Nehemiah (Hastings' Dictionary)

Nehemiah is a conspicuous instance of the right man in the right place. It was his privilege to render great service to his nation, for which both his character and his posi- tion fitted him. He was patriotic, courageous, and God-fearing; he knew how to exercise the inflexible will of an autocrat, as well as to be persuasive when that would best accomplish the good end he had in view.

Our reliable informa- tion concerning Nehemiah and his times is con- tained almost wholly in the parts of his memoirs which have come down to us.* We may regret that this memoir was not preserved in full, but we _ cannot but rejoice in what we have; for it affords us a picture of this great patriot which is clear and well-proportioned. It gives us no information, however, about his early life or anon except in the heading that he was the son of Hacaliah (Neh 1’).

The first of Chislev, the ninth month (our Dee.), of the 20th yeart of Artaxerxes I. Φ Longimanus, B.C. 445, found Neh. in Susa, the chief city of Elam, and the winter residence of the Persian court “See Ezra-Nenemian, Book or. Torrey holds that only chs. 1, 2. 333-39 [ας 41-4) are genuine memoirs of Nehemiah. The rest of the he assigns to the Chronicler; and this, with the whole of Ezr as a historical source, he says, ‘has no value whatever’—Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezr.-Neh.

1806 (Beihefte ΓΝ Onder κοῦ iin (ct. 11 and 21) were both in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, Neh. must have reckoned the year from the autumn. Nisan was the first month of the Jewish as well as of the Bab. year. If Neh. reckons in the usual way, his audience with the king (2!) must be placed in the king’s 2lst year, and #0 B.c. 444. On the chronol see Nowack, Heb, Arch. i. 214 ff. ; Berth.-Rys. Kom.? 254; rader, ΚΑΤ, in loo, t Torrey says that we do not know which Artaxerxes is referred to in Neh.

He is inclined to put the compomtion of Neh about the year B.o, 372 (7). (Del. Paradies, 326). A company of men, amon whom was his brother Hanani, had just return from Jerusalem. Neh. eagerly questioned them about the condition of the city and of the people who with Ezra had been struggling to rebuild the State. Their report was most depressing to the patriot: ‘The remnant which is left from the captivity there in the province are in evil plight and in great reproach ; the wall of Jerus.

is broken down, and its gates are burned with fire’ (113). Does Hanani refer to the destruction of the city by command of Nebuch. in 586 (2 K 25%"), or to a recent catastrophe? In favour of the former view it may be urged that we have no record of either the rebuilding of the walls and the setting up of the gates, or their second destruction. Whatever may be the date of Ezr 45-23 (see Ezr.-NEu., Book oF), it is evident that the rebuilding described there was merely begun, not finished.

The enemies of the Jews procured an edict to stop the building, but not to cary the little that was already restored. If such a destruction had taken place, it is singular that it should be mentioned neither by Ezra nor iy the compiler, On the other hand, if the destruction repo. by Hanani had taken place more than a century before, the report would not be unexpected news, and consequently would not make so t an impression upon Nehemiah.

It might be urged that he had hoped that measures had been taken to continue the restoration, and was depressed to learn that nothing was being done. But Neh.’s narrative lends no colour to such an interpretation. See, further Stade, ΟΥ̓] ii. 161; Benjamin, Persia (Story of the Nations) 127; Montefiore, Hibbert Lect. 1892, 311; Oheyne, Bamp. Lect 1889, 71, 82, 231 f., JRL 37 ff. ; Gratz, Hist. of the Jews, Eng tr. i. 383. When Neh.

heard the bad news he ‘sat down and wept, and mourned for days, fasting and praying before the God of heaven.’ His prayer, which is full of Deuteronomic expressions (OTJC# 427), acknowledges the sins of the Jewish people, but calls upon God to fulfil His promise in view of the repentance of the people, and to ‘grant his servant (Neh.) mercy before this man,’ i.e. the king (14). The prayer put into Neh.

’s mouth by Jose- phus is somewhat different: ‘How long, O Lord, wilt Thou overlook our nation, while it suffers so great miseries, and while we are made the prey and spoil of all men?’ (Ant. ΧΙ. v. 6). Nehemiah’s position as cupbearer* to the king ensured him an audience; and as the office was a high one with rich emoluments, he had a point of advantage in ether a request, and the means to accomplish his purpose. et it was four months before his wishes were made known to the king.

He was waiting a favourable opportunity; and this came only when he was called to serve the wine when ‘no one else was before the king’ (2° acc. to LXX). His agitation was so great when the decisive moment came that his face betrayed him, and he was sore afraid as the king ΤΕΡΙΟΥΠΕΙΝ asked him the cause of his dejection.

However, he stated his troubles frankly: ‘ Have I not reason for a dejected countenance, since the city of the graves of my fathers lies in ruins, and its gates are destroyed by fire?’ (2°). Encouraged by the king, he asked acagemtir to go to Jerus. to rebuild the city. As Neh. mentions the fact that the queen was sitting by her lord at the time (2°), she may have exerted her influence in his favour.

t+ At all events the king granted his officer a limited leave of absence, gave him letters to the governors of the provinces west of the Euphrates, and to Asaph, the keeper of the royal forest, that Neh. might secure timber for the gates of the citadel of the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the temple itself.t Neh.

set out with an armed escort furnished by the king, and on the way delivered the letters to the governors, not to apprise them of * On the cupbearer see Rawlinson, Ezra and Neh. (Men of the Bible), 86; Ewald, HJ ν. 148; Xen. Cyrop. 3. 8; and art. CUPBEARER. t From the queen's presence Cheyne and others suppose that Neh. was a eunuch (/ntrod, to Js. $11), Some hold that Ps 13° was directed against Nehemiah. t On the motives of Artaxerxes see Stanley, Jewish Ch, il! 111.

508 NEHEMIAH his plans, as Gritz supposes, but ta secure his ssage through the country, his letters to them wing virtually passports. At the outset he learned of the hostility of Sanballat and Tobiah, who were troubled at the news that a man had come from Persia to seek the welfare of the laraelites (27>). Neh.

waited for three days (2") to study the situa- tion, then without disclosing his plans to any one (24) he made a night inspection of the walls attended only by his guard, or by Hanani and a few others who had come with him from Susa. ‘A city was in antiquity a city in the full sense of the word only if it preserved its walls’ (Stade). An exilic poet had cried, ‘ build thou the walls of Jerusalem’ (Ps 51"), and Neh. was determined now to remove Jerusalem's reproach.

t Accordingly he assembled the leaders and said to them, ‘ You see the evil plight we are in, in that Jerus. is in ruins, and its gates burned with fire’ (2'), at the same time informing them of the powers which the king had conferred og him, and of his pur- pose to restore the walls. The ho saw the opportunity, and responded readily to the call. Sanballat and Tobiah, joined now by Geshem, or Gosham as Wellbausen says it should be read (sr. Gesch.

* 169), insinua the charge of rebel- lion against Neh.; but the charge neither intimi- dated him nor checked the zeal of the people. It is impossible to tell how extensive the damage to the cats was. The word used by Neh. in 15 and 2" (rp) implies that there were only breaches to repair; but these were evidently of wide extent. Neh. was fortunate in securing the aid of the whole eicaper of Jerus., and of several companies rom other parts of Judah.

There were men from Jericho, Tekoa, Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah, and Keilah. Men of every class laboured at the walls with their own hands: it is said to the discredit of the nobles of Tekoa, as if it were an exceptional case, that they refused to put their neck to the work (3°); we find express mention of priests, Levites, goldsmiths, and perfumers (or apothe- caries) among the labourers. Neh.

divided the work among the various bodies with characteristic insight; we read of five cases in which men were working at the breaches close by their own dwellings (319. 33. 2-9), Some serious difficulties had to be met, however, before all the breaches could be closed.

Sanballat, finding that his insinuation of rebellion had been ineffective, and that the Jews were evidently serious in their purpose to rebuild, tried to rouse the army stationed in Samaria; Tobiah indulged freely in ridicule, trying to persuade himself that the labour of the Jews could not accomplish Neh.’s pur ‘If a fox should go up on their stone wall, he would break it down’ (3% Eng. 41%), The people did not heed the scoffing, but continued their work with a will.

When the breaches were closed with a wall half its proper height, Sanballat and his allies, augmented now by guer- illa bands of Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdod- ites, realized that prompt and vigorous action was necessary if the almost incredible progress of the wall was to be stopped. They resolved to march secretly to Jerus. and stop the restoration by force of arms (4°, Eng. 4"). Meanwhile the working under * On Neh.’s night ride see Stanley, op. cit. tii.

112; Wright, JBL, 1896, 129-134, and PEFSt, April 1896. The last two articles give the important light from Bliss’s recent excava- t ‘ Accompany Neh. on his lonely ride around the burned walls of Jerus.

, and listen to Sanballat mocking at the Jews for reser A to revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish ; en recognize the occasion of this psalm [102], and sympathize with the plaintive words— ‘ For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, And it pitieth them to see her in the dust’ (10214) Bamp. Lect.

701 NEHEMIAH high pressure was telling upon men unused to such ἜΝ as laying a massive stone wall, especially when the clearing away of the rubbish was so difficult and laborious a part of the task. But their burdens could not be lightened yet; in fact, the activity of the enemy now added much to their hardships. Reports came in of the intended attack, and Neh. at once armed his workmen for resistance.

* He was acting according to the authority vested in him by the king, while his enemies were taking the law into their own hands. The Jews exchanged the trowel for the sword, and were stationed to defend the most unprotected places in the wall. The enemy had counted upon a surprise. When they saw the Jews armed and drawn up for battle, they abandoned their pur- pose to attack, and the builders resumed their work.

But the enemy evidently remained in the neighbourhood waiting a chance to take the Jews at a disadvantage, so that the labourers on the wall kept their swords by their side, and a part of the men were detailed to hold the larger weapons and defensive armour in readiness. Neh. kept a trumpeter by him to give warning of the point of Gane (4°7, Eng. 48).

The people were all now obliged to remain in the city at night, for the enemy held possession of the outlying country, and the city could not be left for a single hour without vigilant defenders; so critical was the time, that Neh. and the people alike slept in their clothes.

Yet there is no record of an actual battle, and such silence is a pretty sure indication that the Samaritans and their allies never ventured on an open attack, and never found the coveted opportunity for a surprise; but the vigilance and precautions of Neh. show plainly that the canger was for a long time imminent. Another form of trouble now required the leader’s attention.

The people who were labouring at the walls had been obliged to abandon their usual occupations, many of them to leave their homes and fields. The enemy overran the country dis- tricts at will, and very likely plundered the homes of those who were working at the walls. Supplies were getting scarce for such people, so that they had to mortgage their fields and vineyards and houses, either to get food or to pay the king’s tribute. Many ἢ pe their aide for debt, and these were sold as slaves.

The wealthier classes had taken advantage of the necessity of the poor. Neh. was justly angry, and promptly summoned the offenders before a public meeting. He reviewed his own generous course, and appealed to them to be liberal, restoring the mortgaged land, and remitting a part of the debt which the people were unable to pay. It is pleasant to know that his request was responded to cordially ; and oe eee took an oath to execute their pledge ch. 5).

The walls were finished amidst such trying diffi- culties, and there only remained the doors to be set Bp in the gates to make the city’s defences com- plete. But Nehemiah’s enemies had not yet given up. Having failed to intimidate him by threats, or cheouraye him by ridicule, or take him un- awares by force, they now tried cunning. Four times they invited him to meet them in conference in the valley of Ono in the land of Benjamin; but Neh.

replied that he could not leave the great work he was engaged in (6'). A fifth messenger came with an open letter + from Sanballat saying that it * The Heb. text in 46 (Eng. 412) is obscure and confused. The LXX furnishes a clear and satisfactory reading: ‘And it was so that when the Judwans who dwelt by them came, they said to us, They are coming up from all places against us. The first news of the intended assault was brought by the ee προ γε at remote parts.

is said that an open letter insult ; Thomson, Land and the Book, it. 81.0 se ee NEHEMIAH NEHEMIAH 509 was reported that Neh. aspired to the kingdom of Judah and had appointed prophets to proclaim him, and giving warning that word of this ramour would surely reach the king; Sanballat asked for a conference, as if he wished to aid Neh. in clearing himself of the charge. Neh.

knew well that auto- cratic kings listened eagerly to such imputations, and were not apt to investigate very closely, pre- ferring to err on the (for them) safe side ; neverthe- less he rested secure in his integrity, and accused Sanballat of feigning the charges out of his own evil mind (68), Sanballat all the while had allies and emissaries in Jerus. (617-19), and, having failed himself to get within reach of the leader, he set them to work. A prophet named Shemaiah coun- selled Neh.

to shut himself in the temple at night to ayoid assassination. Other prophets* were also hired to stir up his fears, and induce him to take a step that would lead to his downfall (6191), But they reckoned without their host. y the month Elul (Aug.-Sept.), of what year we do not know, the restoration was complete, having been accomplished, we are told, in the remarkably short time of fifty-two days + (6). Neh. appointed his brother Hanani, who had evidently come with him from Susa (ef.

13), and Hananiah the governor of the castle, in charge over Jerus. ; he enjoined them strictly to eg the gates shut until the sun was well up in the heavens,} and to keep a guard posted. he latter command was not easy of execution, for the people in Jerus. were few, and the houses for the most part still in ruins. It was apparently difficult to induce people to take up residence in the city.

§ Those who did so volun- tarily were commended as patriots, and one of every ten drawn by lot was obliged to move from the country to the city (7411). The completion of the walls was celebrated with a great dedication service.|| Walls and gates and people were purified, and two processions formed to move around the cirenit of the walls in opposite directions, Ezra Ἵ at the head of one company, and Neh.

of the other, until they met near the temple, where the cere- monies of thanksgiving and dedication culminated in sacrifices and rejoicings. Appointments were also made for the proper observance of the temple rites (127), These things being completed, Jerus. being once more a city without reproach, social and religious order being well established, and Neh.’s leave of absence expiring, he returned to the court of Persia (13°).

Rawlinson holds that he was re- called, but there is no evidence for such a theory. How long Neh. had been in Jerus. is uncertain. The text bears conflicting testimony not easy to reconcile. The memoirs are in this part preserved only in somewhat mutilated fragments. In 514 we appear to have a sufficiently definite statement that the first stay at Jerus.

was twelve years: ‘From the day when he appointed me to be governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes the king, twelve years, I and my brothers did not eat the governor's bread.’ But in 185 Neh. says, ‘ While all this was going on I was * ‘The prophets of the time were opposed to Neb. and appar- ently inh e with the hostile neighbours,’ Montefiore, 312; see also Wellh. Gesch.2194.

But these prophets, inferior as they were to their predecessors of pre-exilic days, felt that Neh., like Ezra, was reconstituting Judaism on lines not in harmony with prophetism ; and in a measure they were right. See, fora fuller development of this view, Kuenen, Rel. of Jer. ii. 238 ff. t According to Jos. (Ant. x1. v. 8) the wall was two years and four months in building ; according to Ewald, Hist. v. 157, nearly five years.

The fifty-two days is not only a very short time for such a great work, but also for the conditions described in ch. δ to develop. Yet there was every motive for urgent haste. Perhaps only the main part of the work was accomplished in the fifty-two days. t Sunrise being the usual time for opening the gates. § See Milman, Hist. of the Jews, vol. i. P. 437.

| According to Gritz, Hist, 394, this celebration took place two years and four months after Neh,’s arrival in Jerus,; according to Rawlinson, Ezr.-Neh. 150, not till Neh,’s second visit. There are no good grounds for the latter view. «“ On the relation of Ezra and Neh. in theiradministration, and on the promulgation of the Law (Neh 8-10), see art. Exma; and Kosters, Wiederherstellung Israels, 1895. not in Jerus.

: forin the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes the king of Babylon, 1 went unto the king, and asked of the king a leave of absence. And I went to Jerusalem.’ This verse is obscure, and its meaning uncertain. ‘I went unto the king’ may refer to Neh.’s return from Jerus., or to his entering the royal presence to prefer his request. The other doubtful clause is literally ‘to end of days,’ and is generally taken as a reference to the undefined period between Neh.

’s return to the king and his second departure. The words favour this interpretation, the context the notion of a limited leave as rende above. See the commentaries on the passage. Neh. either returned to the king after twelve years’ absence, and then, after a period of a year as Kuenen supposes, or three or tour years as Gratz holds, secured a second leave; or else he returned sooner, and in the thirty-second year, B.c. 433, started again for Jerusalem. 5!

4in the latter case would mean that Neh. was the real governor of Judah even when absent oncourt duty, ruling by his appointed deputies. On the whole, this view seems more probable than the other; for it seems unlikely that the king, who required Neh. to stipulate a limit to his leave before he would grant it (26), would agree to so long a period as twelve years. Neh.’s chief purpose was to rebuild the walls: if this took only fifty-two days, there would be noreason for a long stay.

The events narrated might all easily take place in three or four years, and they are described as initial movements. If Neh, had ΧΟ Ασα his stay, we should probably be informed of the loings of such an active and zealous man. Then, again, the supposed interval of a year or so does not allow time for the development of the ΕΝ 8 pie confronted "ΟΣ ie second administration, especially for the appearance of a speech among the children of half-foreign parentage (13%).

During Nehemiah’s absence at the Persian court, serious evils had made their appearance in Jeru- salem. Sanballat and his allies had been check- mated; Jerus. had been freed from external enemies; but internal disorders had sprung up which affected the life of the people harmfully.

Eliashib had housed Tobiah in one of the temple chambers (130); the Levites* were not supplied with their lawful portions (see Mal 37), so that they were com- pelled to seek their living as laymen, or wander about homeless (13!) as in the days of Micah (see Jg17f.) On the Sabbath day, work in the fields went on as usual (13'°); produce was carried to the market in Jerus. ; and the Tyrian merchants sold fish and merchandise on that day (v.'°).

In spite of Ezra’s great effort, marriages with foreign women were common, and the children of such mar- riages spoke partly the language of their mothers (v.%t), Even a grandson of Eliashib the high priest had married a daughter of Neh.’s inveterate enemy Sanballat (v.*). Tt is nly probable that the report of these evils impelle Neh.’s return. When he arrived he set about the necessary reforms with characteristic vigour.

Tobiah’s belongings were cast out of the temple chamber, and it was restored to its sacred uses (13%). The people were compelled to pay the tithe Ὁ for the support of the Levites and other temple officers (v.%). The city gates were ordered to be closed during the whole of the Sabbath, the vendors who then set up their stalls outside of the gates were threatened so that they were afraid to renew the offence (ν.

95), The men with foreign wives suffered disgrace and punishment, and the people were put under oath to discontinue this violation of the Law. The arch-offender, Eliashib’s grandson, was banished from Jerus. (v.*"). According to Jos. (Ant. XI. vii. 2, viii. 2), Manasseh, a brother of Jaddua, married Nicaso the daughter of Sanballat, left Jerus. and built the rival temple on Gerizim. Josephus places these events in the time of Alex- ander, but he was not a master of chronology, ¢.g.

he places Neh. in the time of Xerxes; and many hold that this Manasseh was the son of Joiada anc rrandson of Eliashib (see Kuenen, Rel. Jer. ii. 236 ; fontefiore, Hib. Lect. 351; Ryle, Can. 92). In spite of the effort of the author of the beautiful story of Ruth to soften the harsh spirit of the leaders, Ezra and Neh. held the same decided view against foreign marriages, though from different motives.

The great offence in Ezra’s eyes was the * Monteflore regards this condition partly as a result of ‘the old quarrel between priests and Levites’ (Hib, Lect. 350). t this was a tithe of corn, wine, and oil, asin Dt 1422 ; see Ryle, Canon of the OT, 86., ,, | 510 NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF NEHUSHTAN {infringement of the sacred law. But Neh.

, while he was im- pressed with the dangerous consequences of such all | citing the sin of Solomon and the havoc it wrought (13%), hel is probably due to a scribal error, the paralle! assage (Ezr 2?) having Rehum (01m; A’T οὐμ, Luc Ῥεϊούμ). In Neh the LXX a a MT, readin Ναούμ. The name appears in 1 Es 58 as Roimus ( Ῥόειμος, A* Ῥομέλιος). NEHUSHTA (xzyz3; Lue. Νεεσθάν, B Νεσθά, A Ναισθά).

, -ὙΥ 16 of king Jehoiakim and mother of Jehoiachin; a native of Jerusalem (2 K 248), She was taken a prisoner to Babylon with her son in 597 (2 K 9413), and no doubt died there. Re- arding her father, see ELNATHAN. The vowels ot MT and the rendering of Jerome, es ejus, connect the word with nyn; ‘bronze.’ Barzillai is skeet another example of a proper name derived from the name of a metal.

But the stem consonants of the word are those also of wn; ‘serpent,’ and animal names are characteristic of the period (Gray, Heb, Proper Names, p. 103 f.) The Lucianic translitera- tion identifies the name with Nehushtan (2 K 184), W. B. STEVENSON,