Nehemiah 13 commentary

EHEMIAH 13 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1
On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in
the hearing of the people and there it was found
written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever
be admitted into the assembly of God,
BAR ES, "On that day - Or, “at that time,” as in Neh_12:44.
The entire Pentateuch is probably meant by “the Book of Moses”.
CLARKE, "On that day - I am quite of Calmet’s mind that the transaction detailed
in this chapter did not immediately succeed the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem. It is
most likely that, when this dedication was ended, Nehemiah returned to Babylon, as
himself particularly marks, Neh_13:6, for he did return in the thirty-second year of
Artaxerxes; and then, after certain days, supposed to be about the term of one year, he
got leave to return to Jerusalem to see how matters were conducted: and there he found
the evils which he mentions in this chapter, and which he redressed in the manner
himself describes. See the introduction to this book.
Should not come into the congregation - That is, Ye shall not form any kind of
matrimonial alliance with them. This, and this alone, is the meaning of the law.
GILL, "On that day,.... Not when the wall of the city was dedicated, nor quickly after;
for it cannot be thought that people should be so corrupted so soon as this chapter
shows; but when Nehemiah had governed them twelve years, and had been at Babylon,
and was returned again, as appears from Neh_13:6, compared with Neh_2:1,
they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; for from the time
of the reading of the law by Ezra, Neh_8:1 it became a custom to read the law publicly:
and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should
not come into the congregation of the Lord; that is, be admitted to marry with any
of the people of Israel; See Gill on Deu_23:3.

HE RY, "It was the honour of Israel, and the greatest preservation of their holiness,
that they were a peculiar people, and were so to keep themselves, and not to mingle with
the nations, nor suffer any of them to incorporate with them. Now here we have,
I. The law to this purport, which happened to be read on that day, in the audience of
the people (Neh_13:1), on the day of the dedication of the wall, as it should seem, for
with their prayers and praises they joined the reading of the word; and though it was
long after that the other grievances, here mentioned, were redressed by Nehemiah's
power, yet this of the mixed multitude might be redressed then by the people's own act,
for so it seems to be, Neh_13:3. Or, perhaps, it was on the anniversary commemoration
of that day, some years after, and therefore said to be on that day. They found a law, that
the Ammonites and Moabites should not be naturalized, should not settle among them,
nor unite with them, Neh_13:1. The reason given is because they had been injurious and
ill-natured to the Israel of God (Neh_13:2), had not shown them common civility, but
sought their ruin, though they not only did them no harm, but were expressly forbidden
to do them any. This law we have, with this reason, Deu_23:3-5.
JAMISO , "Neh_13:1-9. Upon the reading of the Law separation is made from the
mixed multitude.
On that day — This was not immediately consequent on the dedication of the city
wall and gates, but after Nehemiah’s return from the Persian court to Jerusalem, his
absence having extended over a considerable period. The transaction here described
probably took place on one of the periodical occasions for the public readings of the law,
when the people’s attention was particularly directed to some violations of it which
called for immediate correction. There is another instance afforded, in addition to those
which have already fallen under our notice, of the great advantages resulting from the
public and periodical reading of the divine law. It was an established provision for the
religious instruction of the people, for diffusing a knowledge and a reverence for the
sacred volume, as well as for removing those errors and corruptions which might, in the
course of time, have crept in.
the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of
God for ever — that is, not be incorporated into the Israelitish kingdom, nor united in
marriage relations with that people (Deu_23:3, Deu_23:4). This appeal to the authority
of the divine law led to a dissolution of all heathen alliances (Neh_9:2; Ezr_10:3).
K&D, "Public reading of the law, and separation from strangers. - Neh_13:1. At a
public reading of the law, it was found written therein, that no Ammonite or Moabite
should come into the congregation of God, because they met not the children of Israel
with bread and with water, but hired Balaam to curse them, though God turned the
curse into a blessing. This command, found in Deu_23:4-6, is given in full as to matter,
though slightly abbreviated as to form. The sing. ‫ּר‬ⅴ ְ‫שׂ‬ִ‫י‬ relates to Balak king of Moab,
Num_22:2., and the suffix of ‫יו‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ע‬ to Israel as a nation; see the explanation of Deu_23:4.
PETT, "Verses 1-14
With ehemiah Having To Return To Report To Artaxerxes, Unholiness Again
Began To Infiltrate The Holy City, A Situation Which Had To Be Dealt With On

ehemiah’s Return ( ehemiah 13:1-14).
It should be noted here that ehemiah was not satisfied with having established
Jerusalem as a fortified city in its own right, but was equally concerned that it be
established as the holy city. He had in mind the eschatological hopes which
depended on such holiness. He never asks God to remember him for achieving the
building of the wall, (the thing for which he is best remembered), but rather that He
will remember the contribution that he has made towards the holiness of Israel and
of the holy city.
This subsection, opening with ‘at that time, on that day’ ( ehemiah 13:1) and
closing with ‘remember me --’ ( ehemiah 13:14), divides up as follows:
· The separation out of Israel of those who had mingled among them, on the
basis of Deuteronomy 23 which describes who may be accepted into the assembly of
YHWH and excludes Moabites and Ammonites ( ehemiah 13:1-3).
· The infiltration into the Temple area of Tobiah the Ammonite as a
consequence of his being provided with a chamber there by Eliashib the priest who
oversaw the chambers in the Temple ( ehemiah 13:4-5).
· The fact that this occurred in the period between when ehemiah returned
to Artaxerxes to report to him, and the time of his return ( ehemiah 13:6-7).
· ehemiah’s expulsion of Tobiah’s household stuff from the chamber
( ehemiah 13:8).
· The necessary purifying of the chamber and its return to its proper use
( ehemiah 13:9).
· The restoration of the collection of the tithes ( ehemiah 13:10-12).
· The replacement of Eliashib by new authorities over the Temple chambers
( ehemiah 13:13).
· ehemiah’s prayer that he be remembered by God for what he has done
( ehemiah 13:14).
ehemiah 13:1
‘On that day/at that time (beyom) they read in the book of Moses in the audience of
the people, and in it was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not
enter into the assembly of God for ever,’
The time note connects this passage with what has gone before. It is always possible
that Deuteronomy 23 was read out at the end of the celebrations over the completion
of the wall, on that very day, but yom regularly indicates a period of time. Thus we
should probably translate with the more vague ‘at that time’. Regular readings of
the Scriptures took place before the people at the feasts, and no doubt also regularly
on the Sabbath to all who gathered at the Temple, so that we do not know exactly
when this took place. But it was the day on which the people had drawn to their
attention the exclusion for ever from the assembly of Israel of Moabites and
Ammonites.
Deuteronomy 23:3 literally reads, ‘an Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into
the assembly of YHWH, even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them
enter into the assembly of YHWH for ever’. This was clearly interpreted at this time

as indicating permanent exclusion. It did not exclude them from worshipping
YHWH or approaching the Temple if they were converted to Yahwism. What it
excluded them from was becoming full members of God’s people Israel. ‘The
assembly of YHWH’ was the full gathering of all the adult males of Israel. The case
of Ruth who was a Moabitess does not come into the reckoning for she was a woman
who married a true-born Israelite and converted to Yahwism. As a woman she
could never be a member of the assembly of YHWH, but officially her husband was.
It should be noted that the original intent of the Law was to prevent an Ammonite
or Moabite from becoming true Israelites for sufficient period of time (the tenth
generation) to ‘purge their contempt’. Edomite and Egyptian converts to Yahwism
could become true Israelites after three generations. The word translated ‘for ever’
means ‘into the distant future’. But it was by ehemiah’s time seen as signifying
that they could not become true Israelites forever.
COKE, "Verse 1
ehemiah 13:1. On that day they read, &c.— At that time the law of Moses was
read in the audience of the people. Houbigant. The phrase of not entering into the
congregation of the Lord, in this verse, does not signify an ejection from the public
assemblies for divine worship; but must be understood to mean no more than a
prohibition of marriage; for this, according to the rabbis, was the case of such
prohibitions. one of the house of Israel of either sex were to enter into marriage
with any Gentile of what nation soever, unless they were first converted to their
religion; and, even in that case, some were debarred from it for ever; others only in
part; and others again only for a limited time. Of the first sort, were all of the seven
nations of the Canaanites. Of the second sort, were the Moabites and the
Ammonites, whose males were now excluded for ever, but not their females; and of
the third sort were the Edomites and Egyptians, with whom the Jews might not
marry till the third generation. But with all others, who were not of these three
excepted sorts, they might freely make intermarriages whenever they became
thorough proselytes to their religion. At present however, because, through the
confusions which have since happened in all nations, it is not to be known who is an
Ammonite, an Edomite, a Moabite, or an Egyptian, they held this prohibition to
have been long out of date; and that now, any Gentile, as soon as proselyted to their
religion, may immediately be admitted to make intermarriages with them. See
Prideaux.
ELLICOTT, "(1-3) Reform as to mixed marriages.
(1) On that day.—Probably the season of the Feast of Tabernacles, as before. But
portions were selected to be read.
They read in the book of Moses.—“It was read” in the Pentateuch, and specially
Deuteronomy 23. This is introduced for the sake of the action taken, and the history
is given in brief, with a striking and characteristic parenthesis of ehemiah’s own
concerning the curse turned into a blessing.

Therein was found written.—What to the people generally was not known.
For ever.— o Ammonite or Ammonite family could have legal standing in the
congregation, “even to their tenth generation;” and this interdict was to last “for
ever.” It virtually though not actually amounted to absolute exclusion.
(3) The mixed multitude.—For the “mixed multitude,” or Ereb, which plays so
prominent a part in Jewish history, see on Exodus 12:38. The process here was that
of shutting out heathens who were in the habit of mingling with the people in the
services. In ehemiah 9 it was, as we saw, the people’s separation from the practices
and spirit of the heathen.
CO STABLE, "1. The exclusion of foreigners13:1-3
Discovery of the law that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly
of the Lord ( Deuteronomy 23:3-4) led the leaders to exclude all foreigners from the
restoration community.
There are three explanations for Ruth"s inclusion. The best one, I believe, is that
unbelieving immigrants from these nations were those denied full rights. This would
explain why Rahab, a Canaanite, and Ruth , a Moabite, became citizens. They were
both believers. Another explanation is that the use of the Hebrew masculine nouns,
Ammonite and Moabite, refer to males exclusively. A third possibility is that the
Israelites simply did not enforce this law.
Verses 1-31
D. The Reforms Instituted by ehemiah ch13
To understand when the events described in this chapter took place, it is necessary
to read ehemiah 13:1-7, not just ehemiah 13:1. ehemiah returned to Artaxerxes
in432 B.C. ( ehemiah 13:6). It was customary in the ancient ear East for kings to
require their servants to return to them periodically to reaffirm their allegiance.
"Some time" later ehemiah returned to Jerusalem ( ehemiah 13:6). The text does
not say how much later this was. The prophet Malachi reproved the Jews in Judah
for the same sins ehemiah described in this chapter, and conservative scholars
usually date his prophecies about432-431 B.C. Therefore ehemiah may very well
have returned to Jerusalem about431 B.C. Undoubtedly he would have wished to
return as soon as possible.
Each of the following reforms dealt with a violation of the covenant these people had
made with God (cf. ehemiah 10:29-32).
COFFMA , "Verse 1
WHOLESALE APOSTASY OF ISRAEL I EHEMIAH'S BRIEF ABSE CE
This is one of the saddest chapters in the Bible, for it relates Israel's prompt
rebellion against God's law as soon as ehemiah's back was turned. Of course,

ehemiah once more attempted to get Israel back on the right track, as related in
this chapter; but that great effort on his part may also be viewed as a total failure.
Israel obeyed God only so long as some powerful administrator compelled them to
do so. The sadness of this tragic failure of the once Chosen People is emphasized by
the fact ehemiah was their last chance to get right in the sight of God.
After ehemiah, there would be no more prophets until John the the Immerser;
their king had been taken away from them by the Lord; and they would never have
another; the whole racial nation, with the exception of a tiny "righteous remnant"
sank rapidly and irrevocably into that state of `judicial hardening' foretold by
Isaiah. Israel had stopped their ears, closed their eyes, and hardened their hearts;
and, from that state of spiritual oblivion, there could be no recovery until the Christ
should come; and the vast majority of them failed to seize even that opportunity.
READI G OF THE LAW REGARDI G THE EXCLUSIO OF AMMO ITES
FROM THE CO GREGATIO
"On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and
therein was found written that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into
the assembly of God for ever, because they met not the children of Israel with bread
and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them: howbeit our God
turned the curse into a blessing. And it came to pass when they heard the law, that
they separated from Israel the mixed multitude."
"The book of Moses" ( ehemiah 13:1). "This probably meant the entire
Pentateuch."[1]
It is not clear whether this was a special occasion for reading God's law, or if it was
connected with the prescribed reading of it at the Feast of Tabernacles, which might
have coincided, almost, with ehemiah's return to Jerusalem, following his absence
in Persia. To this writer, it appears most likely to have been a special reading of the
law arranged at once by ehemiah upon his return.
We have already noted that every word of ehemiah is focused upon providing
safety for Jerusalem; and the big thing in this chapter is that of ehemiah's
throwing Tobiah out of the temple; and it could hardly have been an accident that
this reading from God's law was pointed squarely at that sinful treatment of
Tobiah, an Ammonite enemy of ehemiah, and of the Israel of God.
This little paragraph is somewhat of a prelude to the chapter. either the reading of
God's law, nor ehemiah's entreaties would suffice to correct this abuse. "Judicial
proceedings would have to be taken, and the mixed multitude removed by
authority."[2]
TRAPP, " On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people;
and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come

into the congregation of God for ever;
Ver. 1. On that day] That great fast day, ehemiah 9:1-2, &c. Or, after ehemiah’s
return from the court of Persia, ehemiah 13:6, so the most expound it.
They read in the book of Moses] viz. In Deuteronomy 23:3, called by the Rabbis
Sepher tochechoth, the book of rebukes, or of instructions, upon conviction.
And therein was found written] Perquam durum est (so it might seem to Ammonites
and Moabites), sed ita lex scripta est, The law was perpetual and indispensable; a
sign of great wrath.
That the Ammonite and the Moabite] Lot’s by-blows and the Church’s constant
enemies.
Into the congregation of God] i.e. Assemblies of God’s people, whether sacred or
civil, unless proselyted.
Verse 2
ehemiah 13:2 Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with
water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our God
turned the curse into a blessing.
BE SO , ". On that day they read in the book of Moses — ot upon the day of the
dedication of the wall and city, but upon a certain day, when ehemiah was
returned from the Persian court to Jerusalem, from which he had been absent for
some considerable time, during which some errors and abuses had crept in. After
his return, it seems, he continued the public reading of the law at stated times,
probably on the great festivals, when all the people met together, (such as those
mentioned chap. 8.,) upon some day of which that portion of Scripture was read
(Deuteronomy 23:3) which forbids the admission of the Ammonites and Moabites
into the congregation of the Lord. The meaning of which phrase is, not that they
were prohibited from attending divine worship in the court of the Gentiles, and in
their synagogues, but from being admitted to the privileges of Jews, and becoming
one body with them by intermarriages. “ one of the house of Israel, of either sex,
were to enter into marriage with any Gentile, of what nation soever, unless they
were first converted to their religion; and even in that case, some were debarred
from it for ever, others only in part, and others again only for a limited time. Of the
first sort, were all of the seven nations of the Canaanites. Of the second sort, were
the Moabites and the Ammonites, whose males were excluded for ever, but not their
females. And of the third sort, were the Edomites and Egyptians, with whom the
Jews might not marry till the third generation. But with all others who were not of
these three excepted sorts, they might freely make intermarriages, whenever they

became thorough proselytes to their religion. At present, however, because, through
the confusions which have since happened in all nations, it is not to be known who is
an Ammonite, an Edomite, a Moabite, or an Egyptian, they hold this prohibition to
have been long out of date, and that now any Gentile, as soon as proselyted to their
religion, may immediately be admitted to make intermarriages with them.” See
Dodd, and Prid. Con., Ann. 428.
WHEDO , "Verse 1
THE SEPARATIO FROM STRA GERS, ehemiah 13:1-3.
1. On that day — This is to be understood in the same sense as at that time, in
ehemiah 12:44. But no doubt public readings of the law took place frequently
during ehemiah’s administration.
The book of Moses — Here it is evident that the Book of Deuteronomy, from which
they read on that occasion, was regarded as the work of Moses. Its Mosaic
authorship was not questioned in ehemiah’s day.
Found written — The passage referred to is in Deuteronomy 23:3-6, and reads as
follows: “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the
Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the
Lord forever; because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when
ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of
Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. evertheless the Lord thy God would
not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing
unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor
their prosperity all thy days forever.”
PULPIT, " EHEMIAH'S EFFORTS FOR THE REFORM OF RELIGIO
( ehemiah 13:1-31). After having exercised the office of governor for twelve years,
from b.c. 444 to b.c. 432, ehemiah had had occasion to visit the Persian court,
either to consult Artaxerxes personally on certain matters connected with his
province, or for some other reason unknown to us. During his absence various evil
practices, to which some reference has been already made in connection with the
renewal of the covenant ( ehemiah 10:30-39), acquired so much strength, and came
to such a head, that, on ehemiah's return to Jerusalem at the expiration of a year
(verse 6), he felt it necessary to take active steps to put an end to them. In the first
place, intermarriages between the Jews and the neighbouring heathen, like those
which Ezra had dissolved twenty-five years previously (Ezra 10:16-44), had again
occurred, and a new generation was growing up which could not speak its own
language correctly (verse 24). The family of the high priest, Eliashib, shared in this
trespass. He himself was allied by marriage to the Ammonite chief, Tobiah (verse 4),
and one of his grandsons had taken to wife a daughter of Sanballat, the Samaritan
(verse 28). Secondly, through the growing influence of the heathen, and their
intermixture with the Jews in Judaea and Jerusalem, the strict observance of the
sabbath had fallen into disrepute. Trade was carried on upon the sabbath in

Jerusalem itself; in the country wine-presses were at work, and farming operations
continued, without the observance of any day of rest (verses 15, 16). Further, the
payment of the tithes was very irregular; and the Levites, who ought to have found
their daily food provided for them in the temple, not receiving their "portions"
there, were forced to absent themselves from the daily service, and to support
themselves by cultivating their own plots of ground (verses 10, 11). Finally, the
temple had ceased to be regarded as sacred to the Almighty; a portion of it had been
converted into a dwelling-house by the order of the high priest himself (verse 5), an i
the Ammonite, Tobiah, had been allowed to take possession of it. ehemiah tells us
in this chapter the mode wherein he dealt with these various evils, treating of the
mixed marriages in verses 1-3 and 23-28; of the profanation of the sabbath in verses
15-22; of the non-payment of the tithes in verses 10-13; and of the desecration of the
temple in verses 4-9. The chapter is remarkable for the number of "interjectional
prayers" which it contains (verses 14, 22, 29, 31), and for the plainness and
roughness of the language (see especially verses 9, 17, 21, 25, 28). The authorship of
ehemiah is universally admitted.
ehemiah 13:1
On that day. See ehemiah 12:44. The phrase seems to mean, in ehemiah, "About
that time." They read in the book of Moses. It is uncertain whether this was a casual
reading, like that of Ezra's, recorded in ehemiah 8:1-8, or whether it was the
prescribed reading (Deuteronomy 31:11) at the time of the feast of tabernacles.
Therein was found written. See Deuteronomy 23:3-5. It seems to be implied that the
nation at large had no knowledge of the law, except that which they derived from
the occasional public reading of the Pentateuch, or portions of it. Copies of the law
were extremely scarce; and even if an ordinary Jew possessed one, he would not
have been able to understand it (comp. above, ehemiah 8:8).
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "THE RIGOUR OF THE REFORMER
ehemiah 13:1-31
THERE is no finality in history. The chapter, that seems to be rounded off with a
perfect conclusion always leaves room for an appendix, which in its turn may serve
as an introduction to another chapter. Ezra’s and ehemiah’s work seemed to have
reached its climax in the happy scene of the dedication of the walls. All difficulties
had vanished; the new order had been. greeted with widespread enthusiasm; the
future promised to be smooth and prosperous. If the chronicler had laid down his
pen at this point, as any dramatist before Ibsen who was not bound by the
exigencies of prosaic facts would have done, his work might have presented a much
more artistic appearance than it now wears. And yet it would have been artificial,
and therefore false to the highest art of history. In adding a further extract from
ehemiah’s memoirs that discloses a revival of the old troubles, and so shows that
the evils against which the reformers contend had not been stamped out, the writer
mars the literary effect of his record of their triumph, but, at the same time, he
satisfies us that he is in contact with real life, its imperfections and its

disappointments.
It is not easy to settle the time of the incident mentioned in ehemiah 13:1-3. The
phrase "on that day" with which the passage opens seems to point back to the
previous chapter. If so it cannot be taken literally, because what it describes must be
assigned to a later period than the contents of the paragraph that follows it. It forms
an introduction to the extract from ehemiah’s memoirs, and its chronological
position is even later than the date of the first part of the extract, because that
begins with the words "And before this," [ ehemiah 13:4] i.e., before the incident
that opens the chapter. ow it is clear that ehemiah’s narrative here refers to a
time considerably after the transactions of the previous chapter, inasmuch as he
states that when the first of the occurrences he now records happened he was away
in the court of Artaxerxes. [ ehemiah 13:6] Still later, then, must that event be
placed before which this new incident occurred. We might perhaps suppose that the
phrase "at that day" is carried over directly from the chronicler’s original source
and belongs to its antecedents in that document, but so clumsy a piece of joinery is
scarcely admissible. It is better to take the phrase quite generally. Whatever it
meant when first penned, it is clear that the events it introduces belong only
indefinitely to the times previously mentioned. We are really landed by them in a
new state of affairs. Here we must notice that the introductory passage is
immediately connected with the ehemiah record. It tells how the law from
Deuteronomy requiring the exclusion of the Ammonite and the Moabite was read
and acted on. This is to be remembered when we are studying the subsequent
events.
When ehemiah’s extended leave of absence had come to an end, or when perhaps
he had been expressly summoned back by Artaxerxes, his return to Babylon was
followed by a melancholy relapse in the reformed city of Jerusalem. This is not by
any means astonishing. othing so hinders and distresses the missionary as the
repeated outbreak of their old heathen vices among his converts. The drunkard
cannot be reckoned safe directly he has signed the pledge. Old habits may be
damped down without being extinguished, and when this is the case they will flame
up again as soon as the repressive influence is removed. In the present instance
there was a distinct party in the city, consisting of some of the most prominent and
influential citizens, which disapproved of the separatist, puritanical policy of the
reformers and advocated a more liberal course. Some of its members may have been
conscientious men, who honestly deplored what they would regard as the disastrous
state of isolation brought about by the action of Ezra and ehemiah. After having
been silenced for a time by the powerful presence of the great reformers, these
people would come out and declare themselves when the restraining influences were
removed. Meanwhile we hear no more of Ezra. Like Zerubbabel in the earlier
period, he drops out of the history without a hint as to his end. He may have
returned to Babylon thinking his work complete; possibly he had been recalled by
the king.
It is likely that some rumours of the declension of Jerusalem reached ehemiah at
the Persian court. But he did not discover the whole extent of this retrograde

movement until he was once more in the city, with a second leave of absence from
Artaxerxes. Then there were four evils that he perceived with great grief.
The first was that Tobiah had got a footing in the city. In the earlier period this
"servant" had been carrying on intrigues with some members of the aristocracy.
The party of opposition had done its best to represent him in a favourable light to
ehemiah, and all the while this party had been traitorously keeping Tobiah
informed of the state of affairs in the city. But now a further step was taken. Though
one of the three leading enemies of ehemiah, the ally and supporter of the
Samaritan governor Sanballat, this man was actually permitted to have a lodging in
the precincts of the temple. The locality was selected, doubtless, because it was
within the immediate jurisdiction of the priests, among whom the Jewish opponents
of ehemiah were found. It is as though, in his quarrel with Henry, Thomas A.
Becket had lodged a papal envoy in the cathedral close at Canterbury. To a Jew
who did not treat the ordinances of religion with the Sadducean laxity that was
always to be found in some of the leading members of the priesthood, this was most
abhorrent. He saw in it a defilement of the neighbourhood of the temple, if not of
the sacred enclosure itself, as’ well as an insult to the former governor of the city.
Tobiah may have used his room for the purpose of entertaining visitors in state, but
it may only have been a warehouse for trade stores, as it had previously been a place
in which the bulky sacrificial gifts were stowed away. Such a degradation of it,
superseding its previous sacred use, would aggravate the evil in the sight of so strict
a man as ehemiah.
The outrage was easily accounted for. Tobiah was allied by marriage to the priest
who was the steward of this chamber. Thus we have a clear case of trouble arising
out of the system of foreign marriages which Ezra had so strenuously opposed. It
seems to have opened the eyes of the younger reformer to the evil of these marriages,
for hitherto we have not found him taking any active part in furthering the action of
Ezra with regard to them. Possibly he had not come across an earlier instance. But
now it was plain enough that the effect was to bring a pronounced enemy of all he
loved and advocated into the heart of the city, with the rights of a tenant, too, to
back him up. If "evil communications corrupt good manners," this was most
injurious to the cause of the reformation. The time had not arrived when a generous
spirit could dare to welcome all comers to Jerusalem. The city was still a fortress in
danger of siege. More than that, it was a Church threatened with dissolution by
reason of the admission of unfit members. Whatever we may say to the social and
political aspects of the case, ecclesiastically regarded, laxity at the present stage
would have been fatal to the future of Judaism, and the mere presence of such a
man as Tobiah, openly sanctioned by a leading priest, was a glaring instance of
laxity; ehemiah was bound to stop the mischief.
The second evil was the neglect of the payments due to the Levites. It is to be
observed again that the Levites are most closely associated with the reforming
position. Religious laxity and indifference had had an effect on the treasury for
which these men were the collectors. The financial thermometer is a very rough test
of the spiritual condition of a religious community, and we often read it erroneously,

not only because we cannot gauge the amount of sacrifice made by people in very
different circumstances, nor just because we are unable to discover the motives that
prompt the giving of alms "before men," but also, when every allowance is made for
these causes of uncertainty, because the gifts which are usually considered most
generous rarely involve enough strain and effort to bring the deepest springs of life
into play. And yet it must be allowed that a declining subscription list is usually to
be regarded as one sign of waning interest on the part of the supporters of any
public movement. When we consider the matter from the other side, we must
acknowledge that the best way to improve the pecuniary position of any religious
enterprise is not to work the exhausted pump more vigorously, but to drive the well
deeper and tap the resources of generosity that lie nearer the heart-not to beg
harder, but to awaken a better spirit of devotion.
The third indication of backsliding that vexed the soul of ehemiah was Sabbath
profanation. He saw labour and. commerce both proceeding on the day of rest-Jews
treading the winepress, carrying their sheaves, lading their asses, and bringing loads
of wine, grapes, and figs, and all sorts of wares, into Jerusalem for sale, and
fishmongers and pedlars from Tyre - not, of course, themselves to be blamed for
failing to respect the festival of a people whose religion they did not share-pouring
into the city, and opening their markets as on any weekday. ehemiah was greatly
alarmed. He went at once to the nobles, who seem to have been governing the city, as
a sort of oligarchy, during his absence, and expostulated with them on their danger
of provoking the wrath of God again, urging that Sabbath-breaking had been one of
the offences which had called down the judgment of Heaven on their fathers. Then
he took means to prevent the coming of foreign traders on the Sabbath, by ordering
the gates to be kept closed from Friday evening till the sacred day was over. Once or
twice these people came up as usual and camped just outside the city, but as this was
disturbing to the peace of the day, ehemiah threatened that if they repeated the
annoyance he would lay hands on them. ‘Lastly, he charged the Levites, first to
cleanse themselves that they might be ready to undertake a work of purification,
and then to take charge of the gates on the Sabbath and see that the day was
hallowed in the cessation of all labour. Thus both by persuasion and by vigorous
active measures ehemiah put an end to the disorder.
The importance attached to this matter is a sign of the prominence given to
Sabbath-keeping in Judaism. The same thing was seen earlier in the selection of the
law of the Sabbath as one of the two or three rules to be specially noted, and to
which the Jews were to particularly pledge themselves in the covenant. [ ehemiah
10:31] Reference was then made to the very act of the Tyrians now complained of
the offering of wares and food for sale in Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. Putting
these two passages together, we can see where the Sabbath-breaking came from. It
was the invasion of a foreign custom-like the dreaded introduction of the
"Continental Sunday" into England. ow to ehemiah the fact of the foreign origin
of the custom would be a heavy condemnation for it. ext to circumcision, Sabbath-
keeping was the principal mark of the Jew. In the days of our Lord it was the most
highly prized feature of the ancient faith. This was then so obvious that it was laid
hold of by Roman satirists, who knew little about the strange traders in the Ghetto

except that they "sabbatised." ehemiah saw that if the sacred day of rest were to
be abandoned, one of his bulwarks of separation would be lost. Thus for him, with
his fixed policy, and in view of the dangers of his age, there was a very urgent
reason for maintaining the Sabbath, a reason which of course does not apply to us in
England today. We must pass on to the teaching of Christ to have this question put
on a wider and more permanent basis. With that Divine insight of His which
penetrated to the root of every matter, our Lord saw through the miserable
formalism that made an idol of a day, and in so doing turned a boon into a burden.
At the same time He rescued the sublimely simple truth which contains both the
justification and the limitation of the Sabbath, when He declared, "The Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In resisting the rigour of legal-
minded Sabbatarianism, the modern mind seems to have confined its attention to
the second clause of this great utterance, to the neglect of its first clause. Is it
nothing, then, that Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man"-not for the Jew
only, but for man? Although we may feel free from the religion of law in regard to
the observance of days as much as in other external matters, is it not foolish for us to
minimise a blessing that Jesus Christ expressly declared to be for the good of the
human race? If the rest day was needed by the Oriental in the slow-moving life of
antiquity, is it any less requisite for the Western in the rush of these later times? But
if it is necessary to our welfare, the neglect of it is sinful. Thus not because of the
inherent sanctity of seasons, but on our Lord’s own ground of the highest
utilitarianism-a utilitarianism which reaches to other people, and even to animals,
and affects the soul as well as the body-the reservation of one day in seven for rest is
a sacred duty. "The world is too much with us" for the six days. We can ill afford to
lose the recurrent escape from its blighting companionship originally provided by
the seventh and now enjoyed on our Sunday.
Lastly, ehemiah was confronted by the social effects of foreign marriage alliances.
These, alliances had been contracted by Jews resident in the southwestern corner of
Judaea, who may not have come under the influence of Ezra’s drastic reformation
in Jerusalem, and who probably were not married till after that event. They afford
another evidence of the counter-current that was running so strongly against the
regulations of the party of rigour while ehemiah was away. The laxity of the
border people may be accounted for without calling in any subtle motives. But their
fault was shared by a member of the gens of the high-priest, who had actually
wedded the daughter of ehemiah’s arch-enemy Sanballat! Clearly this was a
political alliance, and it indicated a defiant reversal of the policy of the reformers in
the very highest circles. The offender, after being expelled from Jerusalem, is said to
have been the founder of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim.
Then the social mischief of the mixed marriages was showing itself in the corruption
of the Hebrew language. The Philistine language was not allied to the Egyptian, as
some have thought, nor was it Indo-Germanic, as others have supposed, but it was
Semitic, and only a different dialect from the Hebrew, and yet the difficulty persons
from the south of England feel in understanding the speech of Yorkshiremen in
remote parts of the county will help us to account for a practical loss of mutual
intelligence between people of different dialects, when these dialects were still more

isolated by having grown up in two separate and hostile nations. For the children of
Jewish parents to be talking with the tones and accents of the hereditary enemies of
Israel was intolerable. When he heard the hated sounds, ehemiah simply lost his
temper. With a curse on his lips he rushed at the fathers, striking them and tearing
their hair. It was the rage of bitter disappointment, but behind it lay the grim set
purpose in holding to which with dogged tenacity Ezra and ehemiah saved
Judaism from extinction. Separatism is never gracious, yet it may be right. The
reformer is not generally of a mild temperament. We may regret his harshness, but
we should remember that the world has only seen one perfectly meek and yet
thoroughly effective Revolutionist, only one "Lamb of God" who could be also
named "the Lion of the tribe of Judah."
The whole situation was disappointing to ehemiah and his memoir ends in a
prayer beneath which we can detect an undertone of melancholy. Three times
during this last section he appeals to God to remember him-not to wipe out his good
deeds, [ ehemiah 13:14] to spare him according to the greatness of the Divine
mercy, [ ehemiah 13:22] and finally to remember him for good. [ ehemiah 13:31]
The memories of the Jerusalem covenanters had been brief; during the short
interval of their leader’s absence they had forgotten his discipline and fallen back
into negligent ways. It was vain to trust to the fickle fancies of men. With a sense of
weary loneliness, taught to feel his own insignificance in that great tide of human
life that flows on in its own course though the most prominent figures drop out of
notice, ehemiah turned to his God, the one Friend who never forgets. He was
learning the vanity of the world’s fame, yet he shrank from the idea of falling into
oblivion. Therefore it was his prayer that he might abide in the memory of God.
This was by itself a restful thought. It is cheering to think that we may dwell in the
memory of those we love. But to be held in the thought of God is to have a place in
the heart of infinite love. And yet this was not the conclusion of the whole matter to
ehemiah. It is really nothing better than a frivolous vanity, that can induce any
one to be willing to sacrifice the prospect of a real eternal life in exchange for the
pallid shadow of immortality ascribed to the "choir invisible" of those who are only
thought of as living in the memory of the world they have influenced enough to win
"a niche in the temple of fame." What is fame to a dead man mouldering in his
coffin? Even the higher thought of being remembered by God is a poor consolation
in prospect of blank non-existence. ehemiah expects something better, for he begs
God to remember him in mercy and for good. It is a very narrow, prosaic
interpretation of this prayer to say that he only means that he desires a blessing
during the remainder of his life in the court at Susa. On the other hand, it may be
too much to ascribe the definite hope of a future life to this Old Testament saint.
And yet, vague as his thought may be, it is the utterance of a profound yearning of
the soul that breaks out in moments of disappointment with an intensity never to be
satisfied within the range of our cramped mortal state. In this utterance of
ehemiah we have, at least, a seed thought that should germinate into the great
hope of immortality. If God could forget His children, we might expect them to
perish, swept aside like the withered leaves of autumn. But if He continues to
remember them, it is not just to His Fatherhood to charge Him with permitting such
a fate to fall upon His offspring. o human father who is worthy of the name would

willingly let go the children whom he cherishes in mind and heart. Is it reasonable to
suppose that the perfect Divine Father, who is both almighty and all-loving, would
be less constant? But if He remembers His children, and remembers them for good,
He will surely preserve them. If His memory is unfading, and if His love and power
are eternal, those who have a place in His immortal thought must also have a share
in His immortal life.
PARKER, " ehemiah"s Temper and Questions
WHAT a different man is ehemiah when the first chapter and the last of his book
are brought into contrast! In the first chapter ehemiah is meek enough; we read
that—it came to pass, when he heard certain words, that he "sat down and wept,
and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven" (
ehemiah 1:4),—all that could be done in a private house. In the last chapter we
find him laying about him with tremendous fury. He hurls everything out of his way
in a righteous rage. There is nothing about weeping, and mourning, and fasting. The
last chapter is a thunderstorm. Yet the first and the last are related; the man who
cannot weep—that is to say, the man who cannot feel deeply and acutely—can never
do any great and permanent reforming work in the world; the man who cannot
fast—that is to say, hold himself in severest control—can never strike with any real
effect; the man who cannot pray—that is to say, connect himself with all the highest
forces and energies of the universe, ally himself with the very omnipotence of God—
can never stand forth in heroic fearlessness and courage almost divine. In the first
chapter we have the man"s inner nature—in the last chapter we have the man at
work; and between the two, though the contrast is outwardly so striking, there is an
intimate and necessary relation.
What questions he asks! all reformation should be preceded by inquiry.
Circumstances develop men. ehemiah began in the history as a cupbearer; he ends
in the same history as a mighty, resolute, beneficent reformer, never in any one of
his reforms promoting his own interests, narrowly viewed as such, but everywhere
considering the public weal, Revelation -establishing law and order, that society
may be secured and enabled to make useful progress. ehemiah did not care who
had done the mischief, he was bent upon undoing it. It was a priest who had "the
oversight of the chamber of the house of our God," who had allied himself unto
Tobiah, whose history we have studied; and that same priest had prepared for the
enemy a great chamber, and when ehemiah came he knotted as it were whipcord
and laid about him, so that they who had done evil might suffer in the body for the
mischief they had wrought. Possession was not to him nine points of the law. The
man was in the wrong place, and he must be routed out. It was in vain to plead
possession, prescriptive right, a kind of quasi-legal entrance upon the property:
ehemiah said, This is not yours; it was not in the gift of any man; you must be put
out of this, and you must take care of your stuff, or it will be thrown into the fire.
An awkward man to deal with! Tobiah could have borne any amount of argument,
and he looked serene in the face of most eloquent persuasiveness; but ehemiah was
a man of action as well as a man of thought; he gave but little time to moving; the

moving was to be accomplished; and it was well understood that when ehemiah
had made up his mind to a course, that course was as good as run.
Look at some of the questions which ehemiah put:—
"Then contended I with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken?" (
ehemiah 13:11).
This is the voice of a man who means to hold the house of God in highest reverence.
We dare not adopt the question now, because it is out of consonance with the spirit
of Jesus Christ, that spirit being one of persuasion, reasoning, sympathy,
entreaty,—well imaged in the words, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any
man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him." Still, we owe much to
the spirit of ehemiah. There was a time when the spirit of order and right could
assert itself in very forcible terms. The earth was not made beautiful without much
volcanic energy, without great upheavals and tumults: the sward that is on the top
of it was not always there; it comes after great contention, conflict, stirring together,
and a tremendous coalition of forces well-nigh infinite. It is the same with human
history. We have come to halcyon days: we wonder that the sward is not more
velvet-like, we complain if everything is not brought to the highest polish of
civilisation; we now argue with men, and entreat them to do things which aforetime
would have been commanded and insisted upon. The former is the better plan. It is
founded on an eternal principle. Yet who shall say that we are not much indebted
even to physical force and positive penal law for a good deal that is best amongst us
to-day? Who can be sure that our penalties have not ended in very much of our best
refinement, our highest forbearance and self-control and moral dignity? The point,
however, to be kept in view is this—that there was a man who cared for God"s
house. That man ought to live through all time. He does live. His influence is not
always exercised in the same way; but there is always in the human heart a great
wonder, a mighty passion, leading to strenuous effort in the direction of filling the
house of God. When God"s house is cared for, no other house is neglected. We are
not referring to that sentimental regard for the building which can leave other
things to run to ruin, but of that intelligent, rational, reverent solicitude for the
house of God, which expresses itself in all industries, and in every aspect of loving
conscientious faithfulness. Let this be judged of by reality and fact. The matter is
open to inquest upon almost statistical ground. Who cares for God"s business shall
be cared for by God. "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father"s business?" was
the question which Christ propounded. Let us put it in the new form—Wist ye not
that I must be about my Father"s house? The idea remains unimpaired. When we
are about God"s house in the right spirit the redemptive God is taking care of our
home. He lives a foolish life who seeks his life upon narrow grounds. He that would
save his life must know how to lose it; he who would save the little must attend to
the great; he who would have all things added unto him must seek first the kingdom
of God and his righteousness.
Look at another question:—

"What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?" ( ehemiah
13:17).
The same man here evinces the same spirit. The house of God and the day of God go
together; they stand or fall together. The work of God is one, and his purpose is
undivided, and all his ordinances interrelate themselves to one another, so that if
you touch one you touch the whole, if you break the least you break the greatest. A
marvellous unity of thought and purpose and law we find in the house of God!
ehemiah was a Sabbatarian of the severest type. We do well not to imitate his
action in this matter. There can be no Sabbath-keeping by law. We cannot force a
man to keep the day of God. We can compel him to withdraw from visible
participation in merchandise; we can compel him to close his windows, and to give
all his servants holiday; so far we can go. But unless the Sabbatic spirit is in the man
there will be no Sabbath kept by him. It is the heart that obeys; it is the heart that is
religious. We are not good because we assent to certain propositions and obey
certain laws: we are only good because the spirit is at one in rational and loving
consonance with God. Here again we must almost go to statistics for proof of the
utility and beneficence of Sabbath-keeping. Let us rest this question on the strongest
grounds, namely, those that are spiritual, social, healthful, beneficial, in every aspect
and issue, and then our argument cannot be overthrown. If we should institute a
comparison between those who keep the Sabbath with those who do not keep it,
there can be no risk in believing that those who truly in their hearts consecrate a
portion of their time to God are the best men: if they are not they ought to be; they
do not live up to their profession of the Son of man. He ought to be the best man
who sets apart a portion of his property, a portion of his time, to religious uses, and
who does so not to escape a penalty but to express a high and noble sentiment of
gratitude. If he is not the best Prayer of Manasseh , then he is misusing his
opportunity, playing false with his religious actions, and is unequal in his inner man
and moral purpose to that which is outward and that which is externally attractive
and good. The Sabbath, therefore, can only be kept by men who want to keep it. All
our statutes and acts of parliament and preventatives are useless, and worse than
useless, irritating and exasperating, unless there be a spirit in man which responds
to the spirit of the Sabbath, and says, This is the gift of God; this is needful on social
grounds, on healthful grounds, on religious grounds; therefore, the Sabbath should
be kept holy unto the Lord.
So far did ehemiah succeed that he drove out a good many who were doing
business within the city on the Sabbath day. But they were not to be easily deterred:
they loitered behind the wall; they thought they would watch their opportunity for
doing a little business even on ehemiah"s Sabbath day. But ehemiah was an out-
and-out reformer; he did not look in one direction only, he looked over the wall, and
seeing these men loitering about he said, If you come there again I will lay hands
upon you—be off! The tone was needed at that time. Historically, it was right; the
men could understand no other argument. There are persons who cannot
understand a preacher, but they have some dim conception of a constable.
ehemiah , therefore, played the inspector, and looked over the wall, and hunted
the rats out of their hole, and drove them away with righteous indignation,

threatening them that if they returned they would be detained. A man of this kind is
always useful in society; and the men who criticise him most severely are not always
unwilling to realise the benefits which his policy secures: they will take whatever he
may bring to them in the way of advantage, and then they will scrutinise severely his
policy and his spirit, and wish that he were a man of another temper. Men of Song
of Solomon -called bad temper have been of great use in society. Their temper has
not been bad when looked at within the proper limits and in the right light: it was
only bad to the men who were themselves bad, and who wished to escape judgment.
There is a righteous indignation. There is a godly jealousy. There is an anger that
may not cease with the shining of the sun, but burn at night and be ready for the
morning, that evil may be contemned and scorched and destroyed.
This was the man ehemiah. What probably enraged him more than anything else
was the intermarriage of the Jews with the heathen. There he became most
sublimely indignant; said Hebrews , "In those days also saw I Jews that had
married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: and their children spake half in
the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews" language, but according to
the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and
smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair," and made them swear in God"s
name that they would never do it again. This man was once only cupbearer; once he
was a "mute inglorious Milton"; once he sat down and wept and mourned and
fasted and prayed. Comparing the verse which represents him so doing with the
twenty-fifth verse of the last chapter of his book, we find, though a great change
passes in the matter of emotion and contemplation and action, the man is one and
the same. The great argument was, "Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these
things?" his argument being, You have history to guide, you have example and
warning on every hand; you are not guiltless, but doubly guilty, because even the
king of Israel sinned in this way and incurred the judgment and displeasure of
heaven. Here ehemiah stood upon sound ground. He knew what had happened in
the history of the world, which so few men know. Men may know the history of the
world in bare facts and dates, in battles and victories, and coronations and changes
of dynasty and policy, and yet know nothing about the central moral line that runs
through all history and makes it organic, and turns it into a great teaching
instrument. If we know dates only we know nothing about history. History has a
moral aspect, and we must study its morale, its aims in relation to the moral health
of the people, if we would grasp its philosophy and usefully apply its largest lesson.
Here, then, we have discipline, earnestness, definiteness,—the very Cromwell of the
Old Testament, the man with a rod in his hand; and nothing stands in his way when
he has right to vindicate, when he has law to protect. Where are the ehemiahs of
to-day? There are none. Where are the Cromwells of to-day? They are in the grave.
Look at this man"s attitude as described by himself; omitting the interstitial matter,
let us catch all words in which he describes his personal action:—"I cast forth all
the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber "—"Then contended I with the
rulers"—"I testified against them"—"I contended with the nobles of Judah"—"I
commanded that the gates should be shut"—"I commanded the Levites that they
should cleanse themselves "—"I said unto the Sabbath-breakers, If ye do so again, I

will lay hands on you "—"I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote
certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God"—"I
chased one of the sons of Joiada from me "—"Thus cleansed I them." And so he
passes away from us in a great storm of reformation. "I contended—I
commanded—I cast forth—I chased—I said—Thus I cleansed." He is not ashamed
to speak of himself. He was indeed the only man of his time worth speaking about.
He was as the very Spirit of judgment amongst the people. If we do not want
ehemiah"s violence we want his earnestness. ever forget the distinction between
these two terms. There may be those who condemn the violence of ehemiah , and
then sink into indifference regarding all that is sacred and noble and useful in
human history. Do not let us escape on the plea that the day of violence has gone:
the day of earnestness ought never to go.
What a time ehemiah would have of it if he lived now! And what a time we should
have of it if that same circumstance occurred! ehemiah made his influence felt.
Could he see what we see in all the capitals of the world, and yet hold his tongue,
and pass down to church that he might say his own prayers, and find his own covert
way to heaven? He would often be late for church; he would stand by the wayside to
curse and denounce, and issue the judgments of God upon the things that are
happening even in Metropolitan thoroughfares. ehemiah could not look upon the
sights which afflict our eyes without protestation. We have lost the spirit of
Protestantism. We now make it a mere ecclesiastical term, whereas in its etymology
and earliest history it was nothing of the kind. A Protestant is a witness—a man who
testifies, witnesses to certain truth. If there were no Roman Catholic Church,
Protestantism would still remain, as vital, energetic, and beneficent as ever, because
it means testifying, witnessing, laying the hand of identification upon evil, and
saying, Thou art wrong! I curse thee in the name of God. That is Protestantism—not
going to chapel instead of going to church; not wearing a Geneva gown instead of
some elaborately-decorated ritualistic garment. To protest is to witness. ehemiah
would be the leader of the Protestants. Could ehemiah see the faces of the poor
ground every day and say, " othing can be done: "the poor ye have always with
you:" it is a great mystery, and we must wait for its solution?" He might have to say
that, but he would do a good deal before he did say it. He would go with these poor
people and say, I will watch the whole process; I will see how you are treated, and
you shall not be involved in my inspection, and I will beard the oppressor who
crushes you, be his name what it may; though he be a pew-holder in my church, I
will smite him in the face with a fist of righteousness. Could ehemiah hear about
our poor seamstresses being drilled by some commercial devil, and never say a word
about it, but generalise on the mysteries of trade, and the difficulties of commerce,
and the law of supply and demand, and the exactions of political economy? o! he
would be more on the side of human nature than upon the side of any science that
ever was invented for getting the last drop of blood out of a poor worker.
We much need ehemiah"s earnestness, we repeat, without ehemiah"s violence.
We have already admitted that there was a time when violence itself might be
historically justifiable, but even violence was inspired by earnestness. If the fury has
been less, the passion and love of righteousness should still remain. If we were in

earnest we could do more: we could make the country too hot for any man who was
living by robbery and by oppression and cruelty; we should so organise ourselves as
to get at the most skilfully concealed oppressor; we could make him feel that he is
not to dine every day upon the flesh of human creatures, and drink his wine out of
the skulls of his fellow men. Do not say that nothing can be done. A moral sentiment
can be created, a grand public opinion can be organised, and the most cunning
workers of evil can be made to feel that there is a spirit in the air, an invisible,
ghostly, awful spirit,—the spirit of righteousness, the spirit of humanity, the spirit of
pity, the spirit of judgment: there may be absence of visible organisation and
positive definition, yet there will be a feeling that the enemy is behind or in front, or
on the right hand or on the left, or just above or just below, but there he Isaiah ,—
the enemy Song of Solomon -called—the enemy of wrong-doing, the enemy of
cruelty, the enemy of shamelessness, but the friend of God, and the true friend of
man.
Can we not rouse ourselves to some heroic endeavour in this direction? One thing
surely we can do: we can ask significant questions. ehemiah pushed his inquiries
as he might have thrust spears into the consciences of men. When the question is
raised the answer may come; but if we do not raise the question we cannot be
concerned about the issue. Why are all these thousands of children so ragged, so
poverty-stricken, so hungered, so neglected? We can at least put the question, and
we can put it with unction, we can ask it as if we meant it; and there is a way of
asking some questions that amounts almost to their solution. We are not to make
them questions of conversation, not to be eating our own smoking venison and
drinking our own foaming wine, and asking how the poor live, and say how
shocking it is that so many people should have nothing to eat and drink. That is not
moral comment that has any value in it. There Isaiah , let us never forget, a way of
putting a question that means that we are on the outlook for opportunities, and that
the moment the opportunity can be secured it will be realised in the interests of
Prayer of Manasseh , in the interests of righteousness. ow all this is in the happiest
accord with the Spirit of Jesus Christ. We need not go to the Old Testament for
heroic reformers, for fundamental reconstructors of human history. All the men
that went before him, who burned with the right spirit, pointed towards One who
was coming, whose name is the Son of Prayer of Manasseh , who so loved the world
as to die for it, who on his way to the cross made that way the steeper and thornier
because he said, Woe unto you, devourers of widows" houses, plunderers, thieves,
hypocrites, whited sepulchres! If he did go to the cross, he might have gone by
another and smoother road, but his road was all cross, it was the way of the cross;
when he was born he died, when he died he was born. Jesus Christ could not be in
our streets without putting searching questions. The Saviour of the world could not
see holy things trampled upon without protest at least. Blessed is that people among
whom there are many men with loud, clear, resonant voices, who will not let evil
pass unchecked, unchallenged, but who, even if they have no means of immediate
remedy, will still ask questions, and make their inquiries solemn as the judgment of
God. When the Spirit of Jesus Christ comes back to the Church, the Church will
rectify social problems, will defend the weak, will secure the rights of the poor, and
will show that it is not an organism for the cultivation of sentiment, but an organism

whose symbol is the cross, whose baptism is of blood, whose object is to save the
world.
LA GE, " ehemiah 13:1. On that day,i.e. the day of dedication of the walls, as in
ehemiah 12:43-44.
The part of the law which forbade mingling with the other nations was specially
read on the dedication-day. Deuteronomy 23:3 would naturally be read, as also
Deuteronomy 7:1-6. The reference to the former passage here uses the words adh
olam (forever), which are not found alone in Deuteronomy. There it reads: “Even to
their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord forever,
“ where the “forever” seems to signify the perpetuity of this ordinance, and not the
perpetuity of their exclusion. It is quoted here in brief, without any design to change
the meaning. o Moabite or Ammonite family could be admitted to the privileges of
Jewry until in the tenth generation after quitting heathenism and formally allying
itself with Israel.
2
because they had not met the Israelites with food
and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse
down on them. (Our God, however, turned the
curse into a blessing.)
GILL, "Because they met not the children of Israel with bread,.... The same
reason is given, and what follows in this verse is observed in Deu_23:4; See Gill on Deu_
23:4, Deu_23:5.
PETT, " ehemiah 13:2
‘Because they did not meet the children of Israel with bread and with water, but
hired Balaam against them, to curse them: however our God turned the curse into a
blessing.’
And the reason for this exclusion, as taken from Deuteronomy 23:4, was that it
arose because of the failure of the Ammonites and Moabites, who were related
tribes, to welcome them with food and water when Israel under Moses initially

approached the land of Canaan. Rather they had hired Balaam the sorcerer so that
he would curse them. It had, however, been unavailing, for YHWH had turned his
curse into a blessing.
The passage in Deuteronomy then goes on to deal with other less permanent
exclusions, but this part was no doubt cited because it explained ehemiah’s
reaction against the residence of Tobiah the Ammonite within the Temple precincts.
TRAPP, " ehemiah 13:2 Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and
with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our
God turned the curse into a blessing.
Ver. 2. Because they met not the children of Israel] A bare omission of observance
subjected them to divine vengeance. As God requiteth the least courtesy done to his
people, be it but a cup of cold water; so he repayeth the least discourtesy, or but
neglect of them, to whom the glorious angels are ministering spirits, and may not
think themselves too good to serve them, Hebrews 1:14.
But hired Balaam against them] With the rewards of divination, umbers 22:7, the
wages of wickedness, 1:11, 2 Peter 2:15, which he greedily ran after; and not so
much as roving at God, made the world his standing mark, till he had got a sword in
his guts.
Howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing] So he did the pope’s curse to
Queen Elizabeth, and before her, to Luther. Quo magis illi furunt, eo amplius
precedo, saith he in a certain epistle; the more they rage and ban me the more I
proceed and prosper. The pope excommunicated him, the emperor proscribed him,
&c. Omnium animi tum erant arrecti, quid illa Caesaris et pontificis fulmina essent
effectura. All men’s minds were then set an end, and stood on tip-toes, as it were, to
see what would be the issue, saith mine author (Scultet. Annal.). A wonderful work
of our God surely, and worthy to be chronicled! Luther is conveyed out of the way
by the Elector of Saxony for ten months, till he would be hid no longer. Meanwhile
Pope Leo dieth, the Emperor Charles V is first called into Spain to suppress
seditions there, and afterwards is so busied in his wars with the French king, that he
hath no leisure to look after Luther. After this, when the French king was beaten by
the emperor, and carried prisoner into Spain, he was released and sent home again,
upon the condition that the emperor and he should root out the Lutheran heresy, as
they called it. But our God broke their designs, and turned this curse also into a
blessing. For the French king returning home, and conceiving that the conditions
that he had yielded unto, to get off, were unequal, entereth into a league with the
pope and the State of Venice against the emperor. The pope, that he might cover his
false dealing with the emperor, sends abroad his Bull and therein calleth knave first.
The emperor, on the other side, complaineth of the pope’s malice and double-
dealing, exhorteth him to peace, and concludeth that it were fitter for them to unite
against the Lutherans. And when he could prevail nothing by writing, he abolished

his authority throughout all Spain, sends his armies against him under the duke of
Bourbon, claps him up prisoner in St Angelo, proclaims open war against the
French, &c. So that religion got ground, and all things fell out rather unto the
furtherance of the gospel, Philippians 1:12. Let them curse thy Church, Lord, but
do thou bless; when they arise, let them ever be ashamed; but let thy servants
rejoice, and speed the better for their ill wishes. So be it, Psalms 109:28.
3
When the people heard this law, they excluded
from Israel all who were of foreign descent.
BAR ES, "A separation like that made by Ezra, some 20 years previously Ezra 10:15-
44, seems to be intended. The pagan wives were divorced and sent back, with their
offspring, to their own countries.
CLARKE, "They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude - They
excluded all strange women, and all persons, young and old, who had been born of these
illegal connections.
GILL, "Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law,.... Or the law
concerning the Ammonite and the Moabite, and which included other nations also, and
forbad marriage with them:
that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude; all of these, and other
nations, they had contracted affinity with.
HE RY, "The people's ready compliance with this law, Neh_13:3. See the benefit of
the public reading of the word of God; when it is duly attended to it discovers to us sin
and duty, good and evil, and shows us wherein we have erred. Then we profit by the
discovery when by it we are wrought upon to separate ourselves from all that evil to
which we had addicted ourselves. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude,
which had of old been a snare to them, for the mixed multitude fell a lusting, Num_11:4.
These inmates they expelled, as usurpers and dangerous.
III. The particular case of Tobiah, who was an Ammonite, and to whom, it is likely, the
historian had an eye in the recital of the law (Neh_13:1), and the reason of it, Neh_13:2.
For he had the same enmity to Israel that his ancestors had, the spirit of an Ammonite,
witness his indignation at Nehemiah (Neh_2:10) and the opposition he had given to his

undertakings, Neh_4:7, Neh_4:8. Observe,
K&D, "This law being understood, all strangers were separated from Israel. ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ע‬ is
taken from Exo_12:38, where it denotes the mixed multitude of non-Israelitish people
who followed the Israelites at their departure from Egypt. The word is here transferred
to strangers of different heathen nationalities living among the Israelites. The date of the
occurrence here related cannot be more precisely defined from the ‫הוּא‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ּום‬ ַ . Public
readings of the law frequently took place in those days, as is obvious from Neh 8 and 9,
where we learn that in the seventh month the book of the law was publicly read, not only
on the first and second days, but also daily during the feast of tabernacles, and again on
the day of prayer and fasting on the twenty-fourth of the month. It appears, however,
from ‫ה‬ֶ ִ‫מ‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫,ל‬ Neh_13:4, compared with Neh_13:6, that the reading Neh_13:1-3 took
place in the interval between Nehemiah's first and second stay at Jerusalem. This view is
not opposed by the facts mentioned Neh_13:4. and 23f. The separation of the ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ע‬ could
not be carried out at once; and hence, notwithstanding repeated resolutions to sever
themselves from strangers (Neh_9:2; Neh_10:31), cases to the contrary might be
discovered, and make fresh separations needful.
PETT, " ehemiah 13:3
‘And it came about when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all
the mixed multitude (or ‘those who mingled among them’).’
And the consequence of hearing this from the Law was that ‘they separated from
Israel all the minglers among them’. Whilst the same word (translated ‘mixed
multitude’) is found in Exodus 12:36 it had there a somewhat different meaning.
There it referred to foreign slaves who fled with the Israelites from Egypt and
mingled among them in their flight. The vast majority of them became true
Israelites through subscribing to the covenant at Sinai, and through their
subsequent circumcision on entering the land. Here in ehemiah 13:3 it probably
refers to those who worshipped YHWH on a syncretistic basis, in the same way as
Tobiah did, who had somehow ingratiated themselves into Israel in such a way as to
be treated as ‘Israel’, or at least in such a was as to be able to worship YHWH along
with them. We are not told how they were separated. It may have been by exclusion
from dwelling in Jerusalem. Or it may have been by excluding them from
gatherings of the assembly of Israel. Or it may have been by exclusion from worship
in the Temple because of their syncretism. We can compare how the syncretistic
YHWH worshippers of Samaria were not allowed any official part in the Temple
(Ezra 4:1-3). But the point that lies behind the words is that Israel excluded from
among themselves all who were not pure worshippers of YHWH. It was all a part of
the purifying of the holy city and ensuring within it only the true worship of
YHWH. That this took place after ehemiah’s return from seeing Artaxerxes as
described in ehemiah 13:6, is apparent from the ‘now before this’ of ehemiah
13:4.
TRAPP, "Verse 3
ehemiah 13:3 ow it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they

separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.
Ver. 3. ow it came to pass, when they had heard the law] And were transformed
into the same image therewith, by the Spirit of grace, who had made their flinty
hearts to become fleshy, &c. We used to say, As hard hearted as a Jew. But they that
relent not, repent not at the hearing of the word, are worse than these Jews; and it
may be feared that the Lord hath a purpose to destroy them. "The law of the Lord,"
when but read only, "is perfect, converting the soul," Psalms 19:7, but woe to the
irreformable, 2 Corinthians 4:4.
That they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude] Vulgus promiscuum, the
rabble of strangers, wherewith this people were haunted and pestered from the very
first, Exodus 12:38, umbers 11:4. These, moved with miracles, removed with them
out of Egypt, but for a mischief to them, for they drew them into sin then, as those
here did also; and were, therefore, worthily put away, as the law required.
BE SO , " ehemiah 13:3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude —
All the Ammonites, Moabites, and other heathenish people, with whom they had
contracted alliances. All these were cast out from the congregation of Israel,
together with the children born of them; that is, they would not look upon them as
Israelites, or as entitled to the same privileges with themselves.
WHEDO , "3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude — Literally,
separated all mixture from Israel. The word ‫,ערב‬ mixed multitude, is used of the
people of foreign blood who accompanied the Hebrews out of Egypt, (Exodus
12:38,) and afterwards lusted after flesh. umbers 11:4 . It may, therefore, refer to
any non-Israelitish people. So according to the true spirit of the law they separated
themselves from all foreigners, not from Ammonites and Moabites only. Marriage
with unbelievers is fraught with so much danger that it is discountenanced in the
ew Testament also. 2 Corinthians 6:14. Intermarriage and association with
foreigners was an evil against which both Ezra and ehemiah had to fight
repeatedly. Compare ehemiah 13:23-30, and ehemiah 9:2; also Ezra 9-10, notes.
4
Before this, Eliashib the priest had been put in
charge of the storerooms of the house of our God.
He was closely associated with Tobiah,

BAR ES, "The relations of Eliashib, the high priest Neh_3:1, with Tobiah and
Sanballat will account for the absence of any reference to him either in Neh. 8–10, or in
Neh. 12:27-47.
The chamber - The entire outbuilding, or “lean-to,” which surrounded the temple on
three sides 1Ki_6:5-10.
Allied - i. e, “connected by marriage.” Tobiah was married to a Jewess Neh_6:18, who
may have been a relation of Eliashib; and his son Johanan was married to another Neh_
6:18, of whom the same may be said.
CLARKE, "Eliashib the priest - Perhaps this was a different person from Eliashib
the high priest; but there is no indubitable evidence that he was not the same. If he was
high priest, he was very unfaithful to the high charge which he had received; and a
reproach to the priesthood. He had married his grandson to Sanballat’s daughter: this
produced a connection with Tobiah, the fast friend of Sanballat; in whose favor he
polluted the house of God, giving him one of the chambers for his ordinary residence,
which were appointed for the reception of the tithes, oblations, etc., that came to the
house of God.
GILL, "And before this,.... Before the above law was read, and observed and acted
upon:
Eliashib the priest; whom some take to be a common priest; so Bishop Usher (a); but
he seems rather to be the high priest, by comparing it with Neh_13:28,
having the oversight of the chamber of the house of our God; which has led
some to the notion of his being a common priest; but chamber may be put for chambers,
and those for the whole house or temple, which the high priest had the greatest concern
in, and oversight of:
was allied to Tobiah; the servant and Ammonite, an inveterate enemy of the Jews,
Neh_2:10, having married a daughter of Shecaniah, and his son a daughter of
Meshullam, who were both priests, and so as it seems related to Eliashib, Neh_6:18.
HE RY 4-6, "1. How basely Eliashib the chief priest took this Tobiah in to be a
lodger even in the courts of the temple. (1.) He was allied to Tobiah (Neh_13:4), by
marriage first and then by friendship. His grandson had married Sanballat's daughter,
Neh_13:28. Probably some other of his family had married Tobiah's, and (would you
think it?) the high priest thought the alliance an honour to his family, and was very
proud of it, though really it was his greatest disgrace, and what he had reason to be
ashamed of. It was expressly provided by the law that the high priest should marry one
of his own people, else he profanes his seed among his people, Lev_21:14, Lev_21:15.
And for Eliashib to contract an alliance with an Ammonite, a servant (for so he is called)
and to value himself upon it, probably because he has a wit and a beau, and cried up for

a fine gentleman (Neh_6:19), was such a contempt of the crown of his consecration as
one would not wish should be told in Gath or published in the streets of Ashkelon. (2.)
Being allied to him, he must be acquainted with him. Tobiah, being a man of business,
has often occasion to be at Jerusalem, I doubt upon no good design. Eliashib is fond of
his new kinsman, pleased with his company, and must have him as near him as he can.
He has not a room for him stately enough in his own apartment, in the courts of the
temple; therefore, out of several little chambers which had been used for store-
chambers, by taking down the partitions, he contrived to make one great chamber, a
state-room for Tobiah, Neh_13:5. A wretched thing it was, [1.] That Tobiah the
Ammonite should be entertained with respect in Israel, and have a magnificent
reception. [2.] That the high priest, who should have taught the people the law and set
them a good example, should, contrary to the law, give him entertainment, and make use
of the power he had, as overseer of the chambers of the temple, for that purpose. [3.]
That he should lodge him in the courts of God's house, as if to confront God himself; this
was next to setting up an idol there, as the wicked kings of old had done. An Ammonite
must not come into the congregation; and shall one of the worst and vilest of the
Ammonites be courted into the temple itself, and caressed there? [4.] That he should
throw out the stores of the temple, to make room for him, and so expose them to be lost,
wasted, and embezzled, though they were the portions of the priests, merely to gratify
Tobiah. Thus did he corrupt the covenant of Levi, as Malachi complained at this time,
Mal_2:8. Well might Nehemiah add (Neh_13:6), But all this time was not I at
Jerusalem. If he had been there, the high priest durst not have done such a thing. The
envious one, who sows tares in God's field, knows how to take an opportunity to do it
when the servants sleep or are absent, Mat_13:25. The golden calf was made when
Moses was in the mount.
JAMISO 4=5, "before this — The practice of these mixed marriages, in open
neglect or violation of the law, had become so common, that even the pontifical house,
which ought to have set a better example, was polluted by such an impure mixture.
Eliashib the priest ... was allied unto Tobiah — This person was the high priest
(Neh_13:28; also Neh_3:1), who, by virtue of his dignified office, had the
superintendence and control of the apartments attached to the temple. The laxity of his
principles, as well as of his practice, is sufficiently apparent from his contracting a family
connection with so notorious an enemy of Israel as Tobiah. But his obsequious
attentions had carried him much farther; for to accommodate so important a person as
Tobiah on his occasional visits to Jerusalem, Eliashib had provided him a splendid
apartment in the temple. The introduction of so gross an impropriety can be accounted
for in no other way than by supposing that in the absence of the priests and the cessation
of the services, the temple was regarded as a common public building, which might, in
the circumstances, be appropriated as a palatial residence.
K&D 4-5, "Nehemiah, on his return to Jerusalem, reforms the irregularities that
had broken out during his absence. - Neh_13:4-9. While Nehemiah was at Babylon with
King Artaxerxes, Eliashib the high priest had given up to his relative, Tobiah the
Ammonite (Neh_2:10; Neh_4:3, and elsewhere), a large chamber in the temple, i.e., in
the fore-court of the temple (v. 7), probably for his use as a dwelling when he visited
Jerusalem (see rem. on v. 8). On his return, Nehemiah immediately cast all the furniture
of Tobiah out of this chamber, purified the chambers, and restored them to their proper

use as a magazine for the temple stores. ‫ה‬ֶ ִ‫מ‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫,ל‬ before this (comp. Ewald, §315, c),
refers to the beforementioned separation of the ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ע‬ from Israel (Neh_13:3). Eliashib the
priest is probably the high priest of that name (Neh_3:1; Neh_12:10, Neh_12:22). This
may be inferred from the particular: set over (he being set over) the chambers of the
house of our God; for such oversight of the chambers of the temple would certainly be
entrusted to no simple priest, though this addition shows that this oversight did not
absolutely form part of the high priest's office. For ‫ן‬ ַ‫ת‬ָ‫,נ‬ in the sense of to set, to place
over, comp. 1Ki_2:35; the construction with ְ instead of ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ is, however, unusual, but
may be derived from the local signification of ְ , upon, over. Ewald and Bertheau are for
reading ‫ּת‬‫כ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫ל‬ instead of the sing. ‫ת‬ ַⅴ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫,ל‬ because in Neh_13:5 it is not ‫ה‬ ָⅴ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ ַ‫ה‬ that is spoken
of, but a large chamber. ‫ת‬ ַⅴ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫ל‬ may, however, be also understood collectively. Eliashib,
being a relation of Tobiah (‫ּוב‬‫ר‬ ָ‫ק‬ like Rth_2:20), prepared him a chamber. The predicate
of the sentence, Neh_13:4, follows in Neh_13:5 with ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫ע‬ַ ַ‫,ו‬ in the form of a conclusion
following the accessory sentence of the subject. How Tobiah was related to Eliashib is
nowhere stated. Bertheau conjectures that it was perhaps only through the circumstance
that Johanan, the son of Tobiah, had married a daughter of Meshullam ben Berechiah
(Neh_6:18), who, according to Neh_3:30, was a priest or Levite, and might have been
nearly related to the high priest. “A great chamber,” perhaps made so by throwing
several chambers into one, as older expositors have inferred from Neh_13:9, according
to which Nehemiah, after casting out the goods of Tobiah, had the chambers (plural)
cleansed. The statement also in Neh_13:5, that there (in this great chamber) were
aforetime laid up not only the meat-offerings (i.e., oil and flour, the materials for them),
the incense, and the sacred vessels, but also the tithe of the corn, the new wine, and the
oil, and the heave-offerings of the priests, seems to confirm this view. This tenth is
designated as ‫ם‬ ִ‫ו‬ ְ‫ֽל‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ַ‫ו‬ ְ‫צ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ the command of the Levites, i.e., what was apportioned to the
Levites according to the law, the legal dues for which ‫ט‬ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ is elsewhere usual; comp.
Deu_18:3; 1Sa_2:13. The heave-offering of the priest is the tenth of their tenth which the
Levites had to contribute, Neh_10:39.
PETT, " ehemiah 13:4-5
‘ ow before this, Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the chambers of the
house of our God, being allied to Tobiah, had prepared for him a great chamber,
where previously they laid the meal-offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and
the tithes of the grain, the new wine, and the oil, which were given by commandment
to the Levites, and the singers, and the gatekeepers; and the heave-offerings for the
priests.’
‘ ow before this.’ If taken specifically this suggests that what happened in
ehemiah 13:1-3 occurred after this date, so that Tobiah the Ammonite had a
chamber in the precincts of the Temple when that occurred. That would mean,
either that what happened in ehemiah 13:1-3 occurred after the return of
ehemiah, or that because of his powerful influence, Tobiah was not included in the
general purging of Israel from idolatrous elements which took place in the interim,

until after the return of ehemiah.
And the reason for Tobiah’s great influence was that he was ‘allied’ to Eliashib, a
priest who was responsible for the chambers in the Temple precincts. This may have
been due to a trade alliance, or even a marriage alliance (Tobiah was son-in-law to a
prominent Jew named Shechaniah the son of Arah, and his son Johanan had
married the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah ( ehemiah 6:18), a
prominent wallbuilder ( ehemiah 3:4; ehemiah 3:30) and priest ( ehemiah 3:28;
ehemiah 3:30). Both Shechaniah and Meshullam were presumably of the Jewish
aristocracy). But if so we are not given details. Or alternately it may indicate a close
friendship between the two which enabled Tobiah to pressurise Eliashib into
providing him with a chamber in the Temple precincts.
We read in Ezra 8:33 of a fourfold responsibility for the Temple treasures, at that
time consisting of two priests, Meremoth, the son of Uriah, and Eleazar the son of
Phinehas, and two Levites, Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and oadiah the son of
Binnui. Furthermore in ehemiah 13:13 we learn of four who were appointed for
the same purpose in the time of ehemiah, namely Shelemiah the priest and Zadok
the scribe, together with two Levites, Pedaiah and Hanan. Their responsibility was
for the Temple treasures, and this would include the safety and distribution of the
tithes, and these would all be stored in the Temple chambers. We also know that in
the time of Ezra’s initial arrival one of the Temple chambers was occupied by
‘Johanan the son of Eliashib’ (Ezra 10:6). This last would tie in well with an
Eliashib ‘who was over the chamber’, and it is doubtful if Ezra was there speaking
of Eliashib the High priest because, although he mentions four Eliashibs, he
nowhere mentions an Eliashib as the High Priest (see Ezra 10:6; Ezra 10:24; Ezra
10:27; Ezra 10:36). When speaking of Eliashib the High Priest ehemiah always
uses the full title ‘high priest’ ( ehemiah 3:1; ehemiah 3:20; ehemiah 13:28).
Thus this ‘Eliashib the priest’ would appear to have been a kind of priestly
caretaker of the Temple chambers, undoubtedly almost a full time job, and one
given only to a high level priest, with one responsibility among others being that he
could allocate the chambers, many of which would have been available to prominent
priests, enabling them to perform their functions more efficiently. That he allocated
one to his son may cause us to frown. That he allocated one to an Ammonite, who
was a syncretistic worshipper of YHWH, eventually caused everyone to frown. It
may well be that the appointments in ehemiah 13:13 resulted in his replacement.
The ‘great chamber’ allocated to Tobiah by Eliashib must have been very large for
it was one of those previously used to store meal offerings, and frankincense, and
the vessels of the house of God ( ehemiah 13:9), the latter vessels possibly
containing the tithes of corn, wine and oil, or they may have been Temple vessels,
and therefore costly. It also seemingly contained the heave-offerings of the priests.
This usage for other purposes had been made possible because there had been a
failure to gather in the tithes, so that the other storage chambers (compare 2
Chronicles 31:11-12) were sufficient for the storage now required. That the High
Priest and the priests turned a blind eye to it ties in with the fact that earlier we
have been informed that many influential Jews were in sympathy with Tobiah

( ehemiah 4:12; ehemiah 6:17-19), who may well previously have been deputy-
governor with responsibility over Judah. As long as their own chambers were not
affected (and each priestly clan presumably had a chamber for its patriarch) they
were not averse to the presence of Tobiah in the Temple courts. As a consequence he
was now presumably seeking to increase his influence in Jewish society, and
infiltrate into Temple worship, no doubt with a view to making both compatible
with the views of surrounding nations. It was a sign of how close true Yahwism was
coming to being debased.
ELLICOTT, "(4) Eliashib the priest, having the oversight.—Probably the high
priest of ehemiah 3:1, whose office alone would not have given him control over
“the chamber:” that is, the series of chambers running round three walls of the
Temple. He “was allied unto Tobiah,” but in what way is not stated.
Before this.—That is, before the return of ehemiah; indeed, there is a suspicious
absence of Eliashib’s name throughout the high religious festivities of the preceding
chapters.
COKE, "Verse 4
ehemiah 13:4. Eliashib the priest, &c.— Some are apt to imagine, that this
Eliashib was no more than a common priest, because he is said to have had the
oversight of the chambers in the house of God; which was an office, they think, too
mean for the high-priest. But we cannot see why the oversight of the chambers of
the house of God may not import the whole government of the temple, which
certainly belonged to the high-priest only; nor can we conceive how any one, who
was less than absolute governor of the temple, could make so great an innovation in
it. He was assistant, indeed, in the reparation of the walls of the city; but, except in
this one act, where do we read of his doing any thing worthy of memory towards the
reforming what was amiss either in church or state, in the times either of Ezra or
ehemiah? And yet we cannot but presume, that, had he joined with them in so
good a work, some mention would have been made of it in the books written by
them. Since therefore, instead of this, we find it recorded in Ezra, ch. ehemiah
10:18 that the pontifical house was in his time grown very corrupt, and, not
improbably by his connivance, began to marry into heathen families, see ehemiah
13:28 it seems most likely, that it was Eliashib the high-priest who was the author of
this great profanation of the house of God; but, as he might die before ehemiah
returned from Babylon, for this reason we hear nothing of the governor's
apprehending him for it.
COFFMA , "Verse 4
TOBIAH; THE AMMO ITE E EMY; THROW OUT OF THE TEMPLE
CHAMBERS
" ow before this, Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the chambers of the
house of our God, being allied with Tobiah, had prepared for him a great chamber,
where aforetime they had laid the meal-offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels,

and the tithes of the grain, the new wine, and the oil, which were given by
commandment to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters; and the heave-
offerings for the priests. But in all this time I was not at Jerusalem; for in the two
and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king of Babylon I went unto the king: and after
certain days asked I leave of the king, and I came to Jerusalem, and understood the
evil that Eliashib had done for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of
the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household
stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. Then I commanded, and they cleansed the
chambers: and thither brought I again the vessels of the house of God, with the
meal-offerings and the frankincense."
We find it hard to understand the claims of some that they do not know whether or
not Eliashib was high priest, or whether or not ehemiah returned as governor.
Eliashib is listed as a high-priest in ehemiah 12:10; and, besides that, only the
High Priest had sufficient authority to have done for Tobiah what was done here.
And, as for ehemiah, of course, he returned as governor; how else could he have
"commanded" as stated in ehemiah 13:9? The High Priest would not have obeyed
him or permitted the disruption of that fancy nest he had made for Tobiah in the
temple chambers, unless ehemiah, indeed, was governor, backed up by the full
authority of the king of Persia.
There is much diversity of scholarly opinion on how long ehemiah had been gone
from Jerusalem prior to his return to find wholesale rebellion against God's laws.
Keil believed that, " ehemiah's absence must have lasted longer than a year,
because so many illegal acts by the people could not have occurred in so short a
time."[3] evertheless, " ehemiah probably went to the court in Babylon in 433
B.C., and returned to Jerusalem in 432 B.C."[4] Regarding such a sudden and
complete apostasy by Israel, the scholars may scream, "Incredible,"[5] as did
Oesterley; but a careful reading of this chapter supports the reality of it. If
ehemiah left early in 433 B.C. and returned in late 432 B.C., he might have been
gone as long as eighteen months or a little longer. "Artaxerxes died in 423 B.C.";[6]
and the very longest that ehemiah could have been absent was about eight or nine
years. Israel did not need years to rebel against God; for they, in their hearts, were
in a continual state of rebellion from the times of Hosea and afterward. It is this
writer's opinion that ehemiah was not halfway on his way back to Babylon, when
Elisashib and his evil followers were dismantling all of the reforms ehemiah had
made.
"It is possible that Malachi was prophesying during this period,"[7] and from him,
we understand that the whole priesthood of Israel was wicked (Malachi 2:2).
TRAPP, "Verse 4
ehemiah 13:4 And before this, Eliashib the priest, having the oversight of the
chamber of the house of our God, [was] allied unto Tobiah:
Ver. 4. And before this] Before the commandment came as a lamp, and the law a
light, {as Proverbs 6:23} causing a reformation. As toads and serpents grow in dark

and dirty cellars, so do sinful disorders in ignorant places and persons.
Eliashib the priest] The high priest; but such a one as from whom profaneness went
forth into all the land, Jeremiah 23:15. The sins of teachers are teachers of sins.
Having the oversight of the chamber] i.e. Of all the chambers of the temple, by
virtue of his office; and, therefore, thought belike he might do what he wished with
them (now in ehemiah’s absence) without control.
Was allied unto Tobiah] A bitter enemy to God’s people, but sly and subtle, seeking
to insinuate by alliance and letters of persuasion; such as Cardinal Sadolet wrote to
the Genevenses, in Calvin’s absence, and Cardinal Lorraine to the Protestant
princes of Germany, that he and his brethren, the Guises (those sworn swordmen of
the devil), would embrace the reformed religion.
BE SO , " ehemiah 13:4. And before this — That is, before this separation was
made; Eliashib the priest — The high-priest, ( ehemiah 3:1,) or some other priest
so called, there being divers persons of this name in or about this time, though the
first seems most probable; having the oversight of the chamber — Of the chambers,
( ehemiah 13:9,) the high-priest having the chief power over the house of God, and
all the chambers belonging to it; was allied unto Tobiah — The Ammonite, and a
violent enemy to God’s people. He had suffered his grandson to marry Sanballat’s
daughter, who was the fast friend of Tobiah, and the great enemy of the Jews. This
is mentioned as a great blot on Eliashib’s character, and the cause of his other
miscarriages, noticed ehemiah 13:5. We read also in Ezra 10:18, that several of the
priests had married strange wives; and, among the rest, some of the sons of the high-
priest.
WHEDO , "CLEA SI G OF THE CHAMBER OCCUPIED BY TOBIAH,
ehemiah 13:4-9.
4. Before this — Before the separation of the mixed multitude from Israel.
Eliashib the priest — The high priest mentioned in ehemiah 3:1.
Oversight of the chamber — “Such oversight of the chambers of the temple would
certainly be intrusted to no simple priest, though this addition shows that this
oversight did not form part of the high priest’s office.” — Keil.
Allied unto Tobiah — In what particular way is unknown. Perhaps the Jewess
whom his son Johanan had married ( ehemiah 6:18) was a relative of the high
priest. See on ehemiah 2:10; ehemiah 6:18.
CO STABLE, "Verses 4-9

Nehemiah 13 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Nehemiah 13 commentary

Similar to Nehemiah 13 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Nehemiah 13 commentary