Chapter 2

1 Artaxerxes understanding the cause of Nehemiah’s sadness sendeth him with letters and commission to Jerusalem. 9 Nehemiah, to the grief of the enemies, cometh to Jerusalem. 12 He vieweth secretly the ruins of the walls. 17 He inciteth the Jews to build in despite of the enemies.

1. The month Nisan. Nisan in Artaxerxes I’s year 20 began April 2, 444 b.c. according to the table on page 108. This text, taken with ch. 1:1, shows that Nehemiah reckoned the regnal years of a Persian king according to the Jewish civil calendar, which began in the autumn (see pp. 102, 103; also Vol. II, pp. 110, 116).

It may seem strange that Nehemiah waited three or four months after receiving the report from Jerusalem before approaching the king with his request. Several reasons may have been responsible for this delay. For one thing, the king may have been absent from his capital. But even when the king was there, his moody character (see Additional Note on Ezra 4) may have made it seem desirable to await an opportune moment for placing the petition before him. During all this time Nehemiah sought to conceal his true feelings, since he was expected to be cheerful in the presence of his king.

Artaxerxes the king. That the Artaxerxes mentioned in the book of Nehemiah is the first Persian king who bore this name, and the same king under whom Ezra returned to Jerusalem, can be demonstrated by the evidence from the Elephantine Jewish papyri (see Additional Note 2 at close of chapter).

2. Why is thy countenance sad? This kind question directed by the great king to his humble servant is his best claim to a more favorable judgment than he has generally received from historians. He is known in history as a weak ruler who often compromised the royal dignity by making terms with rebellious subjects and as readily disgracing that dignity by breaking faith with men once they were in his power. Although a weak king, he was kindhearted and gentle upon occasion. Few Persian monarchs would have been sufficiently interested in their personal attendants to notice whether or not they were sad; fewer still would have shown sympathy. Whereas a Xerxes might have ordered instant execution, Artaxerxes felt compassion and was willing to alleviate his servant’s grief.

Sore afraid. Notwithstanding the king’s kind and compassionate words, Nehemiah sensed danger. He appeared sad in the king’s presence, and was, furthermore, about to ask permission to leave the court. Both were contrary to the fundamental assumption of Persian court life, that to bask in the light of the royal countenance was the height of happiness. Would the king be displeased, refuse the request, dismiss him from his post, and cast him into prison; or would he pardon the apparent rudeness and grant the request?

3. Let the king live for ever. A common form of Oriental address to a king (1 Kings 1:31; Dan. 2:4; 3:9; etc.).

Place of my fathers’ sepulchres. This statement implies that Nehemiah’s family had lived in Jerusalem. Like other ancient nations, the Persians had great respect for tombs, and disapproved of their violation. Nehemiah wisely weighed his words to enlist the sympathy of Artaxerxes for his request regarding the city where his ancestors had been interred.

4. I prayed. Nehemiah was a man of prayer. In every danger, in every difficulty, still more in every crisis, prayers rose from his lips (chs. 4:4, 9; 5:19; 6:14; 13:14; etc.). At times, as now, his prayer was offered silently, in a fleeting moment.

6. The queen. According to ancient historians, women frequently played a major role in decisions taken by the king. It is told of Xerxes that he was a plaything in the hand of his wives, and that amorous adventures and harem intrigues were of greater interest to him than politics and administration. Darius II was completely ruled by his treacherous and cruel wife, Parysatis, who was at the same time his sister, and of whom it is said that she distinguished herself by her thirst for power.

The Hebrew wordshegal is usually translated “queen,” here and in Ps. 45:9, the only other place where it is used in the OT. It is from the root shagal, “to ravish,” “to have sexual intercourse,” and means “concubine,” as the LXX has translated it correctly in Neh. 2:6. The discussion here reported took place in the presence of the queen. Nehemiah probably decided that this was a favorable opportunity for lodging his request—perhaps with the marked support of one of Artaxerxes’ concubines who may have been favorably disposed toward Nehemiah.

I set him a time. It is not stated how much time Nehemiah requested, but it would seem probable that this did not exceed two or three years, which would be sufficient to make the journey and complete the work. From ch. 5:14 it becomes clear that Nehemiah was absent from court for 12 years, probably much longer than he originally planned. He may have received extensions of his leave of absence from time to time. It is unlikely that Nehemiah asked for a 12-year leave of absence, for so long a time would probably not have been granted him.

7. Letters. It is significant that Nehemiah requested no letters to the governors between Susa and northern Syria. He must have considered that part of his journey comparatively safe, for he needed no special protection there. His enemies, however, lived in Samaria, Ammon, and other provinces surrounding Judea, all of which belonged to the satrapy “Beyond the River.” For his journey through that region he requested special protection and royal documents authorizing his trip. See Additional Note 1 at close of chapter.

8. Forest. Heb. pardes, a Persian loan word. In Greek this word became paradeisos, from which the word “paradise” is derived. In Persian, the word designates a royal park rather than a forest.

Nehemiah mentions three purposes for which wood was needed: (1) “For the gates of the palace which appertained to the house.” The “house” is undoubtedly the Temple, and the “palace,” the fortress at the northwest corner of the Temple area. This fortress at once commanded and protected the Temple. The fortress seems to have been built between the time of Zerubbabel and 444 b.c., the year of Nehemiah’s return, and was apparently the forerunner of the fortress of Antonia built by Herod, according to Josephus (Antiquities xv. 11. 4). It was originally called Baris, which seems to reflect the Heb. birah, “palace,” here used by Nehemiah. (2) “For the wall of the city,” especially for the gates. (3) “For the house that I shall enter into.” Nehemiah had in mind either his old family mansion, which may have been lying in ruin, or a new dwelling that he may have planned to build. He apparently assumed that the powers for which he asked involved his being appointed governor of Judea, and in such a capacity he planned to build a suitable house.

The king granted me. That such a changeable king granted all Nehemiah’s requests, without reservation, could only be explained as the result of divine influence. Nehemiah recognized this, and gave God the glory for his success (see on Ezra 8:18).

9. I came to the governors. Of his journey to Jerusalem Nehemiah reports only that he paid visits to the various governors through whose territories he traveled, especially in the satrapy “Beyond the River.” In doing so he encountered the enemies of the Jews, who thenceforth were to be his deadly enemies. Being in possession of royal letters of authority, and accompanied by an escort of Persian soldiers, he experienced neither difficulty nor danger by the way.

10. Sanballat. Certain remarks made by Nehemiah (see ch. 4:1, 2) were long interpreted by scholars as indicating that Sanballat was governor of Samaria. Now one of the Elephantine papyri (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, No. 30), written in the year 407 b.c., definitely settles the question with a direct reference to Sanballat as “governor of Samaria.” This fact explains why he was so dangerous a foe of Nehemiah. Being more than an ordinary citizen, and with an army at his disposal (ch. 4:2), he was in a position to do much harm and was determined to frustrate Nehemiah’s plans.

The Horonite. Nehemiah does not reveal Sanballat’s official position, and calls him only “the Horonite.” Whether this is done in contempt is uncertain. It is also uncertain whether this designation refers to Sanballat as coming from the Moabite city of Horonaim (Jer. 48:34), which has not yet been identified; or as coming from one of the two cities of Beth-horon (Joshua 16:3, 5; etc.), now Beit ФUr elРFoqa and Beit ФUr etРTahta, about 12 mi. northwest of Jerusalem as the crow flies, and in Nehemiah’s time belonging to Samaria. Some commentators suggest that Nehemiah’s contempt for Sanballat can best be explained if the latter came from Moab, and was therefore not even a real Samaritan.

Servant. Heb. Фebed, “servant,” sometimes used in Biblical and extra-Biblical documents to designate high government officials (2 Kings 24:10, 11; Lam. 5:8). Hence, Tobiah may have been a high official in the province of Ammon in Transjordan. The family of Tobiah later became known as one of the most influential families of Transjordan. One of his descendants was in possession of a castle in Ammon in the time of the early Ptolemies, and furnished the king of Egypt with onagers (wild asses), horses, and dogs. The ruins of his castle at ФAraЖk elРEmir are still visible, halfway between Jericho and Amman, and the name of Tobiah is carved in the walls outside the entrance to a cave.

Grieved them exceedingly. When Zerubbabel rejected the cooperation of the Samaritans in the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 4:3), there developed between the two peoples a spirit of animosity that persisted till the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. This enmity may have extended to other neighboring nations, such as the Ammonites and the Arabians (see Neh. 2:19; 4:7), especially during Ezra’s reform (Ezra 9, 10). Upon learning the reasons for Nehemiah’s journey, and recognizing that he had come to further the interests of the people of Judah, they probably made it clear to him that they had influential connections in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:4–8, 28). This would explain the great care and secrecy with which Nehemiah carried out his initial investigations upon his arrival.

11. Three days. Compare Ezra 8:32. A few days of rest were necessary after the long journey.

12. I arose in the night. Hitherto Nehemiah had communicated his purpose to no one except the king of Persia. He expected opposition, and had decided to baffle his opponents as long as possible by concealing his exact plans. Making his survey of the wall by night, he hoped to escape observation. For this reason also he took with him only a few attendants, and but one mount. Anxious to see with his own eyes the extent of the damage to the wall and how much repair was needed, he also sought to attract as little attention as possible.

13. The gate of the valley. For an understanding of Nehemiah’s nocturnal investigation (vs. 13–15), of the different sections of the wall during the course of reconstruction (ch. 3), and the dedication ceremony (ch. 12:27–43), a description of the topographical features of Jerusalem is essential. For this see Additional Note on ch. 3, and The Walls of Jerusalem in NehemiahХs Day.

Those who include the western hill in the city of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time, locate the Valley Gate near the southwestern corner of Jerusalem, opposite the Valley of Hinnom. Those who limit the city of Nehemiah to the two eastern hills of Jerusalem locate the Valley Gate about halfway along the western wall. It was one or the other of these gates that Uzziah had fortified two centuries earlier (2 Chron. 26:9). Most probably it was the latter gate, remains of which were discovered in the English excavations of 1927, leading into the city from the Tyropoeon Valley.

The dragon well. The name “Dragon Well” appears nowhere else in the Bible. This well is generally identified with the En-rogel (Joshua 15:7; etc.), now called the Well of Job, or the Well of Nehemiah, at the junction of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys. This identification can stand only if the Hebrew expression ХelРpene, translated “before” in the KJV, can have the meaning, “in the direction of,” which is by no means certain. However, if this expression means “[passing] by” or “opposite,” then the Dragon Well must have dried up since the days of Nehemiah. If so, it was situated either in the western section of the Hinnom Valley or midway in the Tyropoeon Valley, depending upon which view regarding the size of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s day is accepted.

The dung port. This gate was situated 1,000 cu. (about 1,458 ft.; 444.4 m.) from the Valley Gate (ch. 3:13). The “dung port” apparently received its name from the fact that the refuse of the city was carried through this gate to the Valley of Hinnom.

Viewed the walls. Leaving the city through the Valley Gate, Nehemiah inspected the wall from the outside in order to ascertain the extent of damage done to this part of the wall. The sections of wall enclosing the northern part of the city Nehemiah may have been able to observe unobtrusively upon approaching Jerusalem, and during his visits to the Temple and the officials, who apparently lived in the northern quarter of the city.

14. Gate of the fountain. This gate was situated at the southeastern corner of the city, opposite the well En-rogel, now called Job’s Well, or Nehemiah’s Well.

The king’s pool. This name appears nowhere else in the Bible. It is not certain whether Nehemiah refers to the Pool of Siloam, which was fed by the Spring of Siloam through Hezekiah’s tunnel (see on 2 Kings 20:20), or the Pool of Solomon, which, according to Josephus (Wars v. 4. 2), was in the lower Kidron Valley. If the Pool of Siloam is meant, Nehemiah must have re-entered the city through the Gate of the Fountain but encountered so much debris in that section of the city that he returned without being able to complete his investigation. In case the Pool of Solomon is meant, then Nehemiah passed by the Gate of the Fountain and encountered an unusual amount of impassable debris in the lower Kidron Valley.

15. The brook. Probably the Kidron Valley. By riding up the valley Nehemiah could see high above him the ruined walls of Jerusalem. This was probably on a night of full moonlight. Otherwise, he would not have been able to see much, because there is considerable distance between the eastern wall on the escarpment of the southern hill and the bed of the Kidron Valley, in which he rode.

Turned back. It is not known how far Nehemiah followed the Kidron Valley northward. His survey of the wall probably did not include that part of it to the east of the Temple. He may have already known the extent of damage existing there, from previous visits to the Temple area. Retracing his steps all the way back to the Valley Gate, Nehemiah and his few companions (v. 12) re-entered the city unnoticed.

16. The rulers. On Nehemiah’s arrival at Jerusalem he had found no one person exercising authority, but a number of persons called “rulers” and “nobles.” The difference between these two classes is not clear. The former may have consisted of appointed officials, and the latter of family heads.

The rest. Either administrators of the city not included in the “rulers” and “nobles,” or men previously engaged in rebuilding the wall.

17. Then said I. Nehemiah did not wait long before going into action. The day after his night survey of the walls, a representative body of the village and town elders assembled to hear his report. In his address he reminded them of the disgraceful state of affairs existing in the nation, recounted the divine help he had experienced in dealing with the king, and set forth the extent of his authority. His speech had the desired effect, and resulted in an enthusiastic and apparently unanimous resolution to “rise up and build.”

19. Sanballat. On Sanballat and Tobiah, see on v. 10.

Geshem the Arabian. When it became evident that Sanballat was governor of Samaria (see on v. 10) and Tobiah perhaps governor of Ammon, or at least an influential leader of that nation, it was also suggested that Geshem (or Gashmu; see ch. 6:6) might have held a similar position in the Persian province of Arabia. The latter apparently included Edom, for Edom is never mentioned by Nehemiah. This supposition is corroborated by the recent discovery of inscriptions made by the Lihyanites, who displaced the Edomites in the 5th century b.c., in which a Geshem is mentioned as ruler of Dedan.

Laughed us to scorn. Either by sending messengers, as Sennacherib did (2 Kings 18:17–35), or by a formal written communication.

20. Then answered I. It is worthy of note that Nehemiah took no notice of the serious charge now brought against him of plotting rebellion. Neither does he refer to the royal permit he held, but rather leaves his enemies to suppose that he was acting on his own authority. He certainly must have had his reasons for sending his adversaries the answer he did.

The God of heaven. Nehemiah, a deeply religious man, knew how to depend on God. Instead of pointing to a royal decree he referred to the highest authority possible as the one from whom permission had come. Compare Zerubbabel’s answer to Tatnai, “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house” (Ezra 5:11).

Ye have no portion. Even as the Samaritans’ claim of the right to interfere in Jewish affairs was rejected when they came proffering their aid (Ezra 4:2, 3), so now when their meddling became hostile in character it was even more fiercely and indignantly rejected. They were told that what happened in Jerusalem was none of their business, and that they had not even so much as a place in the memory of the inhabitants. Nehemiah made it plain that he expected no interference from them, and that they should attend to the affairs of their own communities and not trouble the worshipers of the true God. Thus far Nehemiah had avoided opposition by concealing his plans, but once opposition appeared he met it boldly.

additional notes on chapter 2

Note 1

A group of Aramaic documents published in 1954 (see discussion on p. 80) includes one that may be compared to an official passport. It was drawn up by Arsham, the satrap of Egypt, who was in Susa or Babylon at the time of writing, for the use of certain of his men traveling to Egypt on official business. This document is no doubt similar to one Nehemiah received from the king, and is therefore significant to an understanding of it. Although the document is not dated, it belongs to the time of Nehemiah, because Arsham, a contemporary of Nehemiah, was satrap of Egypt for many years during the second half of the 5th century b.c.

The document is addressed to a number of officers in charge of cities or provinces on the road between Persia and Egypt, who were asked to supply provisions to the holders of this travel permit. Of the cities mentioned, only the locations of Arbel, modern Erbil in northern Iraq, and Damascus in Syria are known.

Since this document illustrates the kind of authorization Nehemiah received from Artaxerxes for his trip to Judea, a complete translation is herewith presented (see G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth CenturyB.C. [1954], p. 20):

1.   From Arsham to Marduk the officer who is at A[..]kad, Nabu-dala the officer who is at Lair, Zatuhay the officer who is [at] Arzuhin, Apastabar the officer who is at Arbel, Hala and Matilabashi (and) Bagapat the officer (s)

2.   who are at Salam, Pradaparna and Guzan the officers who are at Damascus. And now behold! one named Nehtihur, [my] officer, is going to Egypt. Do you give [him] (as) provisions from my estate in your provinces

3.   every day two measures of white meal, three measures of inferior (?) meal, two measures of wine or beer, and one sheep, and for his servants, 10 men,

4.   one measure of meal daily for each, (and) hay according to (the number of) his horses; and give provisions for two Cilicians (and) one craftsman, all three my servants who are going with him to Egypt, for each and

5.   every man daily one measure of meal; and give them these provisions, each officer of you in turn, in accordance with the stage of his journey from province to province until he reaches Egypt;

6.   and, if he is more than one day in (any) one place, do not thereafter assign them more provisions for those days. Bagasaru is cognizant of this order. Dusht is the scribe.

Note 2

Doubt as to which Artaxerxes is the Persian monarch of the book of Nehemiah has almost completely disappeared since the discovery of the Elephantine papyri. The evidence contained in some of these papyri virtually establishes the fact that Nehemiah held his office as governor of Judea under Artaxerxes I.

According to two Elephantine papyri (Cowley, papyri Nos. 30 and 31), Johanan was high priest in Jerusalem in 410 b.c. He is also mentioned in Neh. 12:22, 23 (see Ezra 10:6) as the son of the high priest Eliashib, who held office under Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1). Josephus (Antiquities xi. 7. 1), however, claims that Johanan was the grandson of Eliashib, which appears to agree with the statement made in Neh. 12:22 that Joiada was high priest between Eliashib and Johanan. Whether Johanan was son or grandson of Eliashib is irrelevant to our argument, however, since we are interested in finding that according to both sources, the Bible and Josephus, the high priest Eliashib of Nehemiah’s time preceded the high priest Johanan, who held office in 410 b.c. This requires that Nehemiah be assigned to the reign of King Artaxerxes I, since Artaxerxes II did not begin to reign until after the time of these documents, which were contemporary with Eliashib’s son or grandson.

Additional evidence comes from the mention of “Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat governor of Samaria” (Cowley, No. 30, line 29). This shows that Sanballat, the most bitter foe of Nehemiah, was still governor of the province of Samaria in 407 b.c., when the letter was written (see on ch. 2:10). In view of the fact that the letter addresses its appeal to the sons of Sanballat, it seems that he must have been an old man and had transferred the administration to them. The time when Sanballat decided affairs alone seems to have been a thing of the past, and since the work of Nehemiah clearly lay in the period when Sanballat was actively in charge of the affairs of state in Samaria, it becomes evident that the only Artaxerxes under whom Nehemiah could have held office was Artaxerxes I, who died in 423 b.c.

Few scholars during recent years have doubted that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was Artaxerxes I.

Ellen G. White comments

1–20PK 630–638

2     PK 630, 631

3, 4 PK 631

4     SC 103; TM 201

5     PK 632

8, 9 PK 633

10   PK 635

11–16PK 636

17   PK 637

18–20PK 638

20   PK 640