A verse by verse commentary on Nehemiah 1 dealing with and Introduction to the book and the person of Nehemiah, and the prayer that begins the book.

1. EHEMIAH 1 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
I TRODUCTIO
PARKER, "The following material appeared at the end of ehemiah in the printed
edition:
ehemiah
(Selected).
All that we know certainly concerning this eminent man is contained in the book
which bears his name. His autobiography first finds him at Shushan [Ecbatana was
the summer, Babylon the spring, and Persepolis the autumn residence of the kings
of Persia. Susa was the principal palace], the winter residence of the kings of Persia,
in high office as the cupbearer of King Artaxerxes Longimanus. The following note,
summing up the achievements of this great and good governor, is from Smith"s
Dictionary of the Bible, from which work we have selected the notes on
pages227,235.
ehemiah firmly repressed the exactions of the nobles and the usury of the rich, and
rescued the poor Jews from spoliation and slavery. He refused to receive his lawful
allowance as governor from the people, in consideration of their poverty, during the
whole twelve years that he was in office, but kept at his own charge a table for one
hundred and fifty Jews, at which any who returned from captivity were welcome.
He made most careful provision for the maintenance of the ministering priests and
Levites, and for the due and constant celebration of Divine worship. He insisted
upon the sanctity of the precincts of the Temple being preserved inviolable, and
peremptorily ejected the powerful Tobias from one of the chambers which Eliashib
had assigned to him. He then replaced the stores and vessels which had been
removed to make room for him, and appointed proper Levitical officers to
superintend and distribute them. With no less firmness and impartiality he expelled
from all sacred functions those of the high priest"s family who had contracted
heathen marriages, and rebuked and punished those of the common people who had
likewise intermarried with foreigners; and lastly, he provided for keeping holy the
Sabbath day, which was shamefully profaned by many, both Jews and foreign
merchants, and by his resolute conduct succeeded in repressing the lawless traffic
on the day of rest.
Beyond the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, to which ehemiah"s own narrative
leads us, we have no account of him whatever. either had Josephus. For when he
tells us that "when ehemiah had done many other excellent things... he came to a
great age and then died," he sufficiently indicates that he knew nothing more about

2. him. The most probable inference from the close of his own memoir, and the
absence of any further tradition concerning him Isaiah , that he returned to Persia
and died there.
Commentary On The Book Of ehemiah
By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons-London) DD
Introduction.
ehemiah is the thrilling story of a man whom God had placed in a position of great
authority in the Persian Empire, with a view to his achieving what had previously
been forbidden, the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. It was no mean task.
Judah was surrounded by powerful enemies who opposed the rebuilding, and who
were willing to use any means in order to seek to prevent it, and, at their instigation,
the king of Persia himself had, in the early part of his reign, issued an order for such
work to cease. It would take a man of God of great influence and tact to reverse the
situation. And such was ehemiah.
ehemiah is revealed as discreet and fearless, as well as being a brilliant organiser,
demonstrating by his achievements that he had the capacity to win men to fall into
line with his, and God’s purposes. ot all the Jews in Judah welcomed his arrival,
but his abilities under God are brought out by the way that he persuades almost all
to assist him in the work regardless of their own loyalties.
But his vision was greater than that. He saw himself as establishing the
eschatalogical Jerusalem promised by the prophets, ‘the holy city’ of Isaiah 52:10.
And from ehemiah 11:1 onwards we have a description of that achievement,
commencing with the repopulation of Jerusalem with Jews from the new Israel; the
guarantee that the worship of Jerusalem would be true, being founded on priests
and Levites whose genealogies could be determined,; the celebrations that greeted
the building of the wall that made all this possible; and the careful activity of
ehemiah in ensuring the purity of the city. Like Ezra, ehemiah ends with a
description of the putting away of idolatrous foreign wives who were the spark
which could have returned the new Israel to idolatry. To us this might appear
almost an irrelevance, but to the people who knew the harm that idolatry had done
to Israel/Judah, it was the most important of all the steps taken to ensure the
continuation of the community as YHWH’s people.
Background.
Following the return to Judah and Jerusalem, from Exile in Babylonia, of the
‘remnant of the captivity’ in 538 BC, along with those who followed later, the
remnant had been having a pretty hard time of it ( ehemiah 1:3). This was not
surprising because they faced opposition from four powerful groups:
1) Their fellow-Jews who had remained in the land, and who were syncretistic,
worshipping both YHWH and idols, and who were therefore excluded from

3. worshipping with the remnant. They probably saw the returnees as bigoted
upstarts. As a consequence they were bitter, especially as this excluded their right to
worship in the new Temple, which was open only to those who were free from
idolatry in any form. And their bitterness would have been increased by those
among the remnant who claimed back family land which they had taken over.
2) The non-Jews who were now in the area and who resented their presence as
newcomers, seeing them as interlopers, and also resenting the similar claiming back
of family land.
3) The syncretistic Yahwists of Samaria, who had become so on being exiled to
Samaria from other lands where they had worshipped other gods. They shared the
resentment of the syncretistic Jews, because they too were prevented by these
newcomers from worshipping with the remnant in the new Temple. Furthermore
they had considerable influence with the Persian authorities.
4) The non-Yahwists, who were in lands round about, who had been enemies of
Judah of old, and who also resented their presence and the idea of them setting up a
new ‘state’.
So they were looked on with hostility by all, apart, that is, by those few in the land
who had remained wholly faithful to YHWH, and who therefore now worshipped
with them, or by those who had recommitted themselves to YHWH (Ezra 6:21).
There were moreover powerful voices among their adversaries, and these included
the governor of the district of Samaria. These adversaries were in a position
constantly to send accusations to the Persian king, and also to arrange that the
remnant were given a very hard time. With regard to giving them a hard time it was
not difficult in those days to organise gangs who could be disruptive, for when they
did so, who would be able to prove anything? And they looked on a half-desolated
Jerusalem as fair game, and no doubt took advantage of any wealth which came to
Jerusalem because of the existence of the Temple with its worship. The remnant had
partially tried to deal with this difficulty by building a wall round Jerusalem, which
confirms that there was continual harassment of that partially populated city (Ezra
4:12-13; Ezra 4:21), but this had been circumvented by their enemies (Ezra 4:8-23),
who, once they had persuaded the king of Persia to intervene and stop the work, had
gone beyond their remit and had gleefully prevented the walls from being rebuilt,
and had burned the new gates with fire (Ezra 4:23).
But it was not only Jerusalem that was vulnerable. In their own dwelling places
situated among the peoples of the land the returnees were even more vulnerable. We
do not know how far the governors of the area who followed Zerubbabel, and were
prior to ehemiah (445 BC), were prepared to act in their defence. We only know
that by the time of 407 BC, per the Elephantine papyri, a (probable) Persian named
Bagoas was the governor of Judea (alternately he may have been a Jewish prince
with a Persian name). But it is clear from ehemiah 1:3 that over these decades
things had not been good, (they were ‘in great affliction and reproach’), and this
was so even after the return of Ezra the Priest, with a new batch of returnees, who
had been sent by the king to ensure the correct functioning of YHWH worship,
something which had probably brought new life to the remnant. But his authority
was in the religious sphere rather than the political. This was the parlous situation

4. at the time when this book opens.
Relationship Of The Book Of ehemiah To The Book Of Ezra.
There can be little doubt that the two books, Ezra and ehemiah, were brought
together as one at an early date, and were early seen as one. All the external
evidence points to this as a fact. Thus the question must arise as to whether they
were ever issued separately, for it was not until the time of Origen, and then Jerome,
that they were spoken of as two books, and even Origen agrees that in Hebrew
tradition they were seen as one. Indeed, on the evidence that we have it was not until
around the middle ages (1448 AD) that the Jews themselves depicted them as
separate works, and this when the Hebrew text of the Scriptures was put into print.
evertheless the fact that this did occur demonstrates that there are good grounds
for seeing them as separate works, and this would appear to be confirmed by the use
in Ezra 2 and ehemiah 7 of closely related lists, which, while not being identical,
are sufficiently close for them to be seen as repetitive, something unlikely to have
happened in a joint work. It is also suggested by the fat that both books end with the
removal of idolatrous foreign wives, something which could be seen as the ultimate
achievement of these godly leaders, as it rooted out attempts to return to idolatry.
But in that case, why were the two books brought together so early? One good
reason why they might initially have been brought together may have been in order
to conform the number of Old Testament books to the number of letters in the
Hebrew alphabet (just as the twelve ‘minor’ prophets were seen as one for a similar
reason).
On these grounds, therefore, they have been treated in the commentary as separate
books, something which is attested by their headings. evertheless their relationship
is certainly very close, and, indeed, that is what we would expect from two books
written largely by contemporaries around the same time referring to contemporary
events. ehemiah’s abrupt and forceful style, however, punctuated with asides and
frank comments, is unique, and there are few who would doubt his authorship of
the main body of chapters 1 to 7 of the book, together with parts of chapters
ehemiah 12:31 to ehemiah 13:31. Besides the change of subject between the end
of Ezra and the commencement of the activities of ehemiah might be seen as being
too abrupt for them to be part of the same work. The idea that the two books are the
work of the Chronicler has no external support, (unless 1 Esdras is seen as
providing that support, but its support must be seen as extremely doubtful) and it
must be doubted on the grounds of the different approach of the Chronicler.
Outline Of The Book.
1). ehemiah obtains permission from the king of Persia to rebuild the walls of
Jerusalem and carries out the work in the face of great and continuing opposition,
not resting until Jerusalem is once again secure ( ehemiah 1:1 to ehemiah 7:73).
2). The Book of the Law is read and expounded on, and in consequence the people
enter into a solemn covenant with God (8-10).

5. 3). Jerusalem is established as the holy city, populated by true Israelites ( ehemiah
11:1-36); its worship is conducted by those who are shown to be genuinely
descended from those chosen by the Law of Moses to conduct the worship of
YHWH ( ehemiah 12:1-26); its wall and gates are purified and dedicated to YHWH
and the means of sustenance of the Levites and priests is ensured ( ehemiah 12:27-
47); the holy city is purified and caused to properly maintain the Sabbath whilst
being cleansed of idolatrous foreign wives ( ehemiah 13:1-31).
ehemiah’s Prayer
1 The words of ehemiah son of Hakaliah:
In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while
I was in the citadel of Susa,
BAR ES, "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah - The prophetical
books commence generally with a title of this kind (see Jer_1:1); but no other extant
historical book begins thus. Nehemiah, while attaching his work to Ezra, perhaps
marked in this manner the point at which his own composition commenced. (See the
introduction of the Book of Nehemiah.)
Chisleu - The ninth month, corresponding to the end of November and beginning of
December.
In the twentieth year - i. e. of Artaxerxes Longimanus (465-425 B.C.). Compare
Neh_2:1.
Shushan the palace - Compare Est_1:2, Est_1:5, etc.; Dan_8:2. Shushan, or Susa,
was the ordinary residence of the Persian kings. “The palace” or acropolis was a distinct
quarter of the city, occupying an artificial eminence.
CLARKE, "The words of Nehemiah - That this book was compiled out of the
journal or memoranda made by Nehemiah himself, there can be no doubt: but that he
was not the compiler is evident from several passages in the work it. self. As it is written
consecutively as one book with Ezra, many have supposed that this latter was the
author: but whoever compares the style of each, in the Hebrew, will soon be convinced
that this is not correct; the style is so very different, that they could not possibly be the
work of the same person.
It is doubtful even whether the Nehemiah who is mentioned Ezr_2:2, who came to
Jerusalem with Zerubbabel, be the same with him who is the reputed author of this

6. book. By the computation of the best chronologists, Zerubbabel came to Jerusalem in A.
M. 3468; and Nehemiah, who is here mentioned, did not come before the twentieth year
of the reign of Artaxerxes, which falls in with A. M. 3558, ninety years after: and as his
account here is carried down to A. M. 3570, nearly twenty years later, he must at his
death have been about a hundred and thirty, allowing him to have been only twenty
years old at the time that Zerubbabel went up to Jerusalem. This is by no means likely,
as this would make him the king’s cupbearer when he was upwards of a hundred years of
age! It seems, therefore, evident that the Nehemiah of Ezra cannot be the same with the
reputed author of this book, and the cup-bearer of the Persian king.
Son of Hachaliah - Of what tribe or lineage he was, we cannot tell: this is all we
know of his parentage. Some suppose he was a priest, and of the house of Aaron, on the
authority of 2 Maccabees 1:18, 21; but this is but slender evidence. It is likely he was of a
very eminent family, if not of the blood royal of Judah, as only persons of eminence
could be placed in the office which he sustained in the Persian court.
The month Chisleu - Answering to a part of our November and December.
Twentieth year - That is, of Artaxerxes, A. M. 3558, b.c. 446.
Shushan the palace - The ancient city of Susa; called in Persian Shuster: the winter
residence of the Persian kings.
GILL, "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah,.... Or his transactions and
deeds; for ‫דברי‬ "dibre" signifies things done, as well as words spoken; who Hachaliah his
father was is not known; the Arabic version adds, the high priest, without any
foundation; though some have thought that Nehemiah was a priest, from a passage
in"Therefore whereas we are now purposed to keep the purification of the temple upon
the five and twentieth day of the month Chisleu, we thought it necessary to certify you
thereof, that ye also might keep it, as the feast of the tabernacles, and of the fire, which
was given us when Neemias offered sacrifice, after that he had builded the temple and
the altar.'' (2 Maccabees 1:18)and from signing and sealing the covenant at the head of
priests, Neh_10:1, but he rather seems to be of the tribe of Judah, see Neh_2:3, and
Nehemiah may be the same that went up with Zerubbabel, and returned again, and then
became the king's cupbearer; though some are of another opinion; see Gill on Ezr_2:2,
and it came to pass in the month Chisleu; the ninth month, as the Arabic version;
of which see Ezr_10:9,
in the twentieth year; not of Nehemiah's age, for, if he went up with Zerubbabel, he
must be many years older; but in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, Neh_1:1,
as I was in Shushan the palace; a city in Persia, the royal seat of the kings of it; as
Ecbatana was in the summer time, this in the spring, as Cyrus made it, according to
Xenophon (b); but others say (c) it was their seat in winter, and this was the season now
when Nehemiah was with the king there; for Chisleu was a winter month, answering to
part of November and of December; of Shushan; see Gill on Dan_8:2, to which may be
added what a traveller of the last century says (d) of it,"we rested at Valdac, once the
great city Susa, but now very ruinous; it was first built by Tythonus, and his son
Memnon, but enlarged by Darius the son of Hystaspes; in the building whereof Memnon
was so exceeding prodigal, that, as Cassiodorus writeth, he joined the stones together
with gold--such was the beauty and delectableness of it for situation, that they called it
"Susa", which in the Persian tongue signified a "lily", but now it is called Valdac, because

7. of the poverty of the place;''and it is generally supposed to have its name from the
abundance of lilies about it; but Dr. Hyde (e) gives another signification of its name, he
says the Persians called it, "Sus", which signifies "liquorice", but for what reasons he says
not. There is a city now called Shustera, and is thought by some travellers to be built at
least very near where Shushan formerly stood (f).
HE RY, "What tribe Nehemiah was of does nowhere appear; but, if it be true (which
we are told by the author of the Maccabees, 2 Macc. 1:18) that he offered sacrifice, we
must conclude him to have been a priest. Observe,
I. Nehemiah's station at the court of Persia. We are here told that he was in Shushan
the palace, or royal city, of the king of Persia, where the court was ordinarily kept (Neh_
1:1), and (Neh_1:11) that he was the king's cup-bearer. Kings and great men probably
looked upon it as a piece of state to be attended by those of other nations. By this place
at court he would be the better qualified for the service of his country in that post for
which God had designed him, as Moses was the fitter to govern for being bred up in
Pharaoh's court, and David in Saul's. He would also have the fairer opportunity of
serving his country by his interest in the king and those about him. Observe, He is not
forward to tell us what great preferment he had at court; it is not till the end of the
chapter that he tells us he was the king's cup-bearer (a place of great trust, as well as of
honour and profit), when he could not avoid the mentioning of it because of the
following story; but at first he only said, I was in Shushan the palace. We may hence
learn to be humble and modest, and slow to speak of our own advancements. But in the
providences of God concerning him we may observe, to our comfort, 1. That when God
has work to do he will never want instruments to do it with. 2. That those whom God
designs to employ in his service he will find out proper ways both to fit for it and to call
to it. 3. That God has his remnant in all places; we read of Obadiah in the house of Ahab,
saints in Caesar's household, and a devout Nehemiah in Shushan the palace. 4. That God
can make the courts of princes sometimes nurseries and sometimes sanctuaries to the
friends and patrons of the church's cause.
JAMISO , "Neh_1:1-3. Nehemiah, understanding by Hanani the afflicted state of
Jerusalem, mourns, fasts and prays.
Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah — This eminently pious and patriotic Jew is to be
carefully distinguished from two other persons of the same name - one of whom is
mentioned as helping to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Neh_3:16), and the other is
noticed in the list of those who accompanied Zerubbabel in the first detachment of
returning exiles (Ezr_2:2; Neh_7:7). Though little is known of his genealogy, it is highly
probable that he was a descendant of the tribe of Judah and the royal family of David.
in the month Chisleu — answering to the close of November and the larger part of
December.
Shushan the palace — the capital of ancient Susiana, east of the Tigris, a province
of Persia. From the time of Cyrus it was the favorite winter residence of the Persian
kings.
K&D, "In the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, being then at
Susa, received from one of his brethren, and other individuals from Judah, information
which deeply grieved him, concerning the sad condition of the captive who had returned

8. to the land of their fathers, and the state of Jerusalem. Neh_1:1 contains the title of the
whole book: the History of Nehemiah. By the addition “son of Hachaliah,” Nehemiah is
distinguished from others of the same name (e.g., from Nehemiah the son of Azbuk,
Neh_3:16). Another Nehemiah, too, returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, Ezr_2:2.
Of Hachaliah we know nothing further, his name occurring but once more, Neh_10:2, in
conjunction, as here, with that of Nehemiah. Eusebius and Jerome assert that Nehemiah
was of the tribe of Judah, - a statement which may be correct, but is unsupported by any
evidence from the Old Testament. According to Neh_1:11, he was cup-bearer to the
Persian king, and was, at his own request, appointed for some time Pecha, i.e., governor,
of Judah. Comp. Neh_5:14; Neh_12:26, and Neh_8:9; Neh_10:2. “In the month Chisleu
of the twentieth year I was in the citadel of Susa” - such is the manner in which
Nehemiah commences the narrative of his labours for Jerusalem. Chisleu is the ninth
month of the year, answering to our December. Comp. Zec_7:1, 1 Macc. 4:52. The
twentieth year is, according to Neh_2:1, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
On the citadel of Susa, see further details in the remarks on Dan_8:2. Susa was the
capital of the province Susiana, and its citadel, called by the Greeks Memnoneion, was
strongly fortified. The kings of Persia were accustomed to reside here during some
months of the year.
COFFMA , " EHEMIAH GETS THE BAD EWS ABOUT JERUSALEM
Josephus has a tale regarding the manner in which ehemiah received this bad
news. One day as he was walking around the palace in Susa, he heard some Jews
speaking in the Hebrew language and inquired of them regarding conditions in
Jerusalem. They told him of the constant enmity of the neighboring people, and of
how they were subjected to harassment day and night, and even that many dead
people could be found along the roads.[1] The Scriptural account does not exactly
correspond with this, unless we should set aside the usual opinion of commentators
that Hanani was an actual brother of ehemiah; but the narratives have one thing
in common. Hanani was only one of several people who brought the bad news.
"It cannot be definitely ascertained whether or not Hanani was actually a blood
brother of ehemiah. However, in ehemiah 7:2, ehemiah again referred to him
as his brother, leading to the speculation that he was really a brother in the
ordinary sense."[2] Williamson wrote that, "It is likely that the word (brother)
should be taken literally."[3]
"The words of ehemiah the son of Hacaliah.
" ow it came to pass in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in
Shushan the palace, that Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men out
of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, that were left of
the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem."
"The words of ehemiah" ( ehemiah 1:1). This stands as the title of the whole
book; and the critical canard that, "These words were probably added by a later
scribe,"[4] should be rejected. " o other historical book begins in this manner,"[5]

9. and therefore no `later scribe' could possibly have been so foolish as to make such
an unheard of addition. However, all of the prophetic books begin thus; and in all
these cases they constitute the title of the book, as they most certainly do here.
"Verse 1a ( ehemiah 1:1) here contains the title of the whole book."[6] "This book
is one of the outstanding autobiographical masterpieces of the ancient world."[7]
" ehemiah the son of Hacaliah" ( ehemiah 1:1). The tribe to which ehemiah
belonged is not revealed; but, "Eusebius and Jerome assert that he was of the tribe
of Judah."[8] Jamieson supposed that this is true and added further that, "He was
of the royal family of David."[9] Matthew Henry, however, stated that, "If 2
Maccabees 1:18 is the truth in their statement that ehemiah offered sacrifices, then
we must conclude that he was a priest and therefore of the tribe of Levi."[10] These
references are an excellent example of scholarly comment on something which the
sacred Scriptures do not reveal.
"The month Chislev in the twentieth year" ( ehemiah 1:2). The month Chislev
corresponded to our ovember-December; and the twentieth year here is a
reference to, "The twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus), in the
year 445 B.C."[11]
"In Shushan the palace" ( ehemiah 1:2). "This is the same place as Susa, where
Daniel saw the vision of the ram with two horns (Daniel 8:2),"[12] and, "Where, in
the year 478 B.C., Esther became Xerxes' queen in this palace."[13] "This place was
the winter residence of Persian kings";[14] "It was located east of the river Tigris
and near the head of the Persian gulf."[15]
TRAPP, " The words of ehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the
month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace,
Ver. 1. The words of ehemiah] Or, the deeds, for he was good at both; and so a
singular comfort to his countrymen, according to the notation of his name
ehemiah, i.e. The comfort or rest of the Lord. Here hence also some infer, that
ehemiah himself was the penman of this book (and not Ezra, as the vulgar Latin
and many ancients would have it), like as Julius Caesar wrote his own acts (so did
Alexander Severus and M. Aurelius, emperors), and by a more modest name, called
his book Commentaries, and not Histories; yet did it so well, ut praerepta non
praebita facultas scriptoribus videatur, said Aulus Hirtius, that historians had their
work done to their hands; he wrote with the same spirit he fought, saith Quintilian,
Eodem animo dixit, quo bellavit, lib. 10.
And it came to pass] This book then is a continuation of the former; ehemiah
being a third instrument of procuring this people’s good, after Zerubbabel and
Ezra; and deservedly counted and called a third founder of that commonwealth,
after Joshua and David.

10. In the month Chisleu] In the deep of winter: then it was that Hanani and his
brethren undertook their journey into Persia, for the good of the Church.
In the twentieth year] sc. Of Artaxerxes Longimanus, thirteen years after Ezra and
his company first came to Jerusalem, Ezra 7:8, with ehemiah 2:1.
I was in Shushan the palace] i.e. In the palace of the city Susan; this Susan signifieth
a lily, and was so called, likely, for the beauty and delectable site. ow it is called
Vahdac of the poverty of the place. Here was ehemiah waiting upon his office, and
promoting the good of his people. Strabo and others say, that the inhabitants of
Susia were quiet and peaceable; and were therefore the better beloved by the kings
of Persia, Cyrus being the first that made his chief abode there, in winter especially;
and that this city was long, and in compass fifteen miles about.
BE SO ,". The words of ehemiah — Or, the acts, as the Hebrew word here used
often signifies; that is, the things which ehemiah did. In the month Chisleu —
Which answers to part of our ovember and December. In the twentieth year —
amely, of the reign of Artaxerxes. As I was in Shushan the palace — In the region
of Elimais, where the Persian kings kept their court in the winter, and which, from
its pleasant and beautiful situation, was called by heathen writers Susa, which
signifies a lily, or, as Athenaeus says, a rose.
WHEDO , "THE SAD TIDI GS FROM JUDAH, ehemiah 1:1-3.
1. The words of ehemiah — Like each book of the twelve minor prophets, this
Book of ehemiah opens with an announcement of its author’s name. In thus it
differs from all the other historical books. ehemiah is here called the son of
Hachaliah, but otherwise his genealogy is unknown. He was, probably, like
Zerubbabel, a descendant of the house of Judah, and of the family of David. His
words are here to be understood, not merely as his discourses, but his acts and
experiences also.
The month Chisleu — The ninth month of the Jewish year, corresponding nearly
with our December. It was amid the rains of this same month, twelve years before,
that the Jews assembled at Jerusalem to Ezra to confess their sins, and to put away
their heathen wives. Ezra 10:9.
The twentieth year — Of Artaxerxes, king of Persia. Comp. ehemiah 2:1.
Shushan the palace — So called because it was the seat of the principal palace of the
Persian Empire. Strabo says (xv, 3, 3) that the palace of this place was embellished
more than the other palaces of the empire. Shushan, or, as it is more commonly
called, Susa, was the winter residence of the kings of Persia, as Ecbatana was their
summer residence. See note on Ezra 6:2. It has been identified with the modern Sus,
or Shush. Its ruins cover a space six thousand feet long, by four thousand five

11. hundred feet broad. By excavations made in these mounds of rubbish, Mr. Loftus,
in 1852, discovered what he regards as the remains of the identical palace mentioned
here and in the Book of Esther. He ascertained the position of the seventy-two
columns of the ancient palace, and was thus enabled to present the following
ground-plan. In this plan there is a great central hall of thirty-six columns,
surrounded on three sides by great porches, each having twelve columns. These
columns were over eight feet in diameter, and stand about twenty-seven feet apart.
The same plan appears, also, in the great palace of Xerxes at Persepolis. See note on
Esther 5:1. These exterior porches were, according to Fergusson, the great audience
halls, and served the same purpose as the “house of the forest of Lebanon” in
Solomon’s palace. It was at this great palace that Daniel saw his vision of the ram
and the he goat, (Daniel 8:2;) here Xerxes “sat on the throne of his kingdom” when
he ordered the feast at which he proposed to exhibit the beauty of his queen Vashti,
(Esther 1:2;) and here ehemiah served as cupbearer.
Shushan was one of the most ancient and celebrated cities of the East, and was
wisely fixed upon by the kings of Persia as the chief seat of their court and empire.
Its ruins are situated about one hundred miles north of the northern end of the
Persian Gulf, in a fertile region watered by the rivers Kherkhah and Dizful.
COKE, ". ehemiah— It may be well questioned, whether this ehemiah be the
same with him mentioned in Ezra 2:1 and chap. ehemiah 7:7 of this book, as one
who returned from the Babylonish captivity under Zerubbabel; since, from the first
year of Cyrus to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, there are no less than
ninety-two years intervening; so that ehemiah must at this time have been a very
old man; upon the lowest computation above a hundred, and consequently
incapable of being the king's cup-bearer, of taking a journey from Shushan to
Jerusalem, and of behaving there with all that courage and activity which is
recorded of him. Upon this presumption, therefore, we may conclude, that this was
a different person, though of the same name. That Tirshatha denotes the title of his
office, and, both in the Persian and Chaldean tongues, was the general name given
to all the king's deputies and governors, see on Ezra 2:63. The text calls him barely
the son of Hachaliah, without informing us of what tribe he was. Some, therefore,
from 2 Maccabees 1:18; 2 Maccabees 1:21 where he is said to have offered sacrifices,
and from his being reckoned at the head of the priests who signed the new covenant
with God (ch. ehemiah 10:1.), have affirmed him to have been of the family of
Aaron; but as there is nothing conclusive in all this, and it seems expressly
contradicted by his saying, in another place, that he was not a fit person to shelter
himself in the temple, chap. ehemiah 6:2 the far greater part suppose him to have
been of the royal family of Judah. And this is so much the more probable, because
we find none but such promoted to those high stations about the king's person; and
we never read of a priest that was so till a long time after, and upon a quite different
account. The month Chisleu answers to part of our ovember and December, and
the twentieth year is the twentieth of the reign of Artaxerxes. See Le Clerc and
Houbigant.
CO STABLE, "Verses 1-3

12. 1. The news concerning Jerusalem1:1-3
The month Chislev ( ehemiah 1:1) corresponds to our late ovember and early
December. [ ote: For the Hebrew calendar, see the appendix to my notes on Ezra.]
The year in view was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" reign (i.e, 445-444 B.C.).
Susa (or Shushan, in Hebrew) was a winter capital of Artaxerxes (cf. Esther 1:2).
The main Persian capital at this time was Persepolis.
Hanani ( ehemiah 1:2) seems to have been ehemiah"s blood brother (cf.
ehemiah 7:2). The escape in view refers to the Jews" escape back to Judea from
captivity in Babylon. Even though they received official permission to return,
ehemiah seems to have regarded their departure from Babylon as an escape, since
the Babylonians had originally forced them into exile against their wills.
The news that ehemiah received evidently informed him of the Jews" unsuccessful
attempts to rebuild Jerusalem"s walls in458 B.C. ( Ezra 4:23-24).
"It was an ominous development, for the ring of hostile neighbors round Jerusalem
could now claim royal backing. The patronage which Ezra had enjoyed (cf. Ezra
7:21-26) was suddenly in ruins, as completely as the city walls and gates. Jerusalem
was not only disarmed but on its own." [ ote: Derek Kidner, Ezra and ehemiah ,
p78. Cf. Eugene H. Merrill, in The Old Testament Explorer, p353.]
ELLICOTT, "(1) In the month Chisleu.—The names rather than the numbers of
the months are generally employed after the captivity: isan, Iyar, Sivan, Tammuz,
Av, Elul, Tishri, Marchesvan, Chisleu, Tebeth, Shevat, Adar; with an intercalary
month, the second Adar. Chisleu answers nearly to our December.
In the twentieth year.—Of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which began B.C.
465 and ended B.C. 425.
In Shushan the palace.—Susa, the capital of Susiana; where, after the capture of the
Babylonian empire, a great palace was built by Darius Hystaspis, the ruins of which
are still seen. It was the principal and favourite residence of the Persian court,
alternating with Persepolis, the older capital, and Babylon. Shushan was one of the
most ancient cities in the world; and is associated with the visions of Daniel, and
with the feast of Ahasuerus (Daniel 8:2, Esther 1:3).
PARKER, "The words of ehemiah , the son of Hachaliah" ( ehemiah 1:1).
The Message to ehemiah
WHAT should we imagine was coming from such an opening of a book? We should
naturally suppose that we were about to hear an ordinary narrative—to listen to the
contemplations and reflections of a literary man. He is simply about to say
something—he promises nothing more than words— yet out of this very simple and
humble beginning we have one of the most remarkable stories of activity that can be

13. found in any writing. Words are more than we think—everything depends on the
speaker. To some persons life appears to be only an affair of words, syllables, empty
utterances—that is to say, they are people who must talk: they have a good deal to
say about nothing, and they say nothing about it, and their life is thus summed up as
mere gabblers and gossips, speakers without a speech, words with no battles behind
them. These, however, are the words of ehemiah , the governor of Judah and
Jerusalem. When such a man speaks, he means to do something—his purpose is
always practical, but he thinks it needful to lay down a good strong basis of
explanation, that people may understand clearly why he began to work and upon
what principles he proceeded.
ehemiah lived in a very wonderful time. If we could have called together into one
great council all the great men who lived within the eighty years which were the
measure of ehemiah"s own life, we should have had one of the most wonderful
councils that ever assembled under heaven. There is ehemiah in the middle;
yonder is Æschylus writing his tragedies in Athens; Democritus elaborating a
philosophy whose atomism and materialism are coming up as the originalities of our
own day; Aristophanes elaborating his wonderful comedies; Herodotus writing his
gossipy history, and Thucydides writing a history marked by much majesty. And
bring also into this symposium Plato and Socrates and other of the most notable
men that ever led the civilised world—they were all living within that same span of
eighty years, yet what different lives they were pursuing! The words of the comedy-
writer were words only; the words of the great tragic composer were only words—
with a keener accent, however; but the words of ehemiah meant strife, contention,
the assertion of right, patriotism, battle—if need be, the reclamation of a lost cause,
the leading of a forlorn hope. What do our words mean? Do we purpose to carry out
our words? Are they words that culminate in covenants, or mere empty syllables
used for jangling in the air? If we did but know it, a word should have blood in it—
a word should be part of our innermost heart; a word should be a bond; a saying
should be a seal; an utterance should be a pledge made sacred with all the resources
and all the responsibilities of life.
"And it came to pass [rather, ow it came to pass] in the month Chisleu [the ninth
month, corresponding to the end of ovember and beginning of December (see
Zechariah 7:1)], in the twentieth year [i.e. of Artaxerxes (comp. ch. ehemiah 2:1)],
as I was in Shushan the palace" [comp. Ezekiel 1:2, Ezekiel 1:5, etc.; Daniel 8:2.
Shushan, or Susa, was the ordinary residence of the Persian kings. "The palace," or
acropolis, was a distinct quarter of the city, occupying an artificial eminence] (
ehemiah 1:1).
It was in the very grey December time that the message came. It was about our
midwinter that the messenger arrived in Persia. How does it come that we set down
some days as the beginning of other dates? We call them red-letter days—they are
memorable points in our poor changing story. "Twas the day when your mother
died; "twas the day when the poor little child had that serious accident which
threatened its life; "twas that crisis in your commercial affairs when you did not
know but that the morrow would find you a beggar; "twas just as you were pulling

14. your foot out of that pit of long affliction which you thought would have swallowed
you up; and you date from these occurrences, landmarks, memorable points, eras in
your story. And ehemiah never could forget that December day when Hanani
came, and he asked him that all-important question we are now about to consider.
PETT, "The book opens with a typical opening line. ehemiah was not a prophet
and therefore we would not expect it to say too much. But he was an extremely
important person within the Persian Empire. He was ‘cupbearer to the king’. That
does not mean that he was a waiter. It indicates that he was the man who received
the cup from a servant, and after tasting it to see if it was poisoned by pouring the
wine into his hand and drinking it, handed it to the king. He was thus the one man
in a position to most easily poison the king. Consequently he was a man in whom the
king placed absolute trust. And we soon discover that ehemiah had entry into the
king’s presence at other times, which accentuates his importance. Few had that
privilege.
Introduction.
ehemiah 1:1
‘The words of ehemiah the son of Hacaliah.’
It is possible that the simple title ‘ ehemiah the son of Hacaliah’ was considered by
him as sufficient to indicate who he was. It may well have been his view that it was
only lesser men who had to provide details. In his day his name said everything. He
was, of course aware that he intended to provide some detail later ( ehemiah 1:11),
but that was in the course of the narrative. Here he was simply ‘ ehemiah ben
Hacaliah’, a man of renown. ehemiah means ‘Yah has comforted’. The meaning of
Hacaliah is unknown. The name ehemiah was a common one and is testified to of
others in ehemiah 3:16 and Ezra 2:2. It is also attested in extra-Biblical records.
But there was only one ehemiah ben Halachiah
On the other hand some see in this description the hand of the editor as he sought to
combine ehemiah’s record with the book of Ezra. But however we see it, some
such introduction would always have been necessary, even prior to that, so that we
would know who was in mind in what was to follow. And besides, if it were the
words of an editor we might have expected a more detailed introduction. It was only
the man himself, aware of his own importance, who could be so brief. And this
would also explain the seemingly careless dating (the king’s name is not mentioned).
‘The words of --.’ The Hebrew word translated ‘words’ often indicates doings and
activities, and it clearly does that here. The aim is to describe ehemiah’s deeds, and
what he accomplished. Compare 1 Kings 11:41; 1 Kings 14:19; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2
Chronicles 9:29.
ehemiah Learns Of The Sad Condition Of Those Who Had Escaped from Babylon

15. And Of The Recent Destruction Of The Walls Of Jerusalem That The Returnees
Were Attempting To Build ( ehemiah 1:1-3).
ehemiah 1:1-2
‘ ow it came about in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan
the fortress, that Hanani, one of my kinsmen, came, he and certain men out of
Judah, and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped, who were left of the
captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.’
As with the name, so with the date. He assumes that the recipient of his account will
know which king it is whose reign it is the twentieth year of, (he also knows that he
will make it clear in ehemiah 2:1). This may portray the haughtiness and
contemporary attitude of someone who felt that there was no need to say more,
because the long reign of Artaxerxes was a permanent institution throughout the
empire. He would not have known that he was writing for posterity. Alternatively it
may indicate that it was chapter 2 which began an official record made by him,
possibly in a report to the king, and that he added this explanatory information in
chapter 1, with the date given in ehemiah 2:1 being in mind, when he made it
available to a wider audience. He would know that the reader would find the more
detailed reference in ehemiah 2:1. The twentieth year of Artaxerxes ( ehemiah
2:1) would be 446 BC, and the month of Chislev around ovember/December. It
was the ninth month of the Jewish calendar commencing from the first month isan
(Passover month - March/April). This raises a slight problem in that the following
isan ( ehemiah 2:1) is also said to be in the twentieth year, but that is probably
looking at the numbering from the point of view of the commencement of the reign
of Artaxerxes rather than the commencement of the ew Year.
Again some see in this lack of mention of the king’s name the hand of an editor who
was conjoining the two narratives, of Ezra and ehemiah, who expected his readers
to refer back to Ezra 7:1; Ezra 7:11; Ezra 7:21; Ezra 8:1. But those references are
rather remote, and anyway the same argument could have applied in ehemiah 2:1,
and yet the details of the reign are given there. It thus rather suggests that
ehemiah 2:1 was what was in mind.
‘The fortress Shushan (Susa).’ This was the winter residence of the Persian kings,
with Ecbatana being their summer residence (Ezra 6:1). The ruins of Susa lie near
the River Karun and it was once, in the second millennium BC, the capital of Elam,
continuing as such into the first millennium. It was a powerful and impressive city.
It was finally sacked by Ashurbanipal of Assyria in 645 BC, who sent men into exile
from there to Samaria (Susanchites - Ezra 4:9). But it was restored, and it was at
Susa that Daniel had one of his visions (Daniel 8:2). Darius I built his palace there,
and it was there that Xerxes (Ahasuerus) demoted his chief wife, Vashti, replacing
her with Esther (Esther 1-2). The fortress had again been restored by Artaxerxes.
It is apparent from this verse that ehemiah regularly received fellow-Jews as
guests into the king’s fortress, so that it is not surprising that Jewish affairs

16. obtained a hearing at high levels. Hanani, (‘He is gracious’), whom he received at
this time, along with other prominent Jews, may well have been his brother,
although the word need only indicate a kinsman. The Hanani in ehemiah 7:2 may
or may not be identical, for Hanani was a common name. We do not know whether
this was just a private visit, or whether it was a deputation concerning some official
matter. or do we know whether they were visiting from Judah, or had simply been
to Judah on a visit. ehemiah may well have summoned them on learning of their
arrival from Judah because he wanted to learn about the situation there.
Whichever way it was he asked them concerning the situation in Judah and
Jerusalem, and how ‘those who had escaped, who were left of the captivity’ were
going on. He clearly had a deep interest in the land of his forefathers. The question
then arises as to who he was referring to by these words. Does he mean the returned
exiles who had ‘escaped’ from Babylonia, a remnant of the captivity, who had
returned to Judah (compare Ezra 9:8 which speaks of ‘a remnant to escape’), or is
he speaking of those who had initially escaped captivity and had remained in
Judah? The former appears more likely, especially in view of Ezra 9:8. It is
certainly not likely that he was unaware of the fact that exiles had returned to
Judah from Babylonia under the decrees of the kings of Persia, and he would
naturally as a Jew himself be concerned about their welfare.
LA GE, " ehemiah 1:1. The title of the book is contained in its first four (Hebrew)
words, Divre ehemyah Ben ‘Hachalyah,[F 3]i.e., The words of ehemiah, the son
of Hachaliah.—Even the prophets sometimes begin their books in this way (see
Jeremiah 1:1, and Amos 1:1), although with them the Devar Yehovah (the Word of
the Lord) finds its place soon after. The absence of the Devar Yehovah here is
nothing against the inspired character of the book. Its presence in the prophets is
simply a token of their prophetic character, as they speak to the people directly in
God’s name with a special message. In the historical books, even in the Pentateuch,
the sacred foundation of them all, this phrase very naturally is not found. Here, as
in 1 Chronicles 29:29, and elsewhere, “the words of” are really “the words about,”
or “the history of.” In Jeremiah 1:1, Amos 1:1, etc., they have the literal meaning.
(Dathe rightly “historia ehemiah”). (For the name and history of ehemiah, see
the Introduction).
The starting-point of ehemiah’s words (or history) is in the month Chisleu, in the
twentieth year, in Shushan the palace.—Chisleu was the ninth month, Abib or isan
(in which the passover fell) being the first. Chisleu would thus answer to parts of
ovember and December. Josephus makes it (Χασλεὺ) the same as the Macedonian
Apellæus (Ant. xii7, 6), which was the second month of the Macedonian year, whose
first month Dius began at the autumnal equinox. Apellæus would thus be from the
latter part of October to the latter part of ovember. Josephus’ was probably
satisfied in identifying the two months of Chisleu and Apellæus, to find some
portion of time belonging equally to both. They certainly did not coincide
throughout.
Chisleu is not likely to be a Persian month-name, as has been conjectured. The

17. Behistun inscription gives us eight Persian month-names, to wit, Bagayadish,
Viyakhna, Garmapada, Atriyatiya, Anamaka, Thuravahara, Thaigarchish and
Adukanish. It is true that in all but the first of these battles are recorded as
occurring, so that they are not probably winter months. Yet the style of the names
would scarcely warrant us in supposing that Chisleu would be in such a list. As
Chisleu appears on a Palmyrene inscription (Chaslul), it may be of Syrian origin.
This month-name occurs in the Hebrew only after the captivity, to wit, in this place
and in Zechariah 7:1. Fuerst suggests Chesil (Orion-Mars) as the base of the name,
the name being brought from Babylonia by the exiles; but the name is found in the
Assyrian, as are the other ( Song of Solomon -supposed) Persian month-names of the
Jews, which is strong presumptive evidence of their Shemitic origin.
The “twentieth year” Isaiah, as in ehemiah 2:1, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes
(Heb. Arta‘hshasta), who reigned from B. C465 to425. The year designated is
therefore parts of B. C446,445, when the “age of Pericles” was beginning in Athens,
and when Rome was yet unknown to the world. (For Artaxerxes, see Introduction).
“Shushan the palace” (Heb. Shushan Habbirah) was the royal portion of the “city
Shushan” ( Esther 3:15). Shushan or Susa (now Sus) lay between the Eulæus (Ulai)
and Shapur rivers, in a well-watered district, and was the capital of Susiana or
Cissia, the Scriptural Elam ( Isaiah 11:11) the country lying between the southern
Zagros mountains and the Tigris. It early furnished a dynasty to Babylonia (
Genesis 14:1), was conquered by Asshur-bani-pal about B. C660, and shortly
afterward fell to the lot of the later Babylonian Empire. When the Persians had
conquered this Empire, Susa was made a royal residence by Darius Hystaspes, who
built the great palace, whose ruins now attract the attention of archæologists.
Artaxerxes (the king of ehemiah’s time) repaired the palace, whose principal
features resembled those of the chief edifice at Persepolis, the older capital of the
Persian Empire. The present ruins of Susa cover a space about a mile square, the
portion of which near the river Shapur is probably “Shushan the palace.”
Athenæus ( ehemiah 12:8) says, Κλθῆναι τὰ Σοῦά φησιν Ἀρισόβουλος καὶ Xάρης
διὰ τὴν ὡραιότητα τοῦ τόπον· σοῦσον γὰρ εἶναι τῇ Ελλήνων (? Ἐλυµαίων) φωνῇ τὸ
κρίνον. So Steph. Byzant, Σοῦσα ἀπὸ τῶν κρίνων, ἅ πολλὰ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ πεφύκει
εκείνῃ. If this be true we must accord it a Shemitic origin, which is against other
evidence. Shushan may be a Turanian or an Aryan word, whose likeness to
“Shushan” (Shemit. for lily) has deceived the old writers. Susa was the court’s
principal residence, Ecbatana or Persepolis being visited for the summer only, and
Babylon being sometimes occupied in the depth of winter.
PULPIT, "CIRCUMSTA CES U DER WHICH EHEMIAH OBTAI ED HIS
COMMISSIO TO REBUILD THE WALL OF JERUSALEM ( ehemiah 1:1-11;
ehemiah 2:1-8). Living at the Persian court, far from the land which he looked on
as his true country, though perhaps he had never seen it, ehemiah seems to have
known but little of its condition and circumstances; and it is quite possible that he
might have remained in his ignorance during the term of his natural life but for an
accident. Some event—we do not know what—called his brother Hanani to
Jerusalem; and on his return to Susa this brother gave him a description of the

18. dismantled state of the holy city, and the "affliction and reproach" of the
inhabitants consequent thereupon, which threw him into a paroxysm of grief. With
the openness and passion of an Oriental, he abandoned himself to his feelings; or, in
his own words, "sat down and wept, and mourned for days, and fasted, and prayed
before the God of heaven" ( ehemiah 1:4). Whether he was in regular attendance at
this time upon the king does not appear. Perhaps the court was absent, wintering—
as it sometimes did—at Babylon, and he had not accompanied it; perhaps it was at
Susa, but the office of cupbearer was being discharged by others. At any rate, more
than three months had elapsed from the time when he heard of the affliction of
Jerusalem before his changed appearance was noted by the king. It was the month
isan, that which followed the vernal equinox, the first of the Jewish year, when
Artaxerxes, observing the sadness of his attendant, inquired its cause. ehemiah
revealed it, and the king further inquired, "For what dost thou make request?' This
was the origin of ehemiah's commission. He asked and obtained permission to quit
the court for a definite time ( ehemiah 2:6), and to go to Jerusalem with authority
to "build" the city. This was understood to include the repair of the governor's
house, of the fortress which commanded the temple area, and of the city wall (ibid.
verse 8). It necessarily involved ehemiah's appointment as governor, and the
notification of this appointment to the existing satraps and pashas. Leave was also
given him to cut such timber as was needed for the work in the "king's forest" or
"park," a royal domain situated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. ehemiah,
having obtained this firman, left Susa early in the spring of b.c. 444, accompanied
by an escort of Persian troops (verse 9), and reached Jerusalem in safety, having on
his way communicated his appoint. merit to the officials of the Syrian province.
ehemiah 1:1
The words of ehemiah the son of Hachaliah. Compare Jeremiah 1:1; Hosea 1:2;
Amos 1:1, etc. o other historical book commences in this manner, and we may best
account for the introduction of the clause by the consideration that " ehemiah"
having been originally appended to "Ezra," it marked the point at which a new
narrative began by a new author. The month Chisleu. The word Chisleu, or rather
Kislev, is probably Persian. It was unknown to the Jews before the captivity, and is
found only in this passage and in Zechariah 7:1, where Kislev is said to be "the
ninth month," corresponding nearly to our December. The twentieth year. The
twentieth regnal year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) is intended (see Zechariah 2:1).
This began in b.c. 445, and terminated in b.c. 444. Shushan the palace, where Daniel
saw the vision of the ram with two horns (Daniel 8:2), and Ahasuerus (Xerxes) made
his great feast to all his princes and servants (Esther 1:3), is beyond all doubt Susa,
the capital city of Kissia, or Susiana, one of the most ancient cities in the world, and
the place which, from the time of Darius Hystaspis was the principal residence of
the Persian court. It was situated in the fertile plain east of the Lower Tigris, and
lay on or near the river Choaspes, probably at the spot now known as Sus, or Shush.
Remains of the palace were discovered by the expedition under Sir Fenwick
Williams in the year 1852, and have been graphically described by Mr. Loftus.

19. MACLARE , "A REFORMER’S SCHOOLI G
ehemiah 1:1 - ehemiah 1:11.
The date of the completion of the Temple is 516 B.C.; that of ehemiah’s arrival 445
B.C. The colony of returned exiles seems to have made little progress during that
long period. Its members settled down, and much of their enthusiasm cooled, as we
see from the reforms which Ezra had to inaugurate fourteen years before ehemiah.
The majority of men, even if touched by spiritual fervour, find it hard to keep on
the high levels for long. Breathing is easier lower down. As is often the case, a
brighter flame of zeal burned in the bosoms of sympathisers at a distance than in
those of the actual workers, whose contact with hard realities and petty details
disenchanted them. Thus the impulse to nobler action came, not from one of the
colony, but from a Jew in the court of the Persian king.
This passage tells us how God prepared a man for a great work, and how the man
prepared himself.
I. Sad tidings and their effect on a devout servant of God [ ehemiah 1:1 - ehemiah
1:4]. The time and place are precisely given. ‘The month Chislev’ corresponds to the
end of ovember and beginning of December. ‘The twentieth year’ is that of
Artaxerxes [ ehemiah 2:1]. ‘Shushan,’ or Susa, was the royal winter residence, and
‘the palace’ was ‘a distinct quarter of the city, occupying an artificial eminence.’
ote the absence of the name of the king. ehemiah is so familiar with his greatness
that he takes for granted that every reader can fill the gaps. But, though the
omission shows how large a space the court occupied in his thoughts, a true Jewish
heart beat below the courtier’s robe. That flexibility which enabled them to stand as
trusted servants of the kings of many lands, and yet that inflexible adherence to, and
undying love of, Israel, has always been a national characteristic. We can think of
this youthful cup-bearer as yearning for one glimpse of the ‘mountains round about
Jerusalem’ while he filled his post in Shushan.
His longings were kindled into resolve by intercourse with a little party of Jews
from Judaea, among whom was his own brother. They had been to see how things
went there, and the fact that one of them was a member of ehemiah’s family seems
to imply that the same sentiments belonged to the whole household. Eager questions
brought out sorrowful answers. The condition of the ‘remnant’ was one of ‘great
affliction and reproach,’ and the ground of the reproach was probably [ ehemiah
2:17; ehemiah 4:2 - ehemiah 4:4] the still ruined fortifications.
It has been supposed that the breaking down of the walls and burning of the gates,
mentioned in ehemiah 1:3, were recent, and subsequent to the events recorded in
Ezra; but it is more probable that the project for rebuilding the defences, which had
been stopped by superior orders [Ezra 4:12 - Ezra 4:16], had not been resumed, and
that the melancholy ruins were those which had met the eyes of Zerubbabel nearly a
hundred years before. Communication between Shushan and Jerusalem cannot
have been so infrequent that the facts now borne in on ehemiah might not have
been known before. But the impression made by facts depends largely on their
narrator, and not a little on the mood of the hearer. It was one thing to hear general
statements, and another to sit with one’s brother, and see through his eyes the
dismal failure of the ‘remnant’ to carry out the purpose of their return. So the story,

20. whether fresh or repeated with fresh force, made a deep dint in the young
cupbearer’s heart, and changed his life’s outlook. God prepares His servants for
their work by laying on their souls a sorrowful realisation of the miseries which
other men regard, and they themselves have often regarded, very lightly. The men
who have been raised up to do great work for God and men, have always to begin
by greatly and sadly feeling the weight of the sins and sorrows which they are
destined to remove. o man will do worthy work at rebuilding the walls who has not
wept over the ruins.
So ehemiah prepared himself for his work by brooding over the tidings with tears,
by fasting and by prayer. There is no other way of preparation. Without the sad
sense of men’s sorrows, there will be no earnestness in alleviating them, nor self-
sacrificing devotion; and without much prayer there will be little consciousness of
weakness or dependence on divine help.
ote the grand and apparently immediate resolution to throw up brilliant prospects
and face a life of danger and suffering and toil. ehemiah was evidently a favourite
with the king, and had the ball at his foot. But the ruins on Zion were more
attractive to him than the splendours of Shushan, and he willingly flung away his
chances of a great career to take his share of ‘affliction and reproach.’ He has never
had justice done him in popular estimation. He is not one of the well-known biblical
examples of heroic self-abandonment; but he did just what Moses did, and the
eulogium of the Epistle to the Hebrews fits him as well as the lawgiver; for he too
chose ‘rather to suffer with the people of God than to enjoy pleasures for a season.’
So must we all, in our several ways, do, if we would have a share in building the
walls of the city of God.
II. The prayer [ ehemiah 1:5 - ehemiah 1:11]. The course of thought in this
prayer is very instructive. It begins with solemnly laying before God His own great
name, as the mightiest plea with Him, and the strongest encouragement to the
suppliant. That commencement is no mere proper invocation, conventionally
regarded as the right way of beginning, but it expresses the petitioner’s effort to lay
hold on God’s character as the ground of his hope of answer. The terms employed
remarkably blend what ehemiah had learned from Persian religion and what from
a better source. He calls upon Jehovah, the great name which was the special
possession of Israel. He also uses the characteristic Persian designation of ‘the God
of heaven,’ and identifies the bearer of that name, not with the god to whom it was
originally applied, but with Israel’s Jehovah. He takes the crown from the head of
the false deity, and lays it at the feet of the God of his fathers. Whatsoever names for
the Supreme Excellence any tongues have coined, they all belong to our God, in so
far as they are true and noble. The modern ‘science of comparative religion’ yields
many treasures which should be laid up in Jehovah’s Temple.
But the rest of the designations are taken from the Old Testament, as was fitting.
The prayer throughout is full of allusions and quotations, and shows how this
cupbearer of Artaxerxes had fed his young soul on God’s word, and drawn thence
the true nourishment of high and holy thoughts and strenuous resolutions and self-
sacrificing deeds. Prayers which are cast in the mould of God’s own revelation of
Himself will not fail of answer. True prayer catches up the promises that flutter
down to us, and flings them up again like arrows.
The prayer here is all built, then, on that name of Jehovah, and on what the name

21. involves, chiefly on the thought of God as keeping covenant and mercy. He has
bound Himself in solemn, irrefragable compact, to a certain line of action. Men
‘know where to have Him,’ if we may venture on the familiar expression. He has
given us a chart of His course, and He will adhere to it. Therefore we can go to Him
with our prayers, so long as we keep these within the ample space of His covenant,
and ourselves within its terms, by loving obedience.
The petition that God’s ears might be sharpened and His eyes open to the prayer is
cast in a familiar mould. It boldly transfers to Him not only the semblance of man’s
form, but also the likeness of His processes of action. Hearing the cry for help
precedes active intervention in the case of men’s help, and the strong imagery of the
prayer conceives of similar sequence in God. But the figure is transparent, and the
‘anthropomorphism’ so plain that no mistakes can arise in its interpretation.
ote, too, the light touch with which the suppliant’s relation to God {‘Thy servant’}
and his long-continued cry {‘day and night’} are but just brought in for a moment
as pleas for a gracious hearing. The prayer is ‘for Thy servants the children of
Israel,’ in which designation, as the next clauses show, the relation established by
God, and not the conduct of men, is pleaded as a reason for an answer.
The mention of that relation brings at once to ehemiah’s mind the terrible
unfaithfulness to it which had marked, and still continued to mark, the whole
nation. So lowly confession follows [ ehemiah 1:6 - ehemiah 1:7]. Unprofitable
servants they had indeed been. The more loftily we think of our privileges, the more
clearly should we discern our sins. othing leads a true heart to such self-ashamed
penitence as reflection on God’s mercy. If a man thinks that God has taken him for
a servant, the thought should bow him with conscious unworthiness, not lift him in
self-satisfaction. ehemiah’s confession not only sprung from the thought of Israel’s
vocation, so poorly fulfilled, but it also laid the groundwork for further petitions. It
is useless to ask God to help us to repair the wastes if we do not cast out the sins
which have made them. The beginning of all true healing of sorrow is confession of
sins. Many promising schemes for the alleviation of national and other distresses
have come to nothing because, unlike ehemiah’ s, they did not begin with prayer,
or prayed for help without acknowledging sin.
And the man who is to do work for God and to get God to bless his work must not
be content with acknowledging other people’s sins, but must always say, ‘We have
sinned,’ and not seldom say, ‘I have sinned.’ That penitent consciousness of evil is
indispensible to all who would make their fellows happier. God works with bruised
reeds. The sense of individual transgression gives wonderful tenderness, patience
amid gainsaying, submission in failure, dependence on God in difficulty, and
lowliness in success. Without it we shall do little for ourselves or for anybody else.
The prayer next reminds God of His own words [ ehemiah 1:8 - ehemiah 1:9],
freely quoted and combined from several passages {Leviticus 26:33 - Leviticus
26:45; Deuteronomy 4:25 - Deuteronomy 4:31, etc.}. The application of these
passages to the then condition of things is at first sight somewhat loose, since part of
the people were already restored; and the purport of the prayer is not the
restoration of the remainder, but the deliverance of those already in the land from
their distresses. Still, the promise gives encouragement to the prayer and is powerful
with God, inasmuch as it could not be said to have been fulfilled by so incomplete a
restoration as that as that at present realised. What God does must be perfectly

22. done; and His great word is not exhausted so long as any fuller accomplishment of it
can be imagined.
The reminder of the promise is clinched {v. 10} by the same appeal as formerly to
the relation to Himself into which God had been pleased to bring the nation, with an
added reference to former deeds, such as the Exodus, in which His strong hand had
delivered them. We are always sure of an answer if we ask God not to contradict
Himself. Since He has begun He will make an end. It will never be said of Him that
He ‘began to build and was not able to finish.’ His past is a mirror in which we can
read His future. The return from Babylon is implied in the Exodus.
A reiteration of earlier words follows, with the addition that ehemiah now binds,
as it were, his single prayer in a bundle with those of the like-minded in Israel. He
gathers single ears into a sheaf, which he brings as a ‘wave-offering.’ And then, in
one humble little sentence at the end, he puts his only personal request. The modesty
of the man is lovely. His prayer has been all for the people. Remarkably enough,
there is no definite petition in it. He never once says right out what he so earnestly
desires, and the absence of specific requests might be laid hold of by sceptical critics
as an argument against the genuineness of the prayer. But it is rather a subtle trait,
on which no forger would have been likely to hit. Sometimes silence is the very
result of entire occupation of mind with a thought. He says nothing about the
particular nature of his request, just because he is so full of it. But he does ask for
favour in the eyes of ‘this man,’ and that he may be prospered ‘this day.’
So this was his morning prayer on that eventful day, which was to settle his life’s
work. The certain days of solitary meditation on his nation’s griefs had led to a
resolution. He says nothing about his long brooding, his slow decision, his conflicts
with lower projects of personal ambition. He ‘burns his own smoke,’ as we all
should learn to do. But he asks that the capricious and potent will of the king may
be inclined to grant his request. If our morning supplication is ‘Prosper Thy servant
this day,’ and our purposes are for God’s glory, we need not fear facing anybody.
However powerful Artaxerxes was, he was but ‘this man,’ not God. The phrase does
not indicate contempt or undervaluing of the solid reality of his absolute power over
ehemiah, but simply expresses the conviction that the king, too, was a subject of
God’ s, and that his heart was in the hand of Jehovah, to mould as He would. The
consciousness of dependence on God and the habit of communion with Him give a
man a clear sight of the limitations of earthly dignities, and a modest boldness which
is equally remote from rudeness and servility.
Thus prepared for whatever might be the issue of that eventful day, the young
cupbearer rose from his knees, drew a long breath, and went to his work. Well for
us if we go to ours, whether it be a day of crisis or of commonplace, in like fashion!
Then we shall have like defence and like calmness of heart.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, " EHEMIAH THE PATRIOT
ehemiah 1:1-3
THE Book of ehemiah is the last part of the chronicler’s narrative. Although it
was not originally a separate work, we can easily see why the editor, who broke up
the original volume into distinct books, divided it just where he did. An interval of

23. twelve or thirteen years comes between Ezra’s reformation and the events recorded
in the opening of ehemiah. Still a much longer period was passed over in silence in
the middle of Ezra. [Ezra 7:1] A more important reason for the division of the
narrative may be found in the introduction of a new character. The book which now
bears his name is largely devoted to the actions of ehemiah, and it commences with
an autobiographical narrative, which occupies the first six chapters and part of the
seventh.
ehemiah plunges suddenly into his story, without giving us any hints of his
previous history. His father, Hacaliah, is only a name to us. It was necessary to state
this name in order to distinguish the writer from other men named ehemiah.
There is no reason to think that his privileged position at court indicates high family
connections. The conjecture of Ewald that he owed his important and lucrative
office to his personal beauty and youthful attractions is enough to account for it. His
appointment to the office formerly held by Zerubbabel is no proof that he belonged
to the Jewish royal family. At the despotic Persian court the king’s kindness towards
a favourite servant would override all claims of princely rank. Besides, it is most
improbable that we should have no hint of the Davidic descent if this had been one
ground of the appointment. Eusebius and Jerome both describe ehemiah as of the
tribe of Judah. Jerome is notoriously inaccurate; Eusebius is a cautious historian,
but it is not likely that in his late age-as long after ehemiah as our age is after
Thomas A Becket-he could have any trustworthy evidence beyond that of the
Scriptures. The statement that the city of Jerusalem was the place of the sepulchres
of his ancestors [ ehemiah 2:3] lends some plausibility to the suggestion that
ehemiah belonged to the tribe of Judah. With this we must be content.
It is more to the point to notice that, like Ezra, the younger man, whose practical
energy and high authority were to further the reforms of the somewhat doctrinaire
scribe, was a Jew of the exile. Once more it is in the East, far away from Jerusalem,
that the impulse is found for furthering the cause of the Jews. Thus we are again
reminded that wave after wave sweeps up from the Babylonian plains to give life
and strength to the religious and civic restoration.
The peculiar circumstances of ehemiah deepen our interest in his patriotic and
religious work. In his case it was not the hardships of captivity that fostered the
aspirations of the spiritual life, for he was in a position of personal ease and
prosperity. We can scarcely think of a lot less likely to encourage the principles of
patriotism and religion than that of a favourite upper servant in a foreign heathen
court. The office held by ehemiah was not one of political rank. He was a palace
slave, not a minister of state like Joseph or Daniel. But among the household
servants he would take a high position. The cupbearers had a special privilege of
admission to the august presence of their sovereign in his most private seclusion.
The king’s life was in their hands, and the wealthy enemies of a despotic sovereign
would be ready enough to bribe them to poison the king, if only they proved to be
corruptible. The requirement that they should first pour some wine into their own
hands, and drink the sample before the king, is an indication that fear of treachery
haunted the mind of an Oriental monarch, as it does the mind of a Russian czar

24. today. Even with this rough safeguard it was necessary to select men who could be
relied upon. Thus the cup-bearers would become "favourites." At all events, it is
plain that ehemiah was regarded with peculiar favour by the king he served. o
doubt he was a faithful servant, and his fidelity in his position of trust at court was a
guarantee of similar fidelity in a more responsible and far more trying office.
ehemiah opens his story by telling us that he was in "the palace," [ ehemiah 1:1]
or rather "the fortress," at Susa, the winter abode of the Persian monarchs-an
Elamite city, the stupendous remains of which astonish the traveller in the present
day-eighty miles east of the Tigris and within sight of the Bakhtiyari Mountains.
Here was the great hall of audience, the counterpart of another at Persepolis. These
two were perhaps the largest rooms in the ancient world next to that at Karnak.
Thirty-six fluted columns, distributed as six rows of six columns each, slender and
widely spaced, supported a roof extending two hundred feet each way. The month
Chislev, in which the occurrence ehemiah proceeds to relate happened,
corresponds to parts of our ovember and December. The name is an Assyrian and
Babylonian one, and so are all the names of the months used by the Jews. Further,
ehemiah speaks of what he here narrates as happening in the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes, and in the next chapter he mentions a subsequent event as occurring in
the month isan [ ehemiah 2:1] in the same year. This shows that he did not reckon
the year to begin at isan, as the Jews were accustomed to reckon it. He must have
followed the general Asiatic custom, which begins the year in the autumn, or else he
must have regulated his dates according to the time of the King’s accession. In either
case, we see how thoroughly un-Jewish the setting of his narrative is-unless a third
explanation is adopted, viz., that the Jewish year, beginning in the spring, only
counts from the adoption of Ezra’s edition of The Law. Be this as it may, other
indications of Orientalism, derived from his court surroundings, will attract our
attention in our consideration of his language later on. o writer of the Bible
reflects the influence of alien culture more clearly than ehemiah. Outwardly, he is
the most foreign Jew we meet with in Scripture. Yet in life and character he is the
very ideal of a Jewish patriot. His patriotism shines, all the more splendidly because
it bursts out of a foreign environment. Thus ehemiah shows how little his dialect
and the manners he exhibits can be taken as the gauge of a man’s true life.
ehemiah states that, while he was thus at Susa, in winter residence with the court,
one of his brethren, named Hanani, together with certain men of Judah, came to
him. [ ehemiah 1:2] The language here used will admit of our regarding Hanani as
only a more or less distant relative of the cupbearer, but a later reference to him at
Jerusalem as "my brother Hanani" [ ehemiah 7:2] shows that his own brother is
meant.
Josephus has an especially graphic account of the incident. We have no means of
discovering whether he drew it from an authentic source, but its picturesqueness
may justify the insertion of it here:
" ow there was one of those Jews who had been carried captive, who was
cupbearer to King Xerxes; his name was ehemiah. As this man was walking before

25. Susa, the metropolis of the Persians, he heard some strangers that were entering the
city, after a long journey, speaking to one another in the Hebrew tongue, so he went
to them and asked from whence they came, and when their answer was that they
came from Judaea, he began to inquire of them again in what state the multitude
was, and in what condition Jerusalem was, and when they replied that they were in
a bad state, for that their walls were thrown down to the ground, and that the
neighbouring nations did a great deal of mischief to the Jews, while in the daytime
they over-ran the country and pillaged it, and in the night did them mischief,
insomuch that not a few were led away captive out of the country, and out of
Jerusalem itself, and that the roads were in the daytime found full of dead men.
Hereupon ehemiah shed tears, out of commiseration of the calamities of his
countrymen, and, looking up to heaven, he said, ‘How long, O Lord, wilt thou
overlook our nation, while it suffers so great miseries, and while we are made the
prey and the spoil of all men?’ And while he staid at the gate, and lamented thus,
one told him that the king was going to sit down to supper, so he made haste, and
went as he was, without washing himself, to minister to the king in his office of
cupbearer," etc.
Evidently ehemiah was expressly sought out. His influence would naturally be
valued. There was a large Jewish community at Susa, and ehemiah must have
enjoyed a good reputation among his people; otherwise it would have been vain for
the travellers to obtain an interview with him. The eyes of these Jews were turned to
the royal servant as the fellow-countryman of greatest influence at court. But
ehemiah anticipated their message and relieved them of all difficulty by
questioning them about the city of their fathers. Jerusalem was hundreds of miles
away across the desert; no regular method of communication kept the Babylonian
colony informed of the condition of the advance guard at the ancient capital;
therefore scraps of news brought by chance travellers were eagerly devoured by
those who were anxious for the rare information. Plainly ehemiah shared this
anxiety. His question was quite spontaneous, and it suggests that amid the
distractions of his court life his thoughts had often reverted to the ancient home of
his people. If he had not been truly patriotic, be could have used some device, which
his palace experience would have readily suggested, so as to divert the course of this
conversation with a group of simple men from the country, and keep the painful
subject in the background. He must have seen clearly that for one in his position of
influence to make inquiries about a poor and distressed community was to raise
expectations of assistance. But his questions were earnest and eager, because his
interest was genuine.
The answers to ehemiah’s inquiries struck him with surprise as well as grief. The
shock with which he received them reminds us of Ezra’s startled horror when the
lax practices of the Jewish leaders were reported to him, although the trained court
official did not display the abandonment of emotion which was seen in the student
suddenly plunged into the vortex of public life and unprepared for one of those
dread surprises which men of the world drill themselves to face with comparative
calmness.

26. We must now examine the news that surprised and distressed ehemiah. His
brother and the other travellers from Jerusalem inform him that the descendants of
the returned captives, the residents of Jerusalem, "are in great affliction and
reproach" and also that the city walls have been broken down and the gates burnt.
The description of the defenceless and dishonoured state of the city is what most
strikes ehemiah. ow the question is to what calamities does this report refer?
According to the usual understanding, it is a description of the state of Jerusalem
which resulted from the sieges of ebuchadnezzar. But there are serious difficulties
in the way of this view. ehemiah must have known all about the tremendous
events, one of the results of which was seen in the very existence of the Jewish colony
of which he was a member. The inevitable consequences of that notorious disaster
could not have come before him unexpectedly and as startling news. Besides, the
present distress of the inhabitants is closely associated with the account of the ruin
of the defences, and is even mentioned first. Is it possible that one sentence should
include what was happening now, and what took place a century earlier, in a single
picture of the city’s misery? The language seems to point to the action of breaking
through the walls rather than to such a general demolition of them as took place
when the whole city was razed to the ground by the Babylonian invaders. Lastly, the
action of ehemiah cannot be accounted for on this hypothesis. He is plunged into
grief by the dreadful news, and at first he can only mourn and fast and pray.. But
before long, as soon as he obtains permission from his royal master, he sets out for
Jerusalem, and there his first great work is to restore the ruined walls. The
connection of events shows that it is the information brought to him by Hanani and
the other Jews from Jerusalem that rouses him to proceed to the city. All this points
to some very recent troubles which were previously unknown to ehemiah. Can we
find any indication of those troubles elsewhere?
The opening scene in the patriotic career of ehemiah exactly fits in with the events
which came under our consideration in the previous chapter. There we saw that the
opposition to the Jews which is recorded as early as Ezra 4:1-24, but attributed to
the reign of an "Artaxerxes," must have been carried into effect under Artaxerxes
Longimanus- ehemiah’s master. This must have been subsequent to the mission of
Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as Ezra makes no mention of its distressful
consequences. The news reached ehemiah in the twentieth year of the same reign.
Therefore the mischief must have been wrought some time during the intervening
thirteen years. We have no history of that period. But the glimpse of its most gloomy
experiences afforded by the detached paragraph in Ezra 4:1-24, exactly fits in with
the description of the resulting condition of Jerusalem in the Book of ehemiah.
This will fully account for ehemiah’s surprise and grief; it will also throw a flood
of light on his character and subsequent action. If he had only been roused to repair
the ravages of the old Babylonian invasions, there would have been nothing very
courageous in his undertaking. Babylon itself had been overthrown, and the enemy
of Babylon was now in power. Anything tending to obliterate the destructive glory
of the old fallen empire might be accepted with favour by the Persian ruler. But the
case is quite altered when we think of the more recent events. The very work
ehemiah was to undertake had been attempted but a few years before, and it had
failed miserably. The rebuilding of the walls had then excited the jealousy of

27. neighbouring peoples, and their gross misrepresentations had resulted in an official
prohibition of the work. This prohibition, however, had only been executed by acts
of violence, sanctioned by the government. Worse than all else, it was from the very
Artaxerxes whom ehemiah served that the sanction had been obtained. He was an
easy-going sovereign, readily accessible to the advice of his ministers; in the earlier
part of his reign he showed remarkable favour towards the Jews, when he equipped
and despatched Ezra on his great expedition, and it is likely enough that in the
pressure of his multitudinous affairs the King would soon forget his unfavourable
despatch. evertheless he was an absolute monarch, and the lives of his subjects
were in his hands. For a personal attendant of such a sovereign to show sympathy
with a city that had come under his disapproval was a very risky thing. ehemiah
may have felt this while he was hiding his grief from Artaxerxes. But if so, his frank
confession at the first opportunity reflects all the more credit on his patriotism and
the courage with which he supported it.
Patriotism is the most prominent principle in ehemiah’s conduct. Deeper
considerations emerge later, especially after he has come under the influence of an
enthusiastic religious teacher in the person of Ezra. But at first it is the city of his
fathers that moves his heart. He is particularly distressed at its desolate condition,
because the burial-place of his ancestors is there. The great anxiety of the Jews
about the bodies of their dead, and their horror of the exposure of a corpse, made
them look with peculiar concern on the tombs of their people. In sharing the
sentiments that spring out of the habits of his people in this respect, ehemiah gives
a specific turn to his patriotism. He longs to guard and honour the last resting-place
of his people; he would hear of any outrage on the city where their sepulchres are
with the greatest distress. Thus filial piety mingles with patriotism, and the
patriotism itself is localised, like that of the Greeks, and directed to the interests of a
single city. ehemiah here represents a different attitude from that of Mordecai. It
is not the Jew that he thinks of in the first instance, but Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is
dear to him primarily, not because of his kinsmen who are living there, but because
it is the city of his fathers’ sepulchres, the city of the great past. Still the strongest
feelings are always personal. Patriotism loves the very soil of the fatherland, but the
depth and strength of the passion spring from association with an affection for the
people that inhabit it. Without this, patriotism degenerates into a flimsy sentiment.
At Jerusalem ehemiah develops a deep personal interest in the citizens. Even on
the Susa acropolis, where the very names of these people are unknown to him, the
thought of his ancestry gives a sanctity to the far-off city. Such a thought is
enlarging and purifying. It lifts a man out of petty personal concerns; it gives him
unselfish sympathies it prepares demands for sacrifice and service. Thus, while the
mock patriotism which cares only for glory and national aggrandisement is nothing
but a vulgar product of enlarged selfishness, the true patriotism that awakens large
human sympathies is profoundly unselfish, and shows itself to be a part of the very
religion of a devoted man.
BI 1-11, "
The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.

28. The royal cup-bearer
I. Let us notice the words alluded to by Nehemiah. They were as follows: “And it came to
pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year,” etc.
1. You observe that the time and the place of this conversation are given. It was at
Shushan or Susa, the winter residence of the King of Persia.
2. There are places and periods that stand out more prominently than others in the
history of most of us. “It came to pass in the month Chisleu,” etc.
3. The particular matter referred to was a conversation he had with a kinsman of his,
and with other co-religionists lately come from Palestine, respecting the state of the
Jews there, “and concerning Jerusalem.” Nehemiah was not indifferent to his
country’s condition. It was a twofold question that he put.
(1) He wanted to know how it had fared with the Hebrews—“the delivered ones,”
“the escaped ones.”
(2) The other aspect of the question here put by Nehemiah has reference to
Jerusalem. An exiled Londoner or Parisian’s love for London or Paris would not,
we may be sure, be deeper, stronger than that which Nehemiah must have had
for the promised land, and for “the city, the place of his fathers’ sepulchres.” As
was to be expected, he asked for information” concerning Jerusalem.” It has been
well said, “No place is so strong, no building so grand, no wall so firm, that sin
cannot undermine and overthrow it.” Let no man trust in ceremonies, or sacred-
houses, or sacred traditions, so long as his heart is far from God, and his life is
not in accord with His righteous creed.
II. Let us notice the emotion of Nehemiah on hearing the tidings alluded to. “I sat down
and wept,” he says, “and mourned certain days, and fasted.” He also adds, “and prayed
before the God of heaven.” He wept. Nor was it weak or unmanly for him to do so. “His
was the tear most sacred shed for others’ pain.” To weep at trifles, or at fictitious
sorrows, may be effeminate; but ‘twas no trifle, no imaginary sorrow, that now drew
tears from Nehemiah.
1. His grief was further manifested by lamentation and fasting.
2. It was a profound grief which seized him.
3. It was a somewhat prolonged as well as profound grief. It lasted, at any rate,
certain days.
4. It was a patriot’s grief.
5. Again, it was a penitent grief.
6. Nehemiah’s grief reminds us of another and yet more touching spectacle, the tears
which Jesus shed over Jerusalem.
“And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and wept over it,” etc.
III. In the third place, let us look at the prayer which Nehemiah was thus prompted to
offer, Let us learn that the province of prayer is not restricted to things spiritual. It
embraces the affairs of everyday life, and all lawful undertakings great and small. (T.
Rowson.)

29. The typical patriot
Nehemiah the civilian, as contrasted with Ezra the ecclesiastic, is brought before us in
this book as the patriot deliverer of his people.
I. The typical patriot Is purely disinterested in principle. Personal ambition is sunk in
desire for public good. Selfish motives are abandoned for generous impulses.
1. This does not prevent his rising to a position of honour even in an alien country. A
good man is valued anywhere. Fidelity to convictions ever commands respect apart
from the merit of the convictions themselves. Honour from an alien chief can only be
allowed to the true patriot conditionally—
(1) That no vital principle is sacrificed. Nehemiah evidently remained true to his
nation and loyal to his God.
(2) That it is made subservient to the interests of his people. At Shushan
Nehemiah was really serving them better than he could do at Jerusalem until
summoned there by Divine Providence. He was learning the principles of
government at the centre of the most powerful government in the world. He had
immediate access to the monarch himself.
2. He is always ready to surrender personal honour for his people’s good—
(1) If by so doing he can be of more service to his brethren. Self-sacrifice is the
grand test of all pretension.
(2) If personal honour be associated with his people’s oppression. Learn—
1. By obedience we make the most stubborn laws of nature our servants.
2. By patience foes may be transformed into friends.
3. By the discipline of adversity the foundations of prosperity are laid.
II. The typal patriot is large-hearted in his sympathies.
1. He manifests a real interest in the condition of his country (verse 2). The words
imply—
(1) That Nehemiah was not a passive listener to the rehearsal of his people’s
affliction.
(2) That he entered into particulars and was most minute in his inquiries. They
who have no intention of practical sympathy are careful to elicit no tales of
sorrow.
2. He takes upon himself the burden of his country’s woes (verse 4).
III. The typal patriot recognises divine sovereignty in human affairs.
1. By accepting the existence and authority of the King of kings. Not only as—
(1) A dogma, but also as—
(2) A regulative principle. “O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God.”
2. By regarding Divine aid as superior to all other.
(1) As the most powerful that can be obtained.
(2) As controlling all other aid.
Nehemiah seeks Divine assistance in urging his suit in his approaching interview with

30. the king—
(a) That he may reach the monarch’s will by the most accessible channel.
(b) That he may approach him at the most accessible moment.
(c) That he may urge his request in the most prevalent form.
3. By regarding Divine aid as available through prayer. Nehemiah’s prayer is one of
the model prayers of the Bible, as—
(1) Reverent in its attitude towards God (verse 5).
(2) Persistent in pressing its suit (verse 6).
(3) Penitent in its tone and temper (verses 6, 7).
(4) Scriptural in its argument (verses 8, 9).
(5) Childlike in its spirit (vats. 10, 11).
(6) Definite in its aim (verse 11).
Learn—
1. Nehemiah is a type of Him who “though He was rich, yet for our sakes became
poor,” etc.
2. Intercessory prayer is the inspiration and the evidence of true patriotism.
3. Divine interposition is the safest to invoke in national crises. (W. H. Booth.)
The pious patriot
He was willing, moreover, to make no little sacrifice in the cause of patriotism. Even in
asking the king for leave of absence on such a mission, he was probably risking the royal
displeasure. No one could well predict how an Oriental despot would be likely to regard
such a request. All might depend on the whim or caprice of the moment. That Nehemiah
should wish to exchange Susa for Jerusalem—that he should desire to quit, even for a
time, the sunlight of the royal presence which was condescending to shine upon him—
might possibly be viewed as an insult. The very fact that he was a favourite might only
increase the royal irritation. A tyrant likes his pets to appreciate their privileges; and
Nehemiah, by asking for leave of absence, might only lose the royal favour and be
deposed from his office. Then, again, even if his request should be granted, he would
have to sacrifice for a time all the luxury and ease of his present position; he would have
to subject himself to toil and danger; he would have to face the arduous journey between
Susa and Jerusalem; and then, after arriving in the city of his fathers, he would have to
confront the hostility of the surrounding tribes, and might even have to exchange the
courtier’s robes for the soldier’s armour. But all these sacrifices Nehemiah was prepared
to make in the cause of patriotism. His court life had not enervated his spirit. An
intelligent and manly piety does not destroy or despise any of the natural affections.
There is, indeed, a “pietism” which makes light of the ties of home and kindred, which
disparages patriotism, as if it were inconsistent with the universal love inspired by the
gospel, or which even ventures to taboo politics as a worldly region which a spiritual
man ought rather to avoid. Let us beware of this false spirituality. The world of natural
human relationships is God’s world, and not the devil’s; and if the devil has intruded
into it, there is all the more need that it should be occupied by the earnest soldiers of

31. God. Pietism may say, “Never mind the condition of the walls of Jerusalem: souls are the
grand concern.” But, in point of fact, the condition of walls may sometimes affect the
condition of souls. Things external often stand in subtle relation to things spiritual. The
body influences the mind; and the outward conditions of national existence may stand in
the closest connection with the religious life of a people. Besides, it Ii natural that we
should love our own country with a special affection; and a true religion does not destroy
but consecrates all natural attachments. On the other hand, there are many politicians
who are no patriots, and there is also a patriotism in which there is no godliness, There
are men who take the keenest interest in politics merely because it furnishes an arena for
the exercise of their faculties, the display of their talents, and the furtherance of their
ambitions. And there are also true patriots—real lovers of their country—who yet never
recognise the hand of God in national history, who never think of praying to God in
connection with their plans, or of submitting their political projects and methods to the
test of His will. Now, if a man’s patriotism is his only religion, this is doubtless better
than that his “god” should be his “belly,” and that he should “glory in his shame.” But
still, this patriotism in which there is no regard for God is fraught with danger. For the
grand and prime demand on every one of us is that we be the servants of the Most High,
the soldiers of Christ, the loyal subjects of the Divine kingdom. And then it is our
bounden duty to serve God in and through all our natural pursuits, affections, and
relationships, and, amongst other things, to bring all our political theories, aims, and
methods into the light of Christ and of His Spirit. We want, both in the Church and in
the commonwealth, men and women in whom, as in Nehemiah of old, piety and
patriotism are blended and intertwined. (T. C. Finlayson.)
Divine purposes working through providence
I. Here is eminent piety in a most unlikely place (Neh_1:1).
1. Palaces are not generally favourable to piety—
(1) Because unrestrained liberty usually degenerates into license and lavish
luxury into licentiousness. Court morals are proverbially corrupt.
(2) Because religion does not flourish amidst human pomp and the outward
symbols of pride. A palace is, above all others, a theatre of human exaltation and
proud display.
(3) Because the commands of a sovereign are liable to clash with the mandates of
Jehovah.
2. Piety is not impossible even in a palace—
(1) Inasmuch as God will protect them who honour Him. If God has placed His
servant in the palace to do His work, He will keep him there until the work is
done.
(2) Inasmuch as many eminent examples are recorded in Scripture. Not only
Nehemiah, but Moses, Joseph, Obadiah, and Daniel. Learn—
1. Eminent piety does not depend upon the accidentals of a man’s social position.
2. Exalted positions are less desirable than they appear.
3. The most desirable station in life is that in which we can serve God to the best
advantage.