Companion to the Bible

by E. P. Barrows

Footnote 1:[(return)]

He was a usurper who reigned less than a year.

Footnote 2:[(return)]

But in Neh. 12:22, Darius Nothus or Darius Codomanus must be referred to.

Footnote 3:[(return)]

Some suppose Darius, others Artaxerxes, to have been the Ahasuerus of Esther.

26. The book of Nehemiah continues the history of the Jewish people after the restoration, beginning with the commission which Nehemiah received from Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, in the twentieth year of his reign (B.C. 446), to go to Jerusalem in the capacity of Tirshatha, or civil governor, for the purpose of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and setting in order the affairs of the commonwealth. The book naturally falls into three divisions. The first division contains the history of his labors in rebuilding the walls of the city and putting an end to the practice of usury, and of the violent opposition and intrigues of the surrounding people. Chaps. 1-7:4. To this is appended a genealogical list, which is the same for substance as that contained in the second chapter of Ezra. Ch. 7:5-73.

Upon a comparison of the two catalogues, we find various differences in respect to names and numbers. The differences of names may be explained from the fact that it was common for men to bear different titles, particularly if they were persons of distinction; as, for example, Daniel and Belteshazzar, Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar. It is not certain upon what principle the differences in numbers are to be explained. The sum total of both catalogues is the same, namely, 42,360; from which it is plain that the lists are in both cases partial, since neither of them amounts to this sum. We add the following suggestion from Grey's Key as quoted by Scott: "The sum of the numbers, as separately detailed, will correspond, if to the 29,818 specified by Ezra, we add the 1,765 persons reckoned by Nehemiah which Ezra has omitted; and, on the other hand, to the 31,089 enumerated by Nehemiah, add the 494, which is an overplus in Ezra, not noticed by Nehemiah; both writers including in the sum total 10,777 of the mixed multitude, not particularized in the individual detail."

In the second division we have an account of the solemn public reading of the law of Moses at the feast of tabernacles, and, in connection with this, of the renewal of the national covenant with Jehovah through the signature and seal of the princes, Levites, and priests, in their own behalf and that of the people. Chaps. 8-10. In this religious and ecclesiastical transaction, Ezra the priest was the leader; Nehemiah, as the Tirshatha, or civil governor, simply taking the lead of the princes in the act of sealing.

The third division contains, along with some genealogical lists, an account of the measures taken by Nehemiah and the princes to increase the number of residents in Jerusalem, of the solemn dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, and of the rectification of various abuses which had crept in partly during Nehemiah's absence at the court of Persia. Chaps. 11-13.

The date of Nehemiah's commission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem is important on account of its connection with the seventy prophetic weeks of Daniel, which are reckoned "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Dan. 9:25. It cannot be considered as exactly ascertained, but may be placed somewhere from B.C. 454 to B.C. 446. See the commentators on Dan. 9:24-27. How long Nehemiah's administration continued after his visit to the court of Persia, in the twelfth year of his rule, is not known.

27. The book, as its title testifies, was written by Nehemiah, not earlier than his return from the court of Persia (ch. 13:6; 5:14); how much later cannot be known. From the general character of style and diction which belongs to the second division (chaps. 8-10), as well as from the absence of Nehemiah's peculiar forms of speech, some have thought that Ezra, as the chief actor in the reading of the law and renewal of the national covenant, wrote the account of the transaction, and that Nehemiah incorporated it into his work. To this supposition there is no serious objection. We must remember, however, that arguments based on supposed differences of style cannot amount to much where the materials from which a conclusion is to be drawn are so scanty.