dib> is injin. abs. instead of the temp. Jinit.: and gave the sense, made the law comprehensible to the hearers. N")i?ft? tf3J, not with older interpreters, Luther ("so that what was read was understood"), and de Wette, "and they (the Levites) made wrhat was read comprehensible," which would be a mere tautology, but with the LXX., Vulgate, and others, " and they (the hearers) attended to the reading," or, "obtained an understanding of what was read" (2 pan, like ver. 12, Dan. ix. 23, x. 11). Vitringa (de syn. vet. p. 420)