�EHEMIAH 11 COMME�TARYEDITED BY GLE�� PEASE

The �ew Residents of Jerusalem

1 �ow the leaders of the people settled in

Jerusalem. The rest of the people cast lots to bring

one out of every ten of them to live in Jerusalem,

the holy city, while the remaining nine were to

stay in their own towns.

BAR�ES, "To bring one of ten - Artificial enlargements of capitals by forcible transfers of population to them, were not unusual in ancient times. About 500 B.C., Syracuse became a great city in this way. Tradition ascribed the greatness of Rome, in part, to this cause.

CLARKE, "To bring one of ten - Jerusalem certainly had many inhabitants at this time; but not sufficient to preserve the city, which was now encompassed with a wall, and the rebuilding of which was going on fast. Nehemiah therefore obliged one tenth of the country people to come and dwell in it, that the population might be sufficient for the preservation and defense of the city. Ten were set apart, and the lot cast among them to see which one of the ten should take up his residence in the city.

GILL, "And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem,.... Where it was proper they should, being the metropolis of the nation, both for the performance of their offices, and to protect and defend it, as well as to set an example to the people, and encourage them to dwell there also:

the rest of the people also cast lots to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city; so called, because of the temple and the worship of God in it; and so it is called by Julian the emperor (g); and some (h) have thought that the Cadytis of

Herodotus (i) is the same with Jerusalem, which had its name from קדשה, "holy", and is

now called by the Turks "cuds", that is, "holy" (k): now, though it was the chief city, and the place of public worship, yet the people were not forward of settling in it, partly

because of the rage of the enemy, which this city was the butt of, and partly because it was more to their worldly advantage to dwell in the country, and where they could have better supplies; they consulted their own ease, safety, and profit; wherefore this method was taken to oblige some to dwell in it, by taking one out of ten by lot, that there might be a sufficient number to rebuild the houses of it, repopulate and defend it:

and nine parts to dwell in other cities; to which they belonged, or where they pleased, any where in the land of Israel.

HE�RY 1-2L "Jerusalem is called here the holy city (Neh_11:1), because there the temple was, and that was the place God had chosen to put his name there; upon this account, one would think, the holy seed should all have chosen to dwell there and have striven for a habitation there; but, on the contrary, it seems they declined dwelling there, 1. Because a greater strictness of conversation was expected from the inhabitants of Jerusalem than from others, which they were not willing to come up to. Those who care not for being holy themselves are shy of dwelling in a holy city; they would not dwell in the New Jerusalem itself for that reason, but would wish to have a continuing city here upon earth. Or, 2. Because Jerusalem, of all places, was most hated by the heathen their neighbours, and against it their malicious designs were levelled, which made that the post of danger (as the post of honour usually is) and therefore they were not willing to expose themselves there. Fear of persecution and reproach, and of running themselves into trouble, keeps many out of the holy city, and makes them backward to appear for God and religion, not considering that, as Jerusalem is with a special malice threatened and insulted by its enemies, so it is with a special care protected by its God and made a quiet habitation, Isa_33:20; Psa_46:4, Psa_46:5. Or, 3. Because it was more for their worldly advantage to dwell in the country. Jerusalem was no trading city, and therefore there was no money to be got there by merchandise, as there was in the country by corn and cattle. Note, All seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's, Phi_2:21. It is a general and just complaint that most people prefer their own wealth, credit, pleasure, ease, and safety, before the glory of God and the public good. People being thus backward to dwell at Jerusalem, now that it was poor, we are here told,

I. By what means it was replenished. 1. The rulers dwelt there, Neh_11:1. That was the proper place for them to reside in, because there were set the thrones of judgment (Psa_122:5), and thither, in all difficult matters, the people resorted with their last appeals. And if it were an instance of eminent affection to the house of God, zeal for the public good, and of faith, and holy courage, and self-denial, to dwell there at this time, the rulers would be examples of these to their inferiors. Their dwelling there would invite and encourage others to dwell there too. Magnates magnetes - the mighty are magnetic.When great men choose the holy city for their habitation their example brings holiness into reputation, and their zeal will provoke very many. 2. There were some that willingly offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem, nobly foregoing their own secular interest for the public welfare, Neh_11:2. It is upon record, to their honour, that when others were shy of venturing upon difficulty, loss, and danger, they sought the good of Jerusalem, because of the house of the Lord their God. Those shall prosper that thus love Zion,Psa_122:6, Psa_122:9. It is said, The people blessed them. They praised them; they prayed for them; they praised God for them. Many that do not appear forward themselves for the public good will yet give a good word to those that do. God and man will bless those that are public blessings, which should encourage us to be zealous in doing good. 3. They, finding that yet there was room, concluded upon a review of their whole body to bring one in ten to dwell in Jerusalem; who they should be was

determined by lot, the disposal whereof, all knew, was of the Lord. This would prevent strife, and would be a great satisfaction to those on whom the lot fell to dwell at Jerusalem, that they plainly saw God appointing the bounds of their habitation. They observed the proportion of one in ten, as we may suppose, to bring the balance between the city and country to a just and equal poise; so it seems to refer to the ancient rule of giving the tenth to God; and what is given to the holy city he reckons given to himself.

JAMISO�1-2, "Neh_11:1, Neh_11:2. The rulers, voluntary men, and every tenth man chosen by lot, dwell at Jerusalem.

the rulers ... dwelt at Jerusalem — That city being the metropolis of the country, it was right and proper that the seat of government should be there. But the exigency of the times required that special measures should be taken to insure the residence of an adequate population for the custody of the buildings and the defense of the city. From the annoyances of restless and malignant enemies, who tried every means to demolish the rising fortifications, there was some danger attending a settlement in Jerusalem. Hence the greater part of the returned exiles, in order to earn as well as secure the rewards of their duty, preferred to remain in the country or the provincial towns. To remedy this state of things, it was resolved to select every tenth man of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin by lot, to become a permanent inhabitant of the capital. The necessity of such an expedient commended it to the general approval. It was the more readily submitted to because the lot was resorted to on all the most critical conjunctures of the Jewish history, and regarded by the people as a divine decision (Pro_18:18). This awakened strongly the national spirit; and patriotic volunteers came forward readily to meet the wishes of the authorities, a service which, implying great self-denial as well as courage, was reckoned in the circumstances of so much importance as entitled them to the public gratitude. No wonder that the conduct of these volunteers drew forth the tribute of public admiration; for they sacrificed their personal safety and comfort for the interests of the community because Jerusalem was at that time a place against which the enemies of the Jews were directing a thousand plots. Therefore, residence in it at such a juncture was attended with expense and various annoyances from which a country life was entirely free.

K&D 1-2, "Neh_11:1 and Neh_11:2 narrate the carrying out of Nehemiah's resolution, Neh_7:4, to make Jerusalem more populous, and follow Neh_7:5 as to matter, but the end of Neh 10 as to time. For while Nehemiah, after the completion of the wall, was occupied with the thought of bringing into the thinly populated capital a larger number of inhabitants, and had for this purpose convoked a public assembly, that a list of the whole Israelite population of the towns of Benjamin and Judah might be taken in hand, the seventh month of the year arrived, in which all the people assembled at Jerusalem to perform those acts of worship and solemnities (described Neh 8-10) in which this month abounded. Hence it was not till after the termination of these services that Nehemiah was able to carry out the measures he had resolved on. For there can be no doubt that Neh_11:1 and Neh_11:2 of the present chapter narrate the execution of these measures. The statement that one in ten of all the people was appointed by lot to dwell in Jerusalem, and the remaining nine in other cities, and that the people blessed the men who showed themselves willing to dwell at Jerusalem, can have no other meaning than, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were increased in this proportion, and that this was consequently the measure which God had, according to Neh_7:5, put it into Nehemiah's heart to take. The statement taken by itself is indeed very brief, and its

connection with Neh_7:5 not very evident. But the brevity and abruptness do not justify Bertheau's view, that these two verses are not the composition of Nehemiah himself, but only an extract from a larger context, in which this circumstance was fully explained. For Nehemiah's style not unfrequently exhibits a certain abruptness; comp. e.g., the commencements of chs. 5 and 6, or the information Neh_13:6, which are no less abrupt, and which yet no one has conceived to be mere extracts from some other document. Besides, as the connection between Neh_7:5 and Neh_11:1 is interrupted by the relation of the events of the seventh month, so, too, is the account of the building of the wall, Neh_4:17; Neh_6:15., and Neh_7:1, interrupted by the insertion of occurrences which took place during its progress. The first sentence, Neh_11:1, ”And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem,” cannot be so closely connected with the next, “and the rest of the people cast lots,” etc., as to place the rulers in direct contrast to the rest of the people, but must be understood by its retrospect to Neh_7:4, which gives the following contrast: The rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem, but few of the people dwelt there; to this is joined the next sentence: and the rest of the people cast lots. The “rest of the people” does not mean the assembled people with the exception of the rulers, but the people with the exception of the few who dwelt at Jerusalem. These cast lots to bring

one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem. The predicate, the holy city, occurs here and (להביא)

Neh_11:18 for the first time. Jerusalem is so called, on the ground of the prophecies,

Joe_3:17 and Isa_48:2, because the sanctuary of God, the temple, was there. �ערים

means, in the other cities of Judah and Benjamin. ה�תנ�בים, those who showed

themselves willing to dwell in Jerusalem, is taken by most expositors in contrast to those who were bound to do this in consequence of the decision of the lot; and it is then further supposed that some first went to Jerusalem of their free choice, and that the lot was then cast with respect to the rest. There are not, however, sufficient grounds for this conclusion, nor yet for the assumption that the decision of the lot was regarded as a constraint. The disposal of the lot was accepted as a divine decision, with which all had, whether willingly or unwillingly, to comply. All who willingly acquiesced in this decision

might be designated as מתנ�בים; and these departed to Jerusalem accompanied by the

blessings of the people. Individuals are not so much meant, as chiefly fathers of families, who went with their wives and children.

COKE, "Verse 1

�ehemiah 11:1. The rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem— Observing that the

number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was too few, �ehemiah had ordered that the

principal men of the nation should, by way of example, fix their habitations there;

causing at the same time the rest to cast lots, whereby a tenth part of the whole

people of Judah and Benjamin became obliged to dwell at Jerusalem, though those

who came voluntarily were better received. One reason why the bulk of the Jews,

who were generally shepherds, and lovers of agriculture, might rather choose to live

in the country than at Jerusalem, was, because it was more suited to their genius

and manner of life; but at this time their enemies were so enraged to see the walls

built again, and so restless in their designs to keep the city from rising to its former

splendor, that it terrified many from coming to dwell there, thinking themselves

more safe in the country, where their enemies had no pretence to disturb them.

Though the casting of lots is certainly forbidden where the thing is done out of a

spirit of superstition, or with a design to tempt God; yet on some occasions it is

enjoined by God himself; and the most holy persons both in the Old and �ew

Testament have practised it in particular cases. The wise man acknowledges the

usefulness of this custom when he tells us, that the lot causeth contention to cease,

and parteth between the mighty, Proverbs 18:18.; and therefore it was no bad

policy, as things now stood, to take this method of division; since the lot, which all

allowed was under the divine direction, falling upon such a person rather than

another, would be a great mean, no doubt, of making him remove more contentedly

into the city. See Le Clerc and Calmet.

BE�SO�, ". The rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem — Where their very

office, in some sort, obliged them to dwell; and where, it seems, �ehemiah had

desired the principal men of the nation, by way of example, to fix their habitations.

The rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem —

That the building of the city might be completed, and the honour and safety of it

better provided for. The bulk of the Jews, it appears, rather chose to live in the

country than at Jerusalem. One reason of which might be, that they were generally

shepherds, and lovers of agriculture, and therefore the country was more suited to

their genius and manner of life than the city. Add to this, that their enemies were

now so enraged to see the walls built again, and so restless in their designs to keep

Jerusalem from rising to its former splendour, that many were terrified from

coming to dwell there, thinking themselves more safe in the country, where their

enemies had no pretence to disturb them. In order, therefore, to compel a certain

proportion of them to remove to the city, the expedient of casting lots is resorted to.

Though the casting of lots be certainly forbidden, where the thing is done out of a

spirit of superstition, or with a design to tempt God; yet on some occasions it is

enjoined by God himself, and the most holy persons, both in the Old and �ew

Testaments, have practised it in particular cases. The wise man acknowledges the

usefulness of this custom when he tells us that the lot causeth contention to cease,

and parteth between the mighty, Proverbs 18:18; and therefore it was no bad policy,

as things now stood, to take this method of division; since the lot, which all allowed

was under the divine direction, falling upon such a person rather than another,

would be a great means, no doubt, to make him remove more contentedly into the

city.

PETT, "Verse 1-2

The Repopulating Of Jerusalem And Establishment Of The Holy City (�ehemiah

11:1-20).

The establishing of Jerusalem as ‘the holy city’, a city cleansed of all defilement, was

now seen as the first priority in order to fulfil the promises of the prophets (Isaiah

52:1; Daniel 9:24). It was to be a purified city. And the walls of Jerusalem having

been repaired and rebuilt it was seen as necessary for it to be fully inhabited by

God’s people so that the city could be properly defended. This was essential, for if it

was left as a virtual ‘ghost town’ it would undoubtedly attract unwelcome attention,

especially as there were valuable things stored in the Temple which had to be

considered, which would always be a temptation to outsiders. Furthermore there

was also the danger that those who had previously sought to join with the worship

in Jerusalem, but who were involved in idolatrous practises (Ezra 4:2-3; �ehemiah

13:4-9), would take the opportunity to infiltrate Jerusalem. Indeed whilst Jerusalem

remained virtually uninhabited it spelt instability for the whole nation, and could

well have proved an overwhelming burden to the new nation who would feel

responsibility for it without being in a position to properly defend it. �ehemiah’s

solution, in cooperation with the leadership, was that one tenth of all true Israelites

should move from their cities and dwell in Jerusalem, with the prospective

inhabitants mainly being chosen by lot.

Here we call to mind �ehemiah’s description of the situation in �ehemiah 7:4, ‘now

the city was wide and large, but the people in it were few, and the houses were not

built.’ There was thus nothing cheering about the prospect of moving into the city.

Large parts of it were still in ruins, requiring work similar to that on the walls. And

for those who moved in facilities would be few, apart from in those sections which

had already been settled (e.g. by the �ephinim in the Ophel - �ehemiah 3:26).

Chapter 3 does, of course, make clear that Jerusalem did have a number of

inhabitants (�ehemiah 3:20; �ehemiah 3:23; �ehemiah 3:26; �ehemiah 3:28). But

they were apparently relatively few, and confined to one part of the city. There were

simply not sufficient men available to be able to defend the city.

And defence of the city was a primary purpose of the move. This is brought out by

the fact that the description that follows contains hints of military overtones. It

speaks of ‘men of valour’ (verses �ehemiah 8:14); ‘overseer/officer’ (�ehemiah

11:9; �ehemiah 11:14); ‘heads of families (or units)’ (�ehemiah 11:13); and

divisions into tribes as protectors of the sanctuary (as in �umbers 1-2). This

confirms that one purpose of the resettlement of Jerusalem very much had defence

in mind. It was seen as necessary in order to ensure the protection of ‘the holy city’

(�ehemiah 11:1; �ehemiah 11:18; compare Isaiah 48:2; Isaiah 52:1; Daniel 9:24),

the city which was to be the foundation stone of the new Israel in its devotion to

YHWH.

But there was another purpose, specifically brought out in �ehemiah 11:1. There

�ehemiah speaks of Jerusalem as ‘the holy city’, something emphasised again in

�ehemiah 11:18. �ow the term ‘holy city’ had a prophetic background. It depicted

the city as purified and made holy, with every vestige of uncleanness removed

(Isaiah 52:1). It had in mind the future fulfilment of the purposes of God in bringing

about everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24). It depicted Jerusalem as the holy and

pure city of God. And this was Israel’s vision at this time. Once Jerusalem was

established as a purified city, free from all idolatry, surely God would begin to act

on their behalf. It would be seen as a seal on the binding agreement that they had

made with God.

Thus the re-establishment of a populated and religiously pure Jerusalem was not

just seen as a political necessity, it could also be seen as being the first stage in

bringing about the eschatological purposes of God. It had the ring about it of

Haggai 2:21-22. God was about to work!

Indeed we could say that in this chapter we have a wonderful picture of how God

would work in later times in establishing a people for Himself, for He has appointed

another ‘holy city’, a heavenly city, a new Jerusalem (Galatians 4:21-31; Hebrews

12:22), which, as Revelation 21 makes clear, consists of all the people of God. It is

founded on the twelve Apostles. It is protected by the people of God (the twelve

tribes of ‘Israel’) who are its gates. That city too started off unpopulated. But God

has populated it by choosing out a remnant for Himself, and everyone of them is

named before Him, as in this chapter, for each is important to Him. It includes

priests (intercessors), Levites (teachers), Singers and Musicians who lead the

worship, Gate-keepers who watch for those who enter, �ethinim (humble servants),

and ordinary men and women to defend the city, but all of them are chosen by God

(Ephesians 1:4). So does history repeat itself, for God is the God of history.

Those Who Took Up Residence In The City.

We are now provided with a list of the names of those who repopulated the holy city.

These joined with those who were already there (some of whose names are given in 1

Chronicles 9). Each of them was important to God, for they were chosen as His

genuine people and in order that they might re-establish ‘the holy city’.

�ehemiah 11:1

‘And the princes of the people dwelt (settled) in Jerusalem: the rest of the people

also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts

in the (other) cities.’

This verse connects back to �ehemiah 7:73, taking up where that left off. There we

found that after the return the priests, Levites, gatekeepers, singers, temple servants

and people of Israel ‘dwelt in their cities’. This indicates that they dwelt in many

cities, but that would naturally include Jerusalem as Jerusalem would for some

good number have been ‘their city.’ �ow, however, there was to be a change in that

situation. There was to be a wholesale movement into Jerusalem of both the princes

of the people, and one tenth of the people who had previously dwelt elsewhere.

‘The princes of the people dwelt in Jerusalem’ does not mean that they were already

doing so. �ote how ‘dwelling in Jerusalem’ is mentioned twice in �ehemiah 11:1,

and then in �ehemiah 11:2 and in �ehemiah 11:3, in the other cases clearly

referring to ‘taking up dwelling’. Thus the princes are being seen as the first to live

up to their responsibility by taking up dwelling in the city. This was fitting as it had

now become the leading city of the district, and was the city of a new beginning in

the purposes of God. Their example was then followed by a tenth of the inhabitants

of Judah, many of them chosen by lot, who followed their example. The remaining

nine tenths of the population remained in their towns and cities.

�ote the stress on Jerusalem as ‘the holy city’. The idea was that it was now to be

seen as central to the purposes of God and therefore as set apart to Him And it was

to be kept free from idolatry (something that the new Israel had already made great

sacrifices to ensure, e.g. Ezra 4:3 and its consequences). It was very much describing

what they saw as a new beginning, for in the light of the uses of the term elsewhere

the idea was that it was to be seen as initiating a new fulfilment of the final purposes

of God, with the city being holy because it had been purged of all uncleanness

(compare Isaiah 52:1). �ot only the Temple was now to be seen as holy, but the

whole city as containing the Temple, and as the centre of the new community of

God’s people. And this was because, as their binding agreement had made clear, it

was ‘stayed upon the God of Israel’. We can compare the use of the term in Isaiah

48:2 where men used the title because they claimed, hypocritically, that they stayed

themselves upon the God of Israel.

The appellation ‘the holy city’ is found in �ehemiah 11:1; �ehemiah 11:18; Isaiah

48:2; Isaiah 52:1; Daniel 9:24. In Isaiah 52:1 Jerusalem was spoken of as ‘the holy

city’ in the terms of it being the city purified by God in the apocalyptic future, the

city in which there would be no ‘uncleanness’. In Daniel 9:24 it was the city in which

all transgression was to be dealt with and the final purposes of God brought to

fulfilment. It symbolised therefore the eschatological purification and triumph. The

people had high hopes for the new Jerusalem. This makes even more poignant the

fact that later they would allow it to be used for Sabbath breaking (�ehemiah 13:15-

22). It was the recognition of this fact that made �ehemiah so zealous to purify

Jerusalem when it became tainted (chapter 13).

‘The rest of the people also cast lots.’ The casting of lots had been seen as a method

of obtaining God’s will at least since the introduction of the Urim and Thummim.

As we saw in �ehemiah 10:34 it was used to determine when the providers of wood

for the altar would fulfil their duties. It was a Scriptural method at a time when God

was seen as personally acting on behalf of, and with, His people. Consider, for

example, �umbers 26:55; Joshua 7:14; Joshua 7:16-18; Joshua 14:2; Joshua 18:6; 1

Samuel 10:20-21; 1 Samuel 14:41-42, and the principle enunciated in Proverbs

16:33.

�ehemiah 11:2

‘And the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in

Jerusalem.’

Some of the people, like the princes, had voluntarily offered themselves for the

purpose of populating Jerusalem, in spite of the hardships involved, and the people

‘blessed them’. Every volunteer meant one less conscripted person, which was one

reason why they blessed them. But to volunteer was also probably seen as a sign of

special dedication to God. It was no soft option. It meant an upheaval in their lives

and a new beginning. But they had a desire to be the founders of the new Jerusalem,

with all its glowing promise. Indeed, so important was this move seen to be that, as

with the building of the wall (chapter 3), we are now given a roll-call of those

involved. Their names would pass down through the generations. In the same way

we too will be called ‘blessed’ if our names are written down in the Lamb’s Book of

Life, as potential dwellers in the �ew Jerusalem, for that city really will be holy.

PETT, "Verses 1-31

The Establishment Of Jerusalem As The Holy City, Populated By True Israelites;

Its Worship Conducted By Those Specifically and Provably Appointed By God;

Accepted from God With Due Gladness And Praise; And Purified By the Removal

Of All That Could Be Displeasing To God (�ehemiah 11:1 to �ehemiah 13:31).

The Book closes with a description of the restoring of Jerusalem as the holy city.

This was accomplished by:

· Populating Jerusalem the holy city with members of the new true Israel who

would defend it and (hopefully) maintain its purity (�ehemiah 11:1-36).

· Establishing the God-appointed leaders of worship whose genealogies

demonstrate that they were of those appointed by God, maintaining the holiness of

worship (�ehemiah 12:1-26).

· The celebration of gladness and thanksgiving for the completion of the wall

and gates which made possible its being established as holy and the re-establishment

of the system of tithes that ensured the maintenance of YHWH’s chosen appointees

(�ehemiah 12:27-47).

· The purifying of the holy city from the defilements of Sabbath breaking and

idolatry (�ehemiah 13:1-31).

Verses 1-36

Following The Making Of The Renewed Covenant The Establishment Of The �ew

Jerusalem And Of The Renewed Israel Is Described (�ehemiah 11:1-36).

Having renewed the covenant it was now necessary for the new Israel to be soundly

established, and the words ‘we will not forsake the house of our God’ (�ehemiah

10:39) are now shown to be carried into effect by the establishment of Jerusalem as

‘the holy city’ (�ehemiah 11:1-20), surrounded by the ‘encamped’ tribes (�ehemiah

11:20-36), and by the assurance of the legitimacy of its priests and Levites who were

responsible for worship (�ehemiah 12:1-26), headed up by the legitimate High

Priests (�ehemiah 12:10-11).

Chapter 11 is important in emphasising that the holy city was now to be re-

established, with the portions of Judah and Benjamin in the land being restored to

them. It indicates that YHWH was fulfilling His promises towards Israel. It also

emphasises that His true worship is being consolidated as centred on Jerusalem as

‘the holy city’. The writer is not so much concerned with the very limited Persian

province/district of Judah, as with demonstrating that the land as a whole had been

restored to Judah/Benjamin much in line with what was described in the Book of

Joshua. This was demonstrated by ignoring the fact that much of southern Judah

was now occupied by the Idumaeans, and by including within the new Israel all

Jewish settlements, whether in or outside the province of Judah. Such settlements

were found in both in the �egeb (the southernmost part of old Israel), and in the

Shephelah (the lowlands to the west). This enabled the presentation of a picture

which depicted Judah/Benjamin as settled among the peoples and restored to its

inheritance, with their holy city at the centre, a picture of the triumph of YHWH, .

(We can compare how in the Book of Joshua we are given the impression that the

land has been possessed, while at the same time it is made clear that not all the land

has yet been possessed. It was a vision of what would be, rather than of the present

reality, and yet given in accordance with the facts).

COFFMA�, "Verse 1

I�CREASI�G THE POPULATIO� OF JERUSALEM

Several scholars link this chapter with �ehemiah 7, viewing the intervening three

chapters as a unit; and it is true that �ehemiah 7:4 speaks of the fact that Jerusalem

was a large area compared with the few people that lived in it. However, the unity of

the Book of �ehemiah is apparent in the fact that every word of it pertains to the

safety of the city of Jerusalem. The reading of the Mosaic law (�ehemiah 7), the

extended confession and prayers of the people (�ehemiah 9), and the covenant of the

people determined to obey God, ratified by an oath and a curse, and sealed by the

leaders of the whole community (�ehemiah 10) - all of that was as intimately

connected with the safety of Jerusalem as was the building of the wall itself, in fact,

even more so.

�ehemiah was getting ready to dedicate the wall; and, in all probability, he had

invited Ezra to be present for that occasion. Both �ehemiah and Ezra, were fully

aware that all of Israel's disastrous sorrows and defeats had come about solely

because of their shameful neglect of the very things covered in these three chapters

(�ehemiah 8-10). Those great leaders, seeing that the physical wall was built,

sponsored and ordered the rebuilding of Israel's spiritual wall as well. That was

done in these intervening three chapters; and the dedication was very properly

delayed until that was done. The Book of �ehemiah is a unity, logically and

skillfully put together.

But what about differences in style, language, vocabulary, and other oddities in

those intervening chapters? The widespread disagreement of scholars and their

conflicting views regarding what they are pleased to call "the sources" of these

chapters exhibit, "A diversity that may seem bewildering and lead to skepticism

with regard to a critical approach itself."[1] Indeed, indeed! The simple truth is that

by far the most rational and satisfactory understanding of the Book of �ehemiah is

that of accepting it, first and last, and everything in between, as the production of

�ehemiah.

That he included lists and events, words and sayings, that may have been originally

derived from other sources than his own pen is obviously true; but so what? Is it not

true with all authors? And, as we have often stressed, twentieth century scholars are

simply too late, by entire millenniums of time, to be entrusted with their presumed

prerogative of revising the Bible.

This eleventh chapter fits in perfectly with what precedes it: (1) the physical wall

was built; (2) the spiritual basis of Israel's safety was strengthened; and (3) now the

population of Jerusalem needed to be increased as an additional element of their

safety. Some of the critics would have proceeded differently; but this is the way

�ehemiah did it.

"The artificial enlargement of capital cities by transferring inhabitants into them

was common in ancient times. Tradition ascribed the greatness of Rome, in part, to

this plan; and in 500 B.C., Syracuse became a great city in this way."[2] Rawlinson

cited, "Megalopolis, Tigranocerta and Athens,"[3] as other cities made great by this

procedure. In this chapter, �ehemiah proceeded to build up the strength of

Jerusalem in the same manner.

CASTI�G LOTS TO SEE WHO WOULD MOVE I�TO THE CITY

"And the princes of the people dwelt in Jerusalem: the rest of the people also cast

lots, to bring one in ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts in the

other cities. And the people blessed all the men that willingly offered themselves to

dwell in Jerusalem,"

"The circuit of the wall of Jerusalem at this time was about four miles,"[4] and

there were simply not enough people living in the city to defend a wall of that length.

The unwillingness of the people to live inside an unwalled city had brought about

this situation; but now that the wall was built, some volunteered to live there. That it

was still considered dangerous, however, was indicated by the "blessing" of those

who volunteered. Also, it could have been no secret, that their primary duty would

be to defend the walls against any attack.

"Jerusalem the holy city" (�ehemiah 11:1). Jerusalem was called the holy city

because the temple was located therein.

"The rest of the people cast lots" (�ehemiah 11:1). "The lot is cast into the lap; but

the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33). "In the course of

Jewish history, they east lots in the selection of persons (Joshua 7:16-18), for the

distribution of lands (�umbers 26:25-26), and for determining the order in which

persons should execute an office (1 Chronicles 24:5)";[5] and, in the previous

chapter of �ehemiah, it is written that they cast lots to decide who would bring the

wood for the temple, and when they would do so. And even in the �T, they cast lots

to determine who would be numbered among the twelve apostles to take the place of

Judas (Acts 1:26).

TRAPP, "Verse 1

�ehemiah 11:1 And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the rest of the

people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine

parts [to dwell] in [other] cities.

Ver. 1. And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem] This city, being before

repaired, beginneth now to be repeopled. See �ehemiah 7:4. The rulers there took

up their seat (as was fit, and as in all chief cities is usual), so that thither the tribes

went up, the tribes of the Lord, &c. And there were set the thrones of judgment,

Psalms 122:5.

The rest of the people also cast lots] The dispose whereof is wholly of the Lord; and

therefore none could reasonably repine.

To bring one of ten] This shadowed out the paucity of those that shall inhabit the

heavenly Jerusalem; according to Isaiah 6:13, Jeremiah 3:14. Christ at the last day

will do as Joshua did (saith a divine) to find out who had stolen the Babylonish

garment: there were many brought together, and all to find out one, Joshua 7:21. So

all shall then appear; out of them a final number seducted, that have heard of

Christ; out of them those that have professed him; and out of them, those that have

professed in sincerity; and these,

- �umero vix sunt totidem, quot

Thebarum portae, vel divitis ostia �ili. (Juvenal, Sat. 13.)

How many, think you, shall be saved in this city? (said Chrysostom to the people of

Antioch, where he had long preached, and was much admired). It will be a hard

speech to you, but I will speak it; though there be so many thousands of you, yet

there cannot be found a hundred that shall be saved; and I doubt of them too; for

what villany is there in youth! what sloth in old age! and so he goes on.

The holy city] Jerusalem is so called, because God had chosen it to set his name

there. The heathen God haters had always an edge against it, and this made people

so unwilling to inhabit it. Our Edward I had too high a conceit of it, when he

charged his son upon his death bed to carry his heart there, and left 32,000 pounds

for that purpose.

CO�STABLE, "1. The residents of Jerusalem11:1-24

Some leaders had already chosen to live in Jerusalem ( �ehemiah 11:1). �ehemiah

initiated a plan to determine which one family in ten, of those not living in the city,

would move into it ( �ehemiah 11:1). Additional immigrants volunteered to live

there ( �ehemiah 11:2). There was a cross section of leaders, therefore, who lived in

Jerusalem, while other leaders lived in the other towns of Judah ( �ehemiah 11:3).

"The city wall was built, and now a new measure to safeguard the city was

instituted, namely, to repopulate it." [�ote: Fensham, p244.]

The residents of Jerusalem included Jews from the tribes of Judah ( �ehemiah 11:4-

6) and Benjamin ( �ehemiah 11:7-9). There were twice as many from Benjamin as

from Judah. There were priests ( �ehemiah 11:10-14), Levites ( �ehemiah 11:15-

18), and gatekeepers ( �ehemiah 11:19). The rest lived in the outlying towns (

�ehemiah 11:20), except for the temple servants ( �ehemiah 11:21). The Ophel was

apparently a leveled mini-valley (or perhaps a low hill) between the City of David

and the temple area. [�ote: Breneman, p259.] Pethahiah appears to have been an

adviser to the Persian king (Artaxerxes) in matters of Jewish affairs ( �ehemiah

11:24). Compare 1 Chronicles 9:2-34 for a similar list. Estimates of Jerusalem"s

population at this time vary from4 ,800 [�ote: M. Broshi, "La population de

l"ancienne Jerusalem," Revue Biblique92 (1975):9-10.] to8 ,000 [�ote: D. E. Gowan,

Bridge Between the Testaments, p20.] .

Verses 1-26

B. The Residents of the Land11:1-12:26

When the exiles returned to the Promised Land, living in Jerusalem was not an

attractive prospect because the city lay in ruins. However, with the rebuilding of the

temple and the walls, the capital became a more desirable place to live. �ehemiah as

governor saw the wisdom of populating Jerusalem with pureblooded Jews and set

about to encourage the people to live within the city walls. Most of this section of the

book ( �ehemiah 11:3 to �ehemiah 12:26) is a parenthetical interjection into the

chronological progression of the narrative.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 1-2

XI.

(1, 2) The history reverts to �ehemiah 7:5; lots are cast for the transfer of one-tenth

of the people to the capital.

(1) And the rulers.—The narrative joins on to �ehemiah 7:4. The festival month

had prevented the immediate carrying out of the governor’s purpose.

The rest of the people.—The rulers being already in the capital, �ehemiah ordered

that one man in ten should be chosen by lot to transfer his family.

Jerusalem the holy city.—Remembering the “separation” that had taken place

(�ehemiah 9), and the recent covenant (�ehemiah 10), we see the solemnity of this

epithet, now first used, and repeated in �ehemiah 11:18. “Then shall Jerusalem be

holy, and no strangers shall pass through her any more (Joel 3:17). But the �ew

Testament brings another comment on the phrase.

(2) The people blessed all the men that willingly offered themselves.—We are not

told that any compensation was made to them; and these words seem to indicate

that the chosen ones freely submitted, their patriotism being applauded by all.—

Jerusalem was the post of danger, and in any case it was a hardship to leave their

country possessions (�ehemiah 11:3).

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME�TARY, "THE HOLY CITY

�ehemiah 11:1-18

WE have seen that though the two passages that deal with the sparsity of the

population of Jerusalem are separated in our Bibles by the insertion of the section

on the reading of The Law and the formation of the covenant, they are, in fact, so

closely related that, if we skip the intermediate section, the one runs on into the

other quite smoothly, as by a continuous narrative, [�ehemiah 8:18] that is to say,

we may pass from �ehemiah 7:4 to �ehemiah 11:1 without the slightest sign of a

junction of separate paragraphs. So naive and crude is the chronicler’s style, that he

has left the raw edges of the narrative jagged and untrimmed, and thereby he has

helped us to see distinctly how he has constructed his work. The foreign matter

which he has inserted in the great gash is quite different in style and contents from

that which precedes and follows it. This is marked with the Ezra stamp, which

indicates that in all probability it is founded on notes left by the scribe, but the

broken narrative in the midst of which it appears is derived from �ehemiah, the

first part consisting of memoirs written by the statesman himself, and the second

part being an abbreviation of the continuation of �ehemiah’s writing. The

beginning of this second part directly links it on to the first part, for the word "and"

has no sort of connection with the immediately preceding Ezra section, while it

exactly fits into the broken end of the previous �ehemiah section, only with his

characteristic indifference to secular affairs, in comparison with matters touching

The Law and the temple worship, the chronicler abbreviates the conclusion of

�ehemiah’s story. It is easy to see how be constructs his book in this place. He has

before him two documents-one written by �ehemiah, the other written either by

Ezra or by one of his close associates. At first he follows �ehemiah, but suddenly he

discovers that he has reached the date when the Ezra record should come in.

Therefore, without any concern for the irregularity of style that he is perpetrating,

he suddenly breaks off �ehemiah’s narrative to insert the Ezra material, at the end

of which he simply goes back to the �ehemiah document, and resumes it exactly

where he has left it, except that now, after introducing it in the language of the

original writer, he compresses the fragment, so that the composition passes over into

the third person. It is not to be supposed that this is done arbitrarily or for no good

reason. The chronicler here intends to tell his story in chronological order. He shows

that the course of events referred to at the opening of the seventh chapter really was

broken by the occurrences the record of which then follows. The interruptions in

the narrative just correspond to the real interruptions in the historical facts. History

is not a smooth-flowing river, its course is repeatedly broken by rocks and shoals,

and sometimes entirely deflected by impassable cliffs. In the earlier part of the

narrative we read of �ehemiah’s anxiety on account of the sparsity of the

population of Jerusalem, but before he was able to carry out any plans for the

increase of the number of inhabitants the time of the great autumn festivals was

upon him, and the people were eager to take advantage of the public holidays that

then fell due in order to induce Ezra to read to them the wonderful book he had

brought up from Babylon years before, and of which he had not yet divulged the

contents. This was not waste time as regards �ehemiah’s project. Though the civil

governor stood in the background during the course of the great religious

movement, he heartily seconded the clerical leaders of it in their efforts to enlighten

and encourage the people, and he was the first to seal the covenant which was its

fruit. Then the people who had been instructed in the principles of their faith and

consecrated to its lofty requirements were fitted to take their places as citizens of the

Holy City.

The "population question" which troubled �ehemiah at this time is so exactly

opposite to that which gives concern to students of social problems in our own day,

that we need to look into the circumstances in which it emerged in order to

understand its bearings. The powerful suction of great towns, depleting the rural

districts and gorging the urban, is a source of the greatest anxiety to all who

seriously contemplate the state of modern society, and consequently one of the most

pressing questions of the day is how to scatter the people over the land. Even in new

countries the same serious condition is experienced-in Australia, for instance, where

the crowding of the people into Melbourne is rapidly piling up the very difficulties

sanguine men hoped the colonies would escape. If we only had these modern facts to

draw upon, we might conclude that a centripetal movement of population was

inevitable. That it is not altogether a novelty we may learn from the venerable story

of the Tower of Babel, from which we may also gather that it is God’s will that men

should spread abroad and replenish the earth.

It is one of the advantages of the study of history that it lifts us out of our narrow

grooves and reveals to us an immense variety of modes of life, and this is not the

least of the many elements of profit that come to us from the historical embodiment

of revelation as we have it in the Bible. The width of vision that we may thus attain

to will have a double effect. It will save us from being wedded to a fixed policy under

all circumstances, and it will deliver us from the despair into which we should settle

down, if we did not see that what looks to us like a hopeless and interminable drift

in the wrong direction is not the permanent course of human development. It is

necessary to consider that if the dangers of a growing population are serious, those

of a dwindling population are much more grave.

�ehemiah was in a position to see the positive advantages of city life, and he

regarded it as his business to make the most of them for the benefit of his fellow

countrymen. We have seen that each of the three great expeditions from Babylon up

to Jerusalem had its separate and distinctive purpose. The aim of the first, under

Zerubbabel and Jeshua, was the rebuilding of the temple, the object of the second,

under Ezra, was the establishment of The Law, and the end of the third, under

�ehemiah, was the fortification and strengthening of the city. This end was before

the patriotic statesman’s mind from the very first moment when he was startled and

grieved at hearing the report of the ruinous condition of the walls of Jerusalem

which his brother brought to him in the palace at Susa. We may be sure that with so

practical a man it was more than a sentimental reverence for venerated sites that led

�ehemiah to undertake the great work of fortifying the city of his fathers’

sepulchres. He had something else in view than to construct a huge mausoleum. His

aim had too much to do with the living present to resemble that of Rizpah guarding

the corpses of her sons from the hovering vultures. �ehemiah believed in the future

of Jerusalem, and therefore he would not permit her to remain a city of ruins,

unguarded, and a prey to every chance corner, He saw that she had a great destiny

yet to fulfil, and that she must be made strong if ever she was to accomplish it. It is

to the credit of his keen discernment that he perceived this essential condition of the

firm establishment of Israel as a distinctive people in the land of Palestine. Ezra was

too literary, too abstract, too much of an idealist to see it, and therefore he struggled

on with his teaching and exhorting till he was simply silenced by the unlooked-for

logic of facts. �ehemiah perfectly comprehended this logic, and knew how to turn it

to the advantage of his own cause.

The fierce antagonism of the Samaritans is an indirect confirmation of the wisdom

of �ehemiah’s plans. Sanballat and his associates saw clearly enough that, if

Jerusalem were to become strong again, the metropolitan pre-eminence-which had

shifted from this city to Samaria after the Babylonian conquest-would revert to its

old seat among the hills of Judah and Benjamin. �ow this pre-eminence was of vital

importance to the destinies of Israel. It was not possible for the people in those early

days to remain separate and compact, and to work out their own peculiar mission,

without a strong and safe centre. We have seen Judaism blossoming again as a

distinctive phenomenon in the later history of the Jews, after the destruction of

Jerusalem by the Romans. But this most wonderful fact in ethnology is indirectly

due to the work of Ezra and �ehemiah. The readiness to intermarry with foreigners

shown by the contemporaries of the two great reformers proves conclusively that,

unless the most stringent measures had been taken for the preservation of its

distinctive life, Israel would have melted away into the general mass of amalgamated

races that made up the Chaldaean and Persian empires, The military protection of

Jerusalem enabled her citizens to maintain an independent position in defiance of

the hostile criticism of her neighbours, and the civil importance of the city helped to

give moral weight to her example in the eyes of the scattered Jewish population

outside her walls. Then the worship at the temple was a vital element in the newly

modelled religious organisation, and it was absolutely essential that this should be

placed beyond the danger of being tampered with by foreign influences, and at the

same time that it should be adequately supported by a sufficient number of resident

Jews. Something like the motive that induces the Pope to desire the restoration of

the temporal power of the Papacy-perfectly wise and reasonable from his point of

view-would urge the leaders of Judaism to secure as far as possible the political

independence of the centre of their religion.

It is to be observed that �ehemiah desired an increase of the population for the

immediate purpose of strengthening the garrison of Jerusalem. The city had been

little better than "a lodge in a garden of cucumbers" till her new governor had put

forth stupendous efforts which resulted in converting her into a fortress. �ow the

fortress required to be manned. Everything indicates anxiety about the means of

defence. �ehemiah placed two men at the head of this vital function-his own brother

Hanani, whose concern about the city had been evinced in his report of its condition

to �ehemiah at Susa, and Hananiah the commandant of the citadel. This Hananiah

was known to be "faithful"-a great point while traitors in the highest places were

intriguing with the enemy. He was also exceptionally God-fearing, described as one

who "feared God above many"-another point recognised by �ehemiah as of

supreme importance in a military officer. Here we have an anticipation of the

Puritan spirit which required the Cromwellian soldiers to be men of sterling

religious character. �ehemiah would have had no hesitation if he had been placed in

the dilemma of the Athenians when they were called to choose between Aristides the

good and Themistocles the clever. With him-much as brains were needed, and he

showed this in his own sleepless astuteness-integrity and religion were the first

requisites for an office of responsibility.

The danger of the times is further indicated by the new rule with regard to the

opening of the gates. Oriental custom would have permitted this at dawn. �ehemiah

would not allow it before the full daytime, "until the sun be hot." Levites were to

mount guard by day-an indication of the partially ecclesiastical character of the civil

government. The city was a sort of extended temple, and its citizens constituted a

Church watched over by the clergy. At night the citizens themselves were to guard

the wails, as more watchers would be needed during the hours of darkness to

protect the city against an assault by surprise. �ow these facts point to serious

danger and arduous toil. �aturally many men would shrink from the yoke of

citizenship under such circumstances. It was so much pleasanter, so much easier, so

much quieter for people to live in the outlying towns and villages, near to their own

farms and vineyards. Therefore it was necessary to take a tenth of the rural

population in order to increase that of the town. The chronicler expressly notes that

"the rulers of the people" were already dwelling in Jerusalem. These men realised

their responsibility. The officers were to the fore; the men who needed to be urged

to their duty were the privates. �o doubt there was more to attract the upper classes

to the capital, while their agricultural occupations would naturally draw many of

the poorer people into the country, and we must not altogether condemn the latter

as less patriotic than the former. We cannot judge the relative merits of people who

act differently till we know their several circumstances. Still it remains true that it is

often the man with the one talent who buries his charge, because with him the sense

of personal insignificance becomes a temptation to the neglect of duty. Hence arises

one of the most serious dangers to a democracy. When this danger is not mastered,

the management of public affairs falls into the hands of self-seeking politicians, who

are ready to wreck the state for their private advantage. It is most essential,

therefore, that a public conscience should be aroused and that people should realise

their duty to their community-to the town in which they live, the country to which

they belong.

�ehemiah’s simple expedient succeeded, and praise was earned by those Jews who

yielded to the sacred decision of the lot and abandoned their pleasant rustic retreats

to take up the more trying posts of sentinels in a garrison. According to his custom,

the chronicler proceeds to show us how the people were organised. His many names

have long ceased to convey the living interest that must have clustered round them

when the families they represented were still able to recognise their ancestors in the

roll of honour. But incidentally he imports into his register a note about the Great

King’s concern for the temple worship, from which we learn that Artaxerxes made

special provision for the support of the choristers, and that he entertained a Jewish

representative in his court to keep him informed on the condition of the distant city.

Thus we have another indication of the royal patronage which was behind the whole

movement for the restoration of the Jews. �evertheless the piteous plaint of the Jews

on their great fast day shows us that their servitude galled them sorely. Men who

could utter that cry would not be bribed into a state of cheerful satisfaction by the

kindness of their master in subscribing to their choir fund, although doubtless the

contribution was made in a spirit of well-meaning generosity. The ideal City of God

had not yet appeared, and the hint of the dependence of Jerusalem on royal

patronage is a significant reminder of the sad fact. It never did appear, even in the

brightest days of the earthly Jerusalem. But God was teaching His people through

the history of that unhappy city how high the true ideal must be, and so preparing

them for the heavenly city, the �ew Jerusalem.

�ow we may take the high ideal that was slowly emerging throughout the ages, and

see how God intends to have it realised in the City of God which, from the days of

Saint Augustine, we have learnt to look for in the Church of Christ. The two leading

thoughts connected with the Holy City in the phase of her history that is now

passing under our notice are singularly applicable to the Christian community.

First, the characteristic life of the city. Enclosed within walls, the city gained a

peculiar character and performed a distinctive mission of her own. Our Lord was

not satisfied to rescue stray sheep on the mountains only to brand them with His

mark and then turn them out again to graze in solitude. He drew them as a flock

after Himself, and His disciples gathered them into the fold of Church fellowship.

This is of as vital importance to the cause of Christianity as the civic organisation of

Jerusalem was to that of Judaism. The Christian City of God stands out before the

world on her lofty foundation, the Rock of Ages-a beacon of separation from sin, a

testimony to the grace of God, a centre for the confession of faith, a home for social

worship, a rallying point for the forces of holy warfare, a sanctuary for the helpless

and oppressed.

Second, the public duty of citizenship. The reluctance of Christians to accept the

responsibilities of Church membership may be compared to the backwardness of

the Jews to dwell in their metropolis. Like Jerusalem in the time of �ehemiah, the

City of God today is an outpost in the battlefield, a fortress surrounded by the

enemy’s territory. It is traitorous to retire to the calm cultivation of one’s private

garden-plot in the hour of stress and strain when the citadel is threatened on all

sides. It is the plain duty of the people of God to mount guard and take their turn as

watchmen on the walls of the Holy City.

May we carry the analogy one step further? The king of Persia, though his realm

stretched from the Tigris to the Aegean, could not give much effectual help to the

true City of God. But the Divine King of kings sends her constant supplies, and she

too, like Jerusalem, has her Representative at court, One who ever lives to make

intercession for her.

BI 1-19, "And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem.

The holy city replenished

Jerusalem is called here the holy city, because there the temple was, and that was the place God had chosen to put His name there. Upon this account one would think the holy seed should all have chosen to dwell there. They declined, however. Either—

1. Because a greater strictness of conversation was expected from the inhabitants of Jerusalem than from others, which they were not willing to come up to; or—

2. Because Jerusalem, of all places, was most hated by the heathen, their neighbours, and against it their malicious designs were levelled, which made that the post of danger, as the post of honour uses to be, and therefore they were not willing to expose themselves there; or—

3. Because it was more for their worldly advantage to dwell in the country. We are here told—

I. By what means it was replenished.

1. The rulers dwelt there. The “mighty are magnetic.” When great men would choose the holy city for their habitation, it brings holiness into reputation, and their zeal will provoke very many.

2. There were some that “willingly offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem,” bravely postponing their own secular interest to the public welfare. The people blessed them. They praised them, they prayed for them, they praised God for them. Many that do not appear forward themselves for the public good will yet give a good word to those that do.

3. They, finding that yet there was room, concluded, upon a review of their whole body, to bring one in ten to dwell in Jerusalem, and who they should be was determined by lot-; the disposal they all knew was of the Lord. The proportion of one in ten seems to refer to the ancient rule of giving the tenth to God. And what is given to the holy city He reckons given to Himself.

II. By what persons it was replenished.

1. Many of the children of Judah and Benjamin dwelt there. Originally part of the city lay in the lot of those tribes and part in that of the other; but the greater part was in the lot of Benjamin; hence more families of that tribe abode in the city.

2. The priests and Levites did many of them settle at Jerusalem. Where else should men that were holy to God dwell, but in the holy city? (Matthew Henry.)

Repeopling the capital

This was altogether worthy of Nehemiah’s practical sagacity. The restored walls of Jerusalem could not do much to promote its security and welfare so long as it was inhabited by a mere handful of people. It would be well if some Of our modern statesmen were to grasp the principle of this policy, and open their eyes to the fact that the chief wealth and strength of any nation must ever lie, not in massive fortifications or colossal armies, but in the numbers, the character, the patriotism, and the prosperity of its people. (T. Campbell Finlayson.)

The holy city

The two leading thoughts connected with the holy city in this phase of her history are singularly applicable to the Christian community.

I. Enclosed within walls, the city gained a peculiar character and performed a distinctive mission of her own. Our Lord was not satisfied to rescue stray sheep on the mountains only to brand them with His mark and then turn them out again to graze in solitude. He drew them as a flock after Himself, and His disciples gathered them into the fold of Christian fellowship. This is of as vital importance to the cause of Christianity as the civic organisation of Jerusalem was to that of Judaism. The Christian City of God stands out before the world on her lofty foundation, the Rock of Ages—a beacon of separation from Sin, a testimony to the grace of God, a centre for the confession of faith, a home for social worship, a rallying-point for the forces of holy warfare, a sanctuary for the helpless and oppressed.

II. The public duty of citizenship. The reluctance of Christians to accept the responsibilities of Church membership may be compared to the backwardness of the Jews to dwell in Jerusalem. (W. F. Adeney, M. A.)

PULPIT, "ENLARGEMENT OF THE POPULATION OF JERUSALEM, WITH THE NUMBER OF THE ADULT MALES, AND THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS. VARIOUS LISTS OF PRIESTS AND LEVITES AT DIFFERENT PERIODS (Nehemiah 11:1-36; Nehemiah 12:1-26).

EXPOSITION

THE nexus of Nehemiah 11:1-36. is with Nehemiah 7:4, Nehemiah 7:5. Having spoken in that place of the insufficiency of the population of Jerusalem, Nehemiah now proceeds to explain the steps which he took to remedy it. He made, it would seem, a census of the entire nation, and required each town and district to transfer one-tenth of its population to the capital The men in the various localities determined among themselves by lot who should stay and who should go, and Nehemiah no doubt made the necessary arrangements for the reception of the newcomers at Jerusalem. Forced enlargements of capitals by transfers of this kind were not uncommon in the ancient world, where the strength of states was considered to depend very greatly upon the size and predominance of the capital. Thucydides attributes the greatness and prosperity of the Athenian community to an artificial enlargement of the population of Athens which he ascribes to Theseus. Other notorious instances are those of Syracuse, Megalopolis, and Tigranocerta. In Jerusalem at this time the special need of an increase in the number of the inhabitants was probably the defence of the walls. These had been rebuilt on the ancient foundations,—their circuit was not much less than four miles,—and to man them in case of attack, a large population was necessary. From a comparison of the numbers given in this chapter (verses 6-19) with those of 1 Chronicles 9:9-22, it may be gathered that the result of Nehemiah's arrangements was to give Jerusalem a population of about 20,000 souls.

Having been led, in speaking of this matter, to give a sort of catalogue of the chief dwellers at Jerusalem (verses 4-19), and another of the country towns and villages

occupied at this time by those Israelites who had returned from the captivity (verses 25-35), Nehemiah is induced to insert, at this point, certain other lists or catalogues which he regards as worthy of being put on record. These lists are four in number, and occupy Nehemiah 12:1-47. as far as Nehemiah 12:26. They comprise—

1. A list of the priestly and Levitical houses which returned with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12:1-9);

2. A list of the high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua;

3. A list of the heads of the priestly courses in the time of the high priest Joiakim; and,

4. A list of the chief Levitical houses at the same period and afterwards.

Such lists possess at the present day but a very slight and secondary interest. Their formation, however, and safe preservation were, at the time, essential for the continuity of the nation's history, and the maintenance of the priestly order in purity, and without admixture of laic elements. On the genealogy of the high priests more will be said in the special comment on the passage.

Nehemiah 11:1

The rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the residence of all the nobles from the first (see Nehemiah 2:16); no increase could be made in this element of the population. Nehemiah had to look lower, and to obtain his new settlers from the ranks of the "people." The people … cast lots. No doubt under direction. The Jews had frequent recourse to the lot for the determining of doubtful matters, believing, as they did, that "the whole disposing thereof was of the Lord (Proverbs 16:33). Divine sanction had been given, in the course of the Jewish history, to the use of the lot for the selection of persons (Joshua 7:16-18; 1 Samuel 10:19-21), for the distribution of lands (Numbers 26:25, Numbers 26:26), and for the determination of the order in which different bodies should execute an office (1 Chronicles 24:5; 1 Chronicles 25:8). In the democratic states of Greece it was used widely to determine between candidates for an office. One in ten. Ewald supposes that this was to be the proportion between the population of Jerusalem and the whole population of the country, and ascribes the fixing of the proportion to Zerubbabel. But there is no statement to this effect in either Ezra or Nehemiah, and the brief narrative of this verse seems to imply the addition of a tenth part of the country population to the previous population of Jerusalem, rather than the establishment of any definite proportion between the two. Nine parts. Literally, "nine hands," as in Genesis 43:34; Genesis 47:24.

2 The people commended all who volunteered to

live in Jerusalem.

CLARKE, "All the men that willingly offered - Some volunteered their services, which was considered a sacrifice to patriotism at that time, as Jerusalem afforded very few advantages, and was a place of considerable danger; hence the people spoke well of them, and no doubt prayed for God’s blessing upon them.

GILL, "And the people blessed all the men that willingly offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem. Who were not taken by lot, but of their own accord settled at Jerusalem; they praised them for it, and wished them all happiness and prosperity, since they denied themselves of ease and profit for the sake of the public good; and it is this which makes the difference between the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1Ch_9:2&c. and this here, that takes in all that settled there, whether voluntarily or by lot; this only such as were fixed by the lot, and of them only those who were of greatest note and esteem, as Jarchi observes, and so it follows.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:2 And the people blessed all the men, that willingly offered

themselves to dwell at Jerusalem.

Ver. 2. And the people blessed all the men, that willingly offered themselves] All the

volunteers, those Liberi et libentes, free willing ones, that, moved with a zeal for

God and his service, seated themselves at Jerusalem, though it were little for their

safety or profit. Sincerity is an enemy to sinisterity; it strains out self-respects, and

procures a man great respect in the hearts of good people, who are ready to

commend them and pray for them, as here.

PULPIT, "�ehemiah 11:2

The men that willingly offered themselves. Besides those on whom the lot fell, a

certain number volunteered to change their residence and to transfer themselves

and families from their country homes to Jerusalem. The people called down

blessings upon them for their patriotism.

3 These are the provincial leaders who settled in

Jerusalem (now some Israelites, priests, Levites,

temple servants and descendants of Solomon’s

servants lived in the towns of Judah, each on their

own property in the various towns,

CLARKE, "Now these are the chief - A good deal of difference will be found between the enumeration here and that in 1Ch_9:2, etc. There, those only who came with Zerubbabel appear to be numbered; here, those, and the persons who came with Ezra and Nehemiah, enter into the account.

GILL, "Now these are the chief of the province that dwelt in Jerusalem,.... That is, of Judea, reduced to a province by the king of Babylon, and now a province of the Persian monarchy:

but in the cities of Judah dwelt everyone in his possession in their cities; in which they or their ancestors had formerly dwelt: to wit, Israel: the people in general of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and such of the other tribes that returned with them:

the priests, and the Levites, and the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants; of whom see Ezr_2:55.

JAMISO�,"Neh_11:3-36. Their names.

the chief of the province — that is, Judea. Nehemiah speaks of it, as it then was, a small appendix of the Persian empire.

in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities— The returned exiles, who had come from Babylon, repaired generally, and by a natural impulse, to the lands and cities throughout the country which had been anciently assigned them.

Israel — This general name, which designated the descendants of Jacob before the unhappy division of the two kingdoms under Rehoboam, was restored after the captivity, the Israelites being then united with the Jews, and all traces of their former separation being obliterated. Although the majority of the returned exiles belonged to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, they are here called Israel because a large number out

of all the tribes were now intermingled, and these were principally the occupiers of the rural villages, while none but those of Judah and Benjamin resided in Jerusalem.

the Levites — These took possession of the cities allotted to them according as they had opportunity.

the Nethinims — A certain order of men, either Gibeonites or persons joined with them, who were devoted to the service of God.

K&D 3-6, "The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the other cities. - Neh_11:3 The title reads: “These are the heads of the province who dwelt at Jerusalem; and in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests, the Levites, the

Nethinim, and the sons of Solomon's servants.” ה�דינה is, as in Ezr_2:1, the land of

Judah, as a province of the Persian kingdom. The repetition of ישבו after יהודה is not �ערי

to be understood as contrasting those who dwelt in the cities with the dwellers in Jerusalem in the sense of “but in the cities of Judah dwelt,” etc., but is here a mere pleonasm. Even the enumeration of the different classes of inhabitants: Israel, the priests, etc., clearly shows that no such contrast is intended; for Israel, the priests, etc., dwelt not only in Jerusalem, but also, according to Neh_11:20, in the other cities of Judah. And this is placed beyond all doubt by the contents of the list following; the inhabitants of Jerusalem being enumerated vv. 4-24, and the inhabitants of the other cities of Judah and Benjamin, Neh_11:25-36. If, however, this title refers to the whole of the following list, it cannot, as Rambach and others thought, contain only an enumeration of those who, in consequence of the lot, had taken up their residence at Jerusalem, but must be intended as a list of the population of the whole province of Judah in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. It seems strange that the title should

announce ה�דינה while in the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem are given, besides ,ראשי

the heads, the numbers of their brethren, i.e., of the individuals or fathers of families under these heads; and that in the list of the inhabitants of the other cities, only inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin are spoken of. Hence this statement refers a potiorito the heads, including the houses and families belonging to them, while in the case of the other cities it is assumed that the inhabitants of each locality were under a head. With Neh_11:4 begins the enumeration of the heads dwelling in Jerusalem, with their houses; and the first clause contains a special title, which affirms that (certain) of the children of Judah and of the children of Benjamin dwelt at Jerusalem. On the parallel list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem before the captivity, 1 Chron 9:2-34, and its relation to the present list, see the remarks on 1 Chron 9.

BE�SO�, "�ehemiah 11:3. These are the chief of the province — Of Judea, which

was now made a province. Israel — The generality of the people of Israel, whether

of Judah, or Benjamin, or any other tribe. These he calls Israel, rather than Judah,

because there were many of the other tribes now incorporated with them; and

because none of the tribes of Israel, except Judah and Benjamin, dwelt in Jerusalem.

PETT, "Verse 3-4

The �ames Of The Chief Men Who Took Up Dwelling In Jerusalem (�ehemiah

11:3-20).

A parallel list of those who ‘dwelt in Jerusalem’ is found in 1 Chronicles 9, but it is

widely different from this list, although having some parallels. We should note,

however, that 1 Chronicles 9 does not say when the people that it lists began to live

in Jerusalem, and it certainly contains the names of many not mentioned here (and

vice versa). That may well be because the Chronicler was using information which

informed him of who was living in Jerusalem prior to the time of �ehemiah, whilst

�ehemiah is only recording the names of those who now took up residence in

Jerusalem. �ehemiah may well be giving here the names of the children of Judah

and Benjamin who moved into Jerusalem at this time, mainly ignoring the names of

those who already lived in Jerusalem (as possibly given in 1 Chronicles 9). Thus it is

noteworthy that in �ehemiah 11:1-9 of both �ehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9 there

are no parallels apart from the name ‘Sallu, the son of Meshullam’. But as there is

good reason to believe that there were two men bearing this name, as the listing of

their different ancestors demonstrates, there are really no parallels at all. The

parallels only occur when we come to the priests and Levites. So 1 Chronicles 9

describes those who initially settled in the city during the period when it was

unwalled. �ehemiah is now describing those who moved into the city now that it

was walled, to join those described in 1 Chronicles 9 as already populating the

whole city.

�ehemiah 11:3

‘�ow these are the chiefs of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem,’

That is, the chiefs who began to live in Jerusalem from this time forward. They were

willing to make a personal sacrifice for the good of the nation. They did it because of

their loyalty to God, and as an example to others. A good deal of building work

would have to take place to make Jerusalem habitable (‘the houses had not been

built’ - �ehemiah 7:4), but again they probably ‘had a mind to work’. A dream was

being fulfilled.

�ehemiah 11:3

‘(But in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities, to wit,

Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the �ethinim, and the children of Solomon’s

servants).’

Meanwhile the remaining nine tenths of the people continued to dwell in their own

cities, ‘every one in his own possession’, where they possessed houses and land, and

this included priests, Levites and Temple servants. For this verse compare

�ehemiah 7:73. It would therefore appear to be a deliberate attempt to connect up

chapter 7 with this passage, demonstrating the unity of purpose of these people with

the first returnees, and that the situation continued. But its importance in its own

right is found in the fact that it demonstrates that the whole of Judah continued to

be populated because it had been given to them by God, and that many priests,

Levites and Temple servants dwelt outside Jerusalem. The people were there

because it was ‘their possession’. It was the land given to them by God.

COFFMA�, "Verse 3

CHIEFS OF THE PROVI�CE THAT DWELT I� JERUSALEM

"�ow these are the chiefs of the province that dwelt in Jerusalem: but in the cities of

Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities, to wit, Israel, the priests, and

the Levites, and the �ethinim, and the children of Solomon's servants. And in

Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin.

Of the children of Judah, Athaiah the son of Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the son of

Amariah, the son of Shephatiah, the son of Mahalalel, of the children of Perez: and

Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Colhozeh, the son of Hazaiah, the son of

Adaiah, the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son of Shilonite. All the sons of

Perez that dwelt in Jerusalem were four hundred threescore and eight valiant men."

The emphasis among the Jews continued to be upon genealogy. In this enumeration

of the children of Judah, they were all traced back to Perez, one of the twin sons of

Judah by his daughter-in-law Tamar. All of those mentioned in �ehemiah 11:3-9,

according to Cundall, "Were the rulers of the people (the chiefs) already living in

Jerusalem."[6] Significantly, the descendants of Judah and of Benjamin are named

separately.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:3 �ow these [are] the chief of the province that dwelt in

Jerusalem: but in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities,

[to wit], Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the �ethinims, and the children of

Solomon’s servants.

Ver. 3. �ow these are the chief of the province] So Judea is called, because now

subject and tributary to the king of Babylon; as afterwards it was to the Romans

(and is therefore called a province, Acts 25:1), and is now to the Turk. How then

could those Jews in the Gospel say, We are Abraham’s seed, and were never in

bondage to any man; but that they cared not what they said in a bravado?

Spaniards are said to be impudent braggers, and extremely proud in the lowest ebb

of fortune. These Jews were so certainly; and so they continue.

ELLICOTT, "(3) Of the province.—This betrays the hand of �ehemiah, who was

still a Persian official as well as a governor of Judah; and it shows that here we have

a general heading for the rest of the chapter. Both city and country are included in

the rest of the verse.

Israel.—The two Israelitish tribes were represented, but, like Judah before, this has

become a generic name.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:3. The relative construction should be used with both

clauses, thus: now these are the chiefs of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem, and

those who dwelt in the cities of Judah (every one in his possession in their cities)—to

wit, Israel, etc.Israel—i.e., the people of Israel as contrasted with priests, Levites,

etc.The children of Solomon’s servants.—See on �ehemiah 7:57.

PULPIT, "�ehemiah 11:3

These are the chief of the province. A comparison is in the writer's mind between

the Jews of Palestine and those of the great Persian capitals, Babylon and Susa, to

which, as a Persian official, he himself properly belongs. Compare �ehemiah 1:3

and Ezra 2:1. That dwelt in Jerusalem. i.e. "that were entered in �ehemiah's census

among the inhabitants of Jerusalem after the transfer of population had been

made." The names which follow appear in most cases to be personal, but a certain

number of them are names of families. In the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his

possession. It follows that those who removed from the country districts to

Jerusalem quitted their "possessions, often, it may be, exchanging riches for

poverty, a comfortable house for one half in ruins (�ehemiah 7:4), and the life of a

small landed proprietor for that of an artisan or hired labourer. Hence the

"blessings" called down by the people on those who volunteered (verse 2). Israel.

Compare 1 Chronicles 9:3, where we find that among those who had returned were

mere-bers of the two great Israelitish tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. On the

�ethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, see the comment on Ezra 2:43,

Ezra 2:55.

4 while other people from both Judah and

Benjamin lived in Jerusalem):

From the descendants of Judah:

Athaiah son of Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the

son of Amariah, the son of Shephatiah, the son of

Mahalalel, a descendant of Perez;

BAR�ES 4-19, "See the margin reference notes. Both accounts appear to be extracts from a public official register which Nehemiah caused to be made of his census. The census itself seems to have been confined to the dwellers at Jerusalem. The subjoined table exhibits the differences between the accounts of the entire population of Jerusalem as given in Nehemiah and in Chronicles:

1 Chron Nehemiah

Tribes of Judah

Of Pharez 468

Of Zerah 690

Tribe of Benjamin

956 928

Tribe of Levi

Priests 1760 1192

Levites 284

Porters 212 172

According to Nehemiah’s numbers, supplemented from Chronicles, the entire adult male population of the city was 3,734, which would give a total population of 14,936. According to Chronicles, supplemented from Nehemiah, the adult males were 4,370, and consequently the entire population, would have been 17,480. As the Nethinims and the Israelites of Ephraim and Manasseh 1Ch_9:3 are not included in either list, we may conclude that the actual number of the inhabitants, after the efforts recorded in Neh_11:1-2, was not much short of 20,000.

GILL, "And at Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin,.... It belonging partly to one tribe and partly to the other, and so inhabited by both, as it originally was, Jos_15:63

of the children of Judah; Athaiah; called Uthai, 1Ch_9:4 whose lineage is traced through Uzziah, Zechariah, Amariah, Shephatiah, Mahalaleel:

of the children of Perez; a son of Judah, see 1Ch_9:4.

JAMISO�,"at Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah — The discrepancy that is apparent between this [Neh_11:4-36] and the list formerly given in 1Ch_9:1-9, arose not only from the Jewish and Oriental practice of changing or modifying the names of persons from a change of circumstances, but from the alterations that must have been produced in the course of time. The catalogue in Chronicles contains those who came with the first detachment of returned exiles, while the list in this passage probably included also those who returned with Ezra and Nehemiah; or it was most probably made out afterwards, when several had died, or some, who had been inserted as going on the journey, remained, and others came in their stead.

K&D, "Neh_11:4-6

Of the children of Judah two heads: Athaiah of the children of Perez (comp. 1Ch_2:4), and Maaseiah of the children of Shela. It has been already remarked on 1Ch_9:5, that

_is a proper name, as in Neh ל־חזה .ה�לני is wrongly pointed, and should be read ה�לני

3:15. Athaiah and Maaseiah are not further known. There were in all four hundred and sixty-eight able-bodied men of the sons of Perez, i.e., four hundred and sixty-eight fathers of families of the race of Perez, among whom are probably included the fathers of

families belonging to Shela, the younger brother of Perez.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:4

‘And in Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, and of the children of

Benjamin.’

The roll of honour of those who moved into Jerusalem is now given, and they are

divided into their tribes. This division into tribes may indicate their protective role

(consider the earlier ‘mustering of the tribes’ in �umbers and in Judges). They were

there to watch over the city, just as in the Book of �umbers the tribes had watched

over the Tabernacle.

Verses 4-6

Of The Children Of Judah (�ehemiah 11:4-6).

Comparison with the list in 1 Chronicle 9 indicates that there is not a single

duplication. The names in each are totally distinctive. This demonstrates that they

are referring to different times. The ones named in 1 Chronicles 9 may be those who

had settled in Jerusalem, because it was ‘their own city’, prior to this time, with the

ones described here seen as moving to live in Jerusalem at the instigation of

�ehemiah.

�ehemiah 11:4

‘Of the children of Judah:;

�ehemiah 11:4

‘Athaiah the son of Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the son of Amariah, the son of

Shephatiah, the son of Mahalalel, of the children of Perez;

11:5 ‘And Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Col-hozeh, the son of Hazaiah, the

son of Adaiah, the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son of the Shilonite.’

11:6 ‘All the sons of Perez who dwelt in Jerusalem were four hundred, and sixty

eight valiant men.’

It will be noted that of the sons of Judah only sons of Perez are specifically

mentioned. This may, of course, be because when the lots were taken a choice was

initially made between the sons of Zerah and the sons of Perez, and it was the sons

of Perez who were chosen. And these were then chosen out of the sons of Perez.

And/or it may be because the sons of Zerah were already there in considerable

numbers (1 Chronicles 9:6), because it was their home city. The reference to ‘the

Shilonite’ (or Shelanite per �umbers 26:20) takes Maaseiah’s descent back to

Shelah, the son of Judah (Genesis 38:5; Genesis 38:26).

‘Maaseiah the son of Baruch the son of Col-hozeh.’ In �ehemiah 3:15 we learn of

Shallun, the son of Col-hozeh, who was ruler of part of Mizpah, and oversaw the

building of part of the wall. He may well have been Baruch’s brother. �ote the title

‘valiant men’ which has military connotations (although admittedly it could mean

‘men of substance’). They were here as defenders of Jerusalem.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:4 And at Jerusalem dwelt [certain] of the children of Judah,

and of the children of Benjamin. Of the children of Judah; Athaiah the son of

Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the son of Amariah, the son of Shephatiah, the son of

Mahalaleel, of the children of Perez;

Ver. 4. Certain of the children of Judah, &c.] Yea, and of the children of Ephraim

and Manasseh too, 1 Chronicles 9:3; where the same is set down as here, but the

number is greater. And why? Here only those are reckoned who inhabited

Jerusalem by lot; but there the volunteers also. See �ehemiah 11:2

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:4. Athaiah was chief of the Bene-Pharets, or children of

Perez (Pharez). See Genesis 38:29; 1 Chronicles 4:1. In 1 Chronicles 9:4 he is called

Uthai, and his genealogy traced by a different line.

PULPIT, "�ehemiah 11:4

At Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, and of the children of

Benjamin. It is not meant that all the dwellers in Jerusalem were of these two tribes,

since among them were certainly Levites (�ehemiah 11:10-19), Ephraimites, and

Mansesites (1 Chronicles 1:1-54. s. c.), together with �ethinims (�ehemiah 11:21)

who were of no tribe, and probably some representatives of all or most of the other

tribes (see the comment on Ezra 2:70). But the present purpose of �ehemiah is to

mention especially the Jewish and Benjamite chiefs. Athaiah, or Uthai, as the name

is given in 1 Chronicles 9:4. The son of Uzziah. The ancestors assigned to Athaiah

here and in 1 Chronicles 9:1-44. are wholly different, with the single exception of

Pharez or Perez, the son of Judah. Both lists are of course abbreviations of a far

longer one, and it has happened that the two writers have in no ease selected for

mention the same name.

5 and Maaseiah son of Baruch, the son of Kol-

Hozeh, the son of Hazaiah, the son of Adaiah, the

son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, a descendant

of Shelah.

GILL, "And Maaseiah,.... Who seems to be the same with Asaiah, 1Ch_9:5 and whose

genealogy is carried up through Baruch, Colhozeh, Hazaiah, Adaiah, Joiarib, Zechariah, to Shiloni; perhaps the same with Shelah, another son of Judah, see 1Ch_9:5.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:5 And Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Colhozeh, the

son of Hazaiah, the son of Adaiah, the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son

of Shiloni.

Ver. 5. And Maaseiah the son of Baruch] {See Trapp on "Ezra 2:3"}

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:5. Maaseiah was chief of the Shilonites or children of

Shelah. His grandfather Colhozeh is probably the same as the father of Shallun in

�ehemiah 3:15. He is called Asaiah in 1 Chronicles 9:5. Shiloni.—Heb.: hash-

shiloni. �ot a man’s name, but a family’s title, to wit, the children of Shelah,

Judah’s son. See 1 Chronicles 9:5. These descendants of Shelah are counted with

those of Pharez. Athaiah and Maaseiah were thus the chiefs of Judah. Jeuel of the

sons of Zerah, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:6, is omitted here.

6 The descendants of Perez who lived in

Jerusalem totaled 468 men of standing.

GILL, "All the sons of Perez that dwelt at Jerusalem were four hundred threescore and eight valiant men. And so well qualified to defend the city against its enemies.

HE�RY 6-9, "By what persons it was replenished. A general account is here given of the inhabitants of Jerusalem because the governors of Judah looked upon them as their strength in the Lord of hosts their God, and valued them accordingly, Zec_12:5. 1. Many of the children of Judah and Benjamin dwelt there; for, originally, part of the city law in the lot of one of those tribes and part in that of the other; but the greater part was in the lot of Benjamin, and therefore here we find of the children of Judah only 468 families in Jerusalem (Neh_11:6), but of Benjamin 928, Neh_11:7, Neh_11:8. Thus small were its beginnings, but afterwards, before our Saviour's time, it grew much more populous. Those of Judah all descended from Perez, or Pharez, that son of Judah of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. And, though the Benjamites were more in number, yet of the men of Judah it is said (Neh_11:6) that they were valiant men, fit for service, and

able to defend the city in case of an attack. Judah has not lost its ancient character of a lion's whelp, bold and daring. Of the Benjamites that dwelt in Jerusalem we are here told who was overseer, and who was second, Neh_11:9. For it is as necessary for a people to have good order kept up among themselves as to be fortified against the attacks of their enemies from abroad, to have good magistrates as to have good soldiers. 2. The priests and Levites did many of them settle at Jerusalem; where else should men that were holy to God dwell, but in the holy city?

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:6 All the sons of Perez that dwelt at Jerusalem [were] four

hundred threescore and eight valiant men.

Ver. 6. Valiant men] Heb. Men of ability and activity. It comprehendeth all the four

cardinal virtues.

7 From the descendants of Benjamin:

Sallu son of Meshullam, the son of Joed, the son of

Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah, the son of Maaseiah,

the son of Ithiel, the son of Jeshaiah,

GILL, "And these are the sons of Benjamin,.... That were of that tribe, and inhabited Jerusalem, namely, that follow:

Sallu the son of Meshullam; who from him is traced up through Joed, Pedaiah, Kolaiah, Maaseiah, Ithiel, to Jesaiah.

K&D, "Of the Benjamites there were two heads of houses: Sallu, and after him Gabbai-Sallai, with nine hundred and twenty-eight fathers of families. Their chief was Joel the son of Zichri, and Jehuda the son of Sennah over the city as second (prefect).

PETT, "Verses 7-9

Of The Children Of Benjamin (�ehemiah 11:7-9).

Again when comparing with 1 Chronicle 9 there is not a single duplication. A Sallu,

the son of Meshullam, is mentioned in both, but these were clearly popular

Benjamite names and their antecedents reveal that the name refers to different men.

Otherwise the names in each are totally distinctive. This demonstrates that they are

referring to different times. Again the ones named in 1 Chronicles 9 may be those

who settled in Jerusalem prior to the time of �ehemiah because it was ‘their own

city’, with the ones described here seen as moving to live in Jerusalem at the

instigation of �ehemiah.

�ehemiah 11:7

‘And these are the sons of Benjamin:’

�ehemiah 11:7

‘Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah,

the son of Maaseiah, the son of Ithiel, the son of Jeshaiah.’

11:8 ‘And after him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred and twenty eight.

11:9 ‘And Joel the son of Zichri was their overseer, and Judah the son of Hassenuah

was second over the city.’

This Sallu, the son of Meshullam, was a different one than that in 1 Chronicles 9:7

as is demonstrated by his antecedents. That Joel was appointed as ‘overseer/officer’

( 2 Kings 25:19; Genesis 41:34; Judges 9:28) may refer to his being given a military

responsibility, and not one necessarily limited to Benjamin. Judah was his second in

command. How this reconciles with the appointment of Hanani and Hananiah as

having ‘charge over the city’ (�ehemiah 7:2) we are in no position to judge. This

may well have been a specifically military appointment.

COFFMA�, "Verse 7

CO�CLUSIO� OF THE LIST OF CHIEFS

"And these are the sons of Benjamin: Salu the son of Meshullam, the son of Joed,

the son of Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah, the son of Maaseiah, the son of Ithiel, the son

of Jeshaiah. And after him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred twenty and eight. And Joel

the son of Zichri was their overseer; and Judah the son of Hassenuah was second

over the city."

This concludes the list of the princes (chiefs) who were already living in Jerusalem.

There were 1,396 of these.

TRAPP, "Verse 7-8

�ehemiah 11:7 And these [are] the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam,

the son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah, the son of Maaseiah, the son

of Ithiel, the son of Jesaiah.

�ehemiah 11:8 And after him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred twenty and eight.

Ver. 7,8. Little Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes of Israel, 1 Samuel 9:21, yields

more by half than Judah. Jerusalem stood in both these tribes.

8 and his followers, Gabbai and Sallai—928 men.

GILL, "And after him,.... That is, Sallu: were Gabbai and Sallai; in all nine hundred and twenty eight; there were more of the tribe of Benjamin than of the tribe of Judah, they having perhaps a greater share in the city, or were better disposed to dwell in it.

9 Joel son of Zikri was their chief officer, and

Judah son of Hassenuah was over the �ew

Quarter of the city.

GILL, "And Joel - was their overseer - Joel was chief or magistrate over those, and Judah was his second or deputy. Perhaps each had a different office, but that of Joel was the chief.

JAMISO�,"overseer — that is, “captain” or “chief.”

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:9. Joel the son of Zichri was overseer (Heb.: pakid,

ἐπισκοπος) over both the Judahites and Benjamites of the city. His office was

possibly a police one. Judah the son of Senuahwas over the second city (not second

over the city).—The second city was a well-known part of Jerusalem. It was there

Huldah the prophetess lived in Josiah’s time. See 2 Kings 22:14, where the Eng.

vers. has “college” for the Heb. mishneh. In Zephaniah 1:10 the Eng. vers. has

“second.” It was probably the part of the city built up north of the temple. The

parallel chapter in 1 Chron. (chap9), which seems to be very corrupt in its reading,

appears to have “ Joel, the son of Zichri,” in “Elah, the son of Uzzi, the son of

Michri,” and to have “Judah, the son of Senuah,” in “Hodaviah, the son of

Hasenuah,” the former a Benjamite, and the latter an ancestor of Sallu. That list

also introduces as Benjamites “Ibneiah, the son of Jeroham,” and “Meshullam, the

son of Shephatiah, the son of Reuel, the son of Ibnijah.”

Joel and Judah were the two inspectors or overseers over the Judahites and

Benjamites in the entire city.

10 From the priests:

Jedaiah; the son of Joiarib; Jakin;

GILL, "Who dwelt in Jerusalem, of whom the same account is given in these two verses as in 1Ch_9:10, only Seraiah here is called Azariah there.

K&D 10-14, "Of the priests: Jedaiah, Joiarib, and Jachin, three heads of houses,

therefore of orders of priests (for �ן before Joiarib probably crept into the text by a

clerical error; see rem. on 1Ch_9:10); Seraiah, a descendant of Ahitub, as ruler of the house of God, and their brethren, i.e., the eight hundred and twenty-two ministering priests belonging to these three orders. Also Adaiah, of the house or order of Malchiah, and his brethren, two hundred and forty-two fathers of families; and lastly, Amashai, of the order of Immer, with one hundred and twenty-eight brethren, i.e., priests. And their

chief was Zabdiel ben Haggedolim (lxx υ#$ς&τ(ν&µεγάλων). עליהם refers to all the before-

named priests. לעבות heads of fathers, i.e., of families, Neh_11:13, is striking, for ראשים

the brethren of Adaiah (אחיו), in number two hundred and forty-two, could not be heads

of houses, but only fathers of families. The words seem to have come into the text only by comparing it with 1Ch_9:13. If they were genuine, we should be obliged to

understand לעבות .of fathers of families, contrary to general usage ראשים

PETT, "Verses 10-14

Of The Priests (�ehemiah 11:10-14).

From this point on there are closer parallels with 1 Chronicles 9. But this may

simply be because the contributor of this information in �ehemiah included some as

moving into Jerusalem on a full-time basis who were already ‘living in Jerusalem’

on a part time basis (as priests and Levites, etc), as described in 1 Chronicles 9.

Then it had been on a secondary basis, with them also having homes elsewhere. �ow

they took up permanent residence. That he spoke in this way is clear from

�ehemiah 11:16 where Berechiah is listed as ‘dwelling in Jerusalem’, whilst at the

same time ‘dwelling in the villages of the �eophathites’. As priests many would have

had dual residence so that the Chronicler could include them as resident in

Jerusalem (on a partial basis), whilst �ehemiah could include them in his list

because they now took up sole residence in Jerusalem. Taking up full time residence

was an important step, for it meant that they were continually available, if needed,

to defend the city.

�ehemiah 11:10

‘Of the priests:’

�ehemiah 11:10

‘ Jedaiah the son of Joiarib, Jachin,’

1 Chronicles 9:10 has ‘Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib and Jachin.’ These three seemingly

resided in Jerusalem on a part time basis from the first, (as became leading priests),

but now had come the time for them to take up full residence. Jehoiarib was

seemingly Jedaiah’s father, and he had presumably died in the interim.

Jedaiah was a popular priestly name. One of the families of priests who returned

with Zerubbabel was called ‘the sons of Jedaiah’ and a Jedaiah was one of the

prominent priests who returned with Zerubbabel (�ehemiah 12:6; �ehemiah

12:19). It was apparently a family name and had here been given to Jedaiah’s

grandson, clearly a man of great importance. Jachin was earlier the name of the

leader of the twenty first course of priests under David (1 Chronicles 24:17), and

was thus a prominent priestly name. Here he too was seen as an important man and

priest. The High Priest himself may be unmentioned because he already had full-

time residence in Jerusalem.

COFFMA�, "Verse 10

THE LIST OF THE PRIESTS

"Of the priests: Jedaiah the son of Joiarib, Jachin, Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the

son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the

ruler of the house of God, and their brethren that did the work of the house, eight

hundred twenty and two; and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pelatiah, the

son of Amzi, the son of Zechariah, the son of Pashhur, the son of Malchjah, and his

brethren, chiefs of fathers' houses, two hundred forty and two; and Amashsai the

son of Azarel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer, and their

brethren, mighty men of valor, a hundred twenty and eight. And their overseer was

Zabdiel, the son of Heggedolim."

This list of the priests numbered 1,192.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:10-11. There is great confusion in this part of the record,

and we are not helped much by 1 Chronicles9. Both lists have been copied probably

from a defective record. Jedaiah, Joiarib and Jachin were the heads of three of the

twenty-four courses of priests in David’s time ( 1 Chronicles 24:7; 1 Chronicles

24:17). Seraiah was high-priest before the captivity ( 1 Chronicles 6:14). These

names appear to be fragments of a record which in its fulness showed the heads of

these families in �ehemiah’s time. The phrase “ruler of the house of God (negid

beth ha-elohim) can belong to Ahitub or Seraiah. The Eng. vers. wrongly inserts

“was.” It is a title of the high-priest. See 2 Chronicles 31:13. Also compare 1

Chronicles 9:11. Also see 1 Chronicles 12:27, where Jehoiada (negid of the

Aaronites) seems to be the same as Ahitub the father of Zadok.

In �ehemiah 11:10 Jedaiah, the son of Joiarib, is doubtless wrong, and the form in 1

Chronicles 9:10 should be followed, to wit, Jedaiah and Jehoiarib. In �ehemiah

11:11 (as in 1 Chronicles 9:11) the words the son of Meraioth are out of place and

should follow “Ahitub,” as Meraioth was grandfather ( 1 Chronicles 6:7) or great-

grandfather ( Ezra 7:3) of Ahitub. For this last discrepancy we may suppose the two

sequences in the high-priesthood of “Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok” (one before Song of

Solomon, and the other after Solomon) are the occasion. One list has taken the

latter, where Ahitub’s grandfather is Prayer of Azariah, and the other has taken the

former where Ahitub’s grandfather is Meraioth. [We use “father” and

“grandfather” in the formal sense, denoting the proximity of the names in the

records, not the actual relationship.]

11 Seraiah son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam,

the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of

Ahitub, the official in charge of the house of God,

CLARKE, "Ruler of the house of God - He had the command over all secular matters, as the high priest had over those which were spiritual.

GILL, "And their brethren that did the work of the house were eight hundred twenty and two,.... That offered the sacrifices, burnt incense, set on the shewbread, lighted the lamps, &c.

and Adaiah the son of Jeroham; see 1Ch_9:12 whose genealogy is traced here through Pelaliah, Amzi, Zechariah, Pashur, to Malchiah.

JAMISO�,"the ruler of the house of God — assistant of the high priest (Num_3:32; 1Ch_9:11; 2Ch_19:11).

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:11

‘Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of

Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the ruler of the house of God,’

Also taking up full-time residence in Jerusalem was Seraiah the son of Hilkiah. 1

Chronicles 9:11 has ‘Azariah, the son of Hilkiah’, etc, but otherwise the same words.

However, Seraiah and Azariah appear to be two names of the same person as is

evidenced by comparison of Ezra 2:2 with �ehemiah 7:7 (the two names are

consonantally close). As a chief priest of the high priestly family of Ahitub (Ahitub

was the ruler of the house of God, that is, he was the High Priest (2 Chronicles

31:10; 2 Chronicles 31:13)) he would necessarily have had a residence in Jerusalem.

�ow he was taking up residence full time.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:11 Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son

of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, [was] the ruler of the house of

God.

Ver. 11. Ruler of the house of God] One of the high priest’s great deputies. See

�umbers 3:32, 1 Chronicles 9:11, 2 Chronicles 19:11.

PULPIT, "Seraiah (called "Azariah" in 1 Chronicles 9:11) designates the high

priestly family of this time, as in �ehemiah 10:2; �ehemiah 12:1, �ehemiah 12:12.

The "Seraiah" who gave name to it was probably the high priest taken prisoner by

�ebu-zaradan, and put to death (—2 Kings 25:18-21). The son of Hilkiah. Really the

grandson (Ezra 7:1). The son of Meshullam. Or "Shallum" (ibid. �ehemiah 12:2).

The ruler of the house of God. i.e. the high priest; or, rather, the family which

furnished the high priests at this time. The actual high priest was Eliashib, the son

of Joiakim, and grandson of Jeshua (see �ehemiah 12:10; �ehemiah 13:4).

12 and their associates, who carried on work for

the temple—822 men; Adaiah son of Jeroham, the

son of Pelaliah, the son of Amzi, the son of

Zechariah, the son of Pashhur, the son of

Malkijah,

GILL, "And their brethren that did the work of the house were eight hundred twenty and two,.... That offered the sacrifices, burnt incense, set on the shewbread, lighted the lamps, &c.

and Adaiah the son of Jeroham; see 1Ch_9:12 whose genealogy is traced here through Pelaliah, Amzi, Zechariah, Pashur, to Malchiah.

HE�RY 12-19, " Most of the priests, we may suppose, dwelt there, for their business lay where the temple was. Of those that did the work of the house in their courses here were 822 of one family, 242 of another, and 128 of another, Neh_11:12-14. It was well

that those labourers were not few. It is said of some of them that they were mighty men of valour (Neh_11:14); it was necessary that they should be so, for the priesthood was not only a work, which required might, but a warfare, which required valour, especially now. Of one of these priests it is said that he was the son of one of the great men. It was no disparagement to the greatest man they had to have his son in the priesthood; he might magnify his office, for his office did not in the least diminish him. (2.) Some of the Levites also came and dwelt at Jerusalem, yet but few in comparison, 284 in all (Neh_11:18), with 172 porters (Neh_11:19), for much of their work was to teach the good knowledge of God up and down the country, for which purpose they were to be scattered in Israel. As many as there was occasion for attended at Jerusalem; the rest were doing good elsewhere. [1.] It is said of one of the Levites that he had the oversight of the outward business of the house of God, Neh_11:16. The priests were chief managers of the business within the temple gates; but this Levite was entrusted with the secular concerns of God's house, that were in ordine ad spiritualia - subservient to its spiritual concerns, the collecting of the contributions, the providing of materials for the temple service, and the like, which it was necessary to oversee, else the inward business would

have been starved and have stood still. Those who take care of the ta&exō the outward concerns of the church, the serving of its tables, are as necessary in their place as those

who take care of its ta&esō its inward concerns, who give themselves to the word and

prayer. [2.] It is said of another that he was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer. Probably he had a good ear and a good voice, and was a scientific singer, and therefore was chosen to lead the psalm. He was precentor in the temple. Observe, Thanksgiving is necessary in prayer; they should go together; giving thanks for former mercies is a becoming way of begging further mercies. And care should be taken in public service that every thing be done in the best manner, decently and in good order -in prayer, that one speak and the rest join-in singing, that one begin and the rest follow.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:12

‘And their brothers who did the work of the house, eight hundred and twenty two.

With these prominent priests came eight hundred and twenty two other priests who

‘did the work at the house of God’, presumably on a time on, time off, basis. Thus

part of their time they had spent in their cities and part of their time in Jerusalem.

�ow they were moving into Jerusalem full time. We do not know for certain exactly

what was involved in ‘doing the work of the house of God’ as distinguished from

what the other priests did. But it may be that it was these who had responsibility for

the maintenance of the cult worship in the Temple, while others had a preaching

and teaching ministry, and various supervisory roles (such as watching over the

gathering of the tithes - �ehemiah 10:38), or even a military role in protecting the

holy city.

�ehemiah 11:12

And Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pelaliah, the son of Amzi, the son of

Zechariah, the son of Pashhur, the son of Malchijah,’

1 Chronicles 9:12 abbreviates this to ‘Adaiah, the son of Jeroham, the son of

Pashhur, the son of Malchijah’, giving only details of the name of his father, his clan

and his sub-tribe. He too had dwelt part time in Jerusalem, but from now on would

dwell there full time. The Chronicler mentions Maasai, the son of Adiel, the son of

Meshillemoth, the son of Immer who seemingly already had full time residence in

Jerusalem.

It will be noted that Pashhur and Immer were two of the four priestly families who

returned with Zerubbabel (�ehemiah 7:40-41). The sons of Jedaiah may be seen as

represented by Jedaiah and those who came with him (�ehemiah 11:10-11). The

sons of Harim seemingly did not take up residence in Jerusalem, possibly because of

the type of duties they fulfilled.

TRAPP, "Verses 12-24

�ehemiah 11:12 And their brethren that did the work of the house [were] eight

hundred twenty and two: and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pelaliah, the

son of Amzi, the son of Zechariah, the son of Pashur, the son of Malchiah,

Ver. 12-24.] In all 1192. The total of priests and Levites 1476, and of Judah and

Benjamin 1396. So that there were more priests and Levites than of the lay people;

which argues their zeal to be greatest. There were also 172 porters, who were all

Levites.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:12. And their brethren—i.e., the brethren or kinsfolk of the

chiefs of the priests whose names are lost in the above record (as we have seen in the

preceding note). Adaiah was chief of the children of Malchiah, the head of the fifth

course in David’s day ( 1 Chronicles 24:9).

PULPIT, "Their brethren that did the work of the house. The priests of ordinary

rank, who—divided originally into twenty-four, but now apparently into twenty-

two, courses (�ehemiah 12:2-7)—had the care of the temple service in turn,

amounted to the large number of 1192 persons, of whom between fifty and sixty

would be employed in some work connected with the service at one time.

13 and his associates, who were heads of

families—242 men; Amashsai son of Azarel, the

son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of

Immer,

GILL, "And his brethren, chief of the fathers, two hundred forty and two,.... That is, the brethren or relations of Adaiah:

and Amashai; called Maasiai, 1Ch_9:12, whose lineage is traced here through Azareel, Ahasai, Meshillemoth, to Immer.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:13

‘And his brothers, chiefs of fathers’ (houses), two hundred and forty two.’

With Adaiah came 242 priestly heads of families, who like him had previously

resided part time but now took up full time residence. However, as their being

‘chiefs of fathers’ (houses)’ contrasts with those who ‘did the work of the house (of

God’ in �ehemiah 11:12, this may indicate that they were captains of priestly

military units organised for the defence of the holy city. With the 822 mentioned

previously, and the 128 mentioned in �ehemiah 11:14, this makes up 1,192 who now

took up full time residence.

The Chronicler gives only one total, ‘1,760 very able men for the work of the service

of the house of God’. The additional men presumably already resided full time,

which would be why they are not included here.

�ehemiah 11:13

‘And Amashsai the son of Azarel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son

of Immer,’

Amashsai of the sons of Immer is not mentioned by the Chronicler. He may have

included him in his 1,760 men (in view of the fact that he mentions Maasai of the

sons of Immer as representing the sons of Immer), or it may be that up to this time

Amashsai had no residence in Jerusalem. �ow, however, he took up full time

residence.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:13. Chief of the fathers.—This clause seems to be out of

place, for we can hardly suppose that the Malchiah family were all chiefs. Adaiah

had 242 in his kinsfolk, over whom he was chief, just as the representatives of the

high-priest’s family and the families of Jedaiah, Joiarib and Jachin had 822 in their

kinsfolk ( �ehemiah 11:12). This phrase “chief of the fathers” belongs to all these

head men of families, and was probably at the head of the list originally. It may

have found its place here from the analogy of the phrase “mighty men of valour” in

�ehemiah 11:14. See 2 Chronicles 26:12 for a collocation of the two phrases.

Amashai (Maasiai in 1 Chronicles 9:12) was chief of the children of Immer, the head

of the sixteenth course in David’s time. His pedigree in 1 Chronicles9. is merely a

corruption of this one.

14 and his[a] associates, who were men of

standing—128. Their chief officer was Zabdiel son

of Haggedolim.

CLARKE, "Mighty men of valor - Noted for strength of body, and military courage.

GILL, "And their brethren, mighty men of valour, an hundred twenty and eight,.... The brethren of Adaiah and Amashai, who were able men to do the work of their office as priests, and men of courage to fight the enemy, and defend the city upon occasion:

and their overseer was Zabdiel, the son of one of the great men; or the son of Hagedolim, or Gedolim, as some, who take it to be the proper name of a man.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:14

‘And their brothers, mighty men of valour, a hundred and twenty eight, and their

overseer was Zabdiel, the son of Haggedolim.’

And with him came 128 ‘mighty men of valour’ (which supports the idea that they

formed military units), under their officer Zabdiel, the son of Haggedolim. The

priests thus provided Jerusalem with a permanently present force able to help in the

protection of the city, something which they clearly saw as part of their duties.

This is a reminder that all of God’s people are called on to be both servants and

warriors, walking in obedience with His will, and ever ready to defend the truth,

‘always ready to give an answer to all who ask concerning the hope that is in us’ (1

Peter 3:15). We are His servants and engaged in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:10-

18). And we do well if we volunteer to commit ourselves full time to God’s holy city.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:14. Their brethren.—Probably an error for “his

brethren”—that Isaiah, Amashai’s. Their overseer was Zabdiel.—He was pakid (see

on �ehemiah 11:9) of all the priests. He is called son of the mighty ones—a phrase

that seems to denote a remarkable ancestry. The numbers here and in 1 Chronicles

9:13 differ by568. Errors in numbers and in names are almost necessities in

transcribing.

PULPIT, "Their brethren, mighty men of valour. �ot "men of great courage," as

Bp. Patrick explains, but "very able men for the work of the service of the house of

God," as our translators render the parallel passage of Chronicles (1 Chronicles

9:13). Zabdiel, the son of one of the great men. Rather, as in the margin, "the son of

Haggedolim."

15 From the Levites:

Shemaiah son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the

son of Hashabiah, the son of Bunni;

GILL, "Also of the Levites,.... Who dwelt in Jerusalem:

Shemaiah the son of Hashub: traced from him through Azrikam and Hashabiah to Bunni; these were of the sons of Merari, the third son of Levi, see 1Ch_9:14.

K&D 15-19, "Of Levites, Shemaiah, a descendant of Bunni, with the members of his house; Shabbethai and Jozabad, “of the heads of the Levites over the outward business of the house of God,” i.e., two heads of the Levites who had the care of the outward business of the temple, probably charged with the preservation of the building and furniture, and the office of seeing that all things necessary for the temple worship were duly delivered. The names Shabbethai and Jozabad have already occurred, Neh_8:7, as those of two Levites, and are here also personal names of heads of Levites, as the

addition הלו8ם informs us. As the office of these two is stated, so also is that of מראשי

those next following in Neh_11:17; whence it appears that Shemaiah, of whom no such particular is given, was head of the Levites charged with attending on the priests at the

sacrificial worship (the האלהים �ית ,Neh_11:22). The three named in Neh_11:17 ,מלאכת

Mattaniah an Asaphite, Bakbukiah, and Abda a Jeduthunite, are the chiefs of the three

Levitical orders of singers. Mattaniah is called ה>ח;ה head of the beginning, which ,ראש

gives no meaning; and should probably, as in the lxx and Vulgate, be read ה>ה;ה :ראשhead of the songs of praise, - he praised for who praised, i.e., sounded the Hodu for prayer; comp. 1Ch_16:5, where Asaph is called the chief of the band of singers. He is

followed by Bakbukiah as second, that is, leader of the second band (מאחיו ,משנהו like משנה1Ch_16:5); and Abda the Jeduthunite, as leader of the third. All the Levites in the holy city, i.e., all who dwelt in Jerusalem, amounted to two hundred and eighty-four individuals or fathers of families. The number refers only to the three classes named

Neh_11:15-17. For the gatekeepers are separately numbered in Neh_11:19 as one hundred and seventy-two, of the families of Akkub and Talmon.

PETT, "Verses 15-18

Of The Levites (�ehemiah 11:15-18).

A number of Levites also took up permanent residence in Jerusalem in order to aid

its new beginning. They would do so with high hopes.

�ehemiah 11:15

‘And of the Levites:’

�ehemiah 11:15

‘Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, the son of

Bunni,’

Shemaiah apparently had had part time residence in the city (1 Chronicles 9:14).

And the Chronicler tells us that he was of the sons of Merari, one of the three sons

of Levi (1 Chronicles 6:1). �ow he moved into Jerusalem full time.

COFFMA�, "Verse 15

THE LIST OF THE LEVITES �UMBERED 284

"And of the Levites: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of

Hashabiah, the son of Bunni; And Shabbethiah and Jozabad, of the chiefs of the

Levites, who had the oversight of the outward business of the house of God; and

Mattaniah the son of Mica, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, who was the chief to

begin the thanksgiving in prayer, and Bakbukiah the second among his brethren;

and Abda the son of Shammua, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun. And all the

Levites in the holy city were two hundred fourscore and four."

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:15-17. This list of Levites omits the names of Heresh, Galal

and Berechiah, given in 1 Chronicles 9:15-16; but contains the names of Shabbethai

and Jozabad not mentioned there. In this list ( �ehemiah 11:14) we have the son of

Bunni (i.e., Bani, one of the families of Merari), where in 1 Chronicles 9:14 we find

“of the sons of Merari.” Bakbukiah here is Bakbakkar there. Zabdi here is Zichri

there. Abda here is Obadiah there. Of the Levitical chiefs, Shabbethai and Jozabad

had the oversight of the outward business of the house of God.—That Isaiah,

attended to the secular department of service as directors therein (comp. 1

Chronicles 26:29). The principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer.—Literally

“the chief of the beginning gave thanks to prayer.” Some would read tehillah

instead of tehhillah, a most natural correction. We should then have “the chief of

the praise-song [who] gave thanks (as introductory) to prayer.”

PULPIT, "�ehemiah 11:15, �ehemiah 11:16

Also of the Levites: Shemaiah. Compare 1 Chronicles 9:14. Shemaiah was a

descendant of Merari. Together with Shabbethai and Jozabad (1 Chronicles 9:16),

he had the superintendence of the outward business of the house of God; or, in other

words, of its worldly affairs and money matters. As in the Christian Church a

special order was appointed "to serve tables" (Acts 6:2-5), so in the Jewish the

secular business of the temple was intrusted to a few carefully-selected persons of

the inferior order of the ministry, who were known to have a special capacity for

such matters (see 1 Chronicles 26:29).

16 Shabbethai and Jozabad, two of the heads of

the Levites, who had charge of the outside work of

the house of God;

BAR�ES, "Neh_11:16

The outward business of the house of God - Such as the collection of the newly-imposed tax Neh_10:32, the providing of the regular sacrifices, the renewal of vestments, and the like.

CLARKE, "And Shabbethai - This verse, with Neh_11:20, Neh_11:21, Neh_11:28, Neh_11:29, Neh_11:32, Neh_11:33, Neh_11:34, and Neh_11:35, are all wanting in the Septuagint and the whole chapter is wanting in the Arabic, the translator not being concerned in Jewish genealogies.

The outward business - Calmet supposes that he provided the victuals for the priests, victims for the sacrifices, the sacerdotal vestments, the sacred vessels, and other necessaries for the service of the temple.

GILL, "And Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chief of the Levites,.... Along with Shemaiah; these had

the oversight of the outward business of the house of God: who had the care of the repairs of the temple, and of getting in the wood for the altar, as Jarchi, and collecting the third part of the shekel, to purchase things with for the use of the temple.

JAMISO�,"the oversight of the outward business of the house of God —that is, those things which were done outside, or in the country, such as the collecting of

the provisions (1Ch_26:29).

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:16

And Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chiefs of the Levites, who had the oversight of

the outward business of the house of God,’

The non-mention of these by the Chronicler may be as a consequence of the fact that

previously they had not resided in Jerusalem at all, or more likely because they were

appointed after the time of which he wrote. They had become of primary

importance because they had been given oversight of the ‘outward business of the

house of God’ (in contrast with ‘the work of the house’ in �ehemiah 11:12.) This

may indicate their responsibility for oversight of the gathering of the tithes, and, of

course, of the new Temple tax, which would not require their presence in Jerusalem

to any large extent, or it may also indicate responsibility for the outward fabric of

the Temple, which would require their presence when necessary. The names of

Shabbethai and Jozabad have already occurred in �ehemiah 8:7 as those of two

Levites who helped the people to understand the Law.

EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO�ARY, "�ehemiah 11:16

What is the House of God? "A church." �ot necessarily. "A chapel, a sanctuary, a

tabernacle, a temple." �ot necessarily. You may have a cathedral without a house of

God, and you may find in some little thatched cottage or chapel on the hillside all

the cathedrals out of heaven. Hence it is that we must not look at magnitudes, sizes,

revenues, apparatus, but at the ideal, the symbolic, the spiritual, the sacramental;

then the great may become little and the little may become great.

I. What was Jacob"s environment at that time? Churches, chapels, institutions? �ot

one. Yet he was in a walled place, walled in with light, and ministered to by

ascending and descending angels. We must get the house of God and many other

things back from little definitions and narrow and petty localizations, and regard

the universe as God"s house. What was Jacob"s environment? �ature; the green

earth, or the stony wilderness, or the blue heaven, or the rippling brook, or the

flashing stream, each one, every one, all helping to make up a symbolic building.

II. Let us be very careful how we divide things into outward and inward. The time

will come when we shall get rid of even Scriptural uses of outward, alien, strange,

foreign. All these words are doomed to go. "I saw no temple therein," said John.

Why did he not see a temple in heaven? Because heaven was all temple. He who lives

in light does not even see the sun; he who lives in God has no moon, for he has no

night. But men are crafty and expert almost at making little definitions, parties,

separations, and the like.

III. There are persons who have carried their defining powers, if powers they be,

into what are called ecclesiastical matters, so that now we have "The Temporalities"

and "The Spiritualities". What man devised so insane a distinction? There is a

sense, but a very poor, narrow sense not worth considering, in which the work of the

Church may be divided into the temporal and the spiritual, but, properly regarded,

in the spirit of Christ and in the spirit of the Cross, the gift of the poor man"s penny

may be as true an act of worship as the singing of the anthem. There is nothing

secular, or if there is anything that we call secular it is only for momentary

convenience. He that made all things is God; He built the wall of the Church, and

He will take care of the roof; it is His place.

—Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. IV. p117.

17 Mattaniah son of Mika, the son of Zabdi, the

son of Asaph, the director who led in thanksgiving

and prayer; Bakbukiah, second among his

associates; and Abda son of Shammua, the son of

Galal, the son of Jeduthun.

BAR�ES, "Neh_11:17

The principal to begin the thanksgiving - i. e., “the precentor,” or “leader of the choir.”

CLARKE, "The principal to begin the thanksgiving - The precentor, pitcher of the tune, or master-singer.

GILL, "And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph,.... Zabdi is called Zichri in 1Ch_9:15

was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer: he was the precentor, or led the song at the time of the daily sacrifice, in which prayer was also made, as in many of the songs, hymns, and psalms of David:

and Bakbukiah the second among his brethren; he was the next singer, or deputy to Mattaniah; perhaps the same that is called Bakbakkar, 1Ch_9:15

and Abda the son of Shammua; called Obadiah the son of Shemaiah, 1Ch_9:16

the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun: one of the three principal singers.

JAMISO�,"the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer— that is, the leader of the choir which chanted the public praise at the time of the morning and evening sacrifice. That service was always accompanied by some appropriate psalm, the sacred music being selected and guided by the person named.

COKE, "�ehemiah 11:17. Was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer—

Presided over the hymns and praises in prayer. Houbigant.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:17

‘And Mattaniah the son of Mica, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, who was the

chief to begin the thanksgiving in prayer.’

Also now taking up full time residence in the city was Mattaniah, the son of Mica,

the son of Asaph (Asaph was the song leader and musician in the time of David - 1

Chronicles 16:5; 2 Chronicles 5:12). He (either Mattaniah or Asaph, but most

probably Mattaniah, as otherwise why mention him?) had overall responsibility

over aspects of Temple worship including the offering of thanksgiving. He was

‘head of the beginning’ of the thanksgiving in prayer. Presumably it was his

responsibility to initiate the commencement of the musical worship of thanksgiving.

Obadiah, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Jeduthun, mentioned in 1 Chronicles

(Jeduthun was another song leader and musician from the time of David), was

clearly already in full time residence in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:16), and is

therefore not mentioned by �ehemiah. (Alternately, of course, he may have died).

�ehemiah 11:17

‘And Bakbukiah, the second among his brothers, and Abda the son of Shammua,

the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun.’

Bakbukiah is possibly the Bakbakkar of 1 Chronicles 9:15, and if so he changed his

residency from part time to full time. By �ehemiah’s time he was second only to

Mattaniah among the singers. (We can compare how in 1 Chronicles 16:5 the one

who was second to Asaph was also noted). Abda, a prominent Levite and singer (we

know he was prominent because his fuller genealogy is given) also moved full time

to Jerusalem. Heresh, Galal (not Abda’s grandfather who bore the same name) and

possibly Bakbakkar, if not identified as Bakbukiah, were already permanent

residents in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:15). Berechiah the son of Asa continued

dwelling part time in the villages of the �etophathites (1 Chronicles 9:16).

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:17 And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, the

son of Asaph, [was] the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer: and

Bakbukiah the second among his brethren, and Abda the son of Shammua, the son

of Galal, the son of Jeduthun.

Ver. 17. To begin the thanksgiving in prayer] To set tunes to psalms of praise, and

to begin those tunes, as precentor, chief chanter.

18 The Levites in the holy city totaled 284.

GILL, "All the Levites in the holy city were two hundred fourscore and four.Who had their residence there, Neh_11:1.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:18

‘All the Levites in the holy city were two hundred and eighty four.’

Altogether there were now 284 Levites who were newly and permanently resident in

Jerusalem, ‘the holy city’, and these no doubt included singers as such are

mentioned above. They had great hopes for the future.

TRAPP, "Verse 18-19

�ehemiah 11:18 All the Levites in the holy city [were] two hundred fourscore and

four.

�ehemiah 11:19 Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren that

kept the gates, [were] an hundred seventy and two.

Ver. 18, 19. See �ehemiah 11:12-13.

19 The gatekeepers:

Akkub, Talmon and their associates, who kept

watch at the gates—172 men.

GILL, "Moreover, the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren that kept the gates, were one hundred and seventy two. Of whom see 1Ch_9:17.

PETT, "Verse 19-20

The Gate-keepers (�ehemiah 11:19).

The mention of the gate-keepers separately from the Levites does not necessarily

mean that the gate-keepers were not seen as Levites. Only that they had a special

role. Indeed �ehemiah 11:20 suggests that they were seen as Levites (they are not

there mentioned separately from the Levites). 1 Chronicles 9:26 agrees. �ehemiah

gives us minimal information about the gate-keepers, compared with 1 Chronicles

9:17-29.

In some ways the title gate-keepers gives a wrong impression. These men did not

just watch the gates. They held a position of trust and had responsibility for the

treasury and the chambers in the Temple (1 Chronicles 9:26), as well as the

furniture and worship accessories (fine flour, wine, oil, frankincense and spices - 1

Chronicles 9:29). They had overall responsibility for the security of the Temple

area.

�ehemiah 11:19

‘Moreover the gatekeepers, Akkub, Talmon, and their brothers, who kept watch at

the gates, were a hundred and seventy two.’

Many of the gate-keepers had had part time residence in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles

9:22; 1 Chronicles 9:25 mentions the fact that many of the gate-keepers lived in

villages and came into Jerusalem to perform their duties). �ow these 172 came to

reside there full time, under the leadership of Akkub and Talmon, in order to make

their contribution towards the permanent safety of the holy city. Shallum, the chief

gate-keeper, and Ahiman, already dwelt full time in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 9:17; 1

Chronicles 9:19).

COFFMA�, "Verse 19

THE PORTERS A�D GATEKEEPERS �UMBERED 172

"Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, that kept watch at the

gates were a hundred seventy and two. And the residue of Israel, of the priests, the

Levites, were in all the cities of Judah, every one in his inheritance. But the

�ethinim dwelt in Ophel: and Ziha and Gishpa were over the �ethinim."

The total number of the men living in the holy city is thus numbered at 3,044, not

including women and children, nor the �ethinim. Whitcomb also gave this number

as 3,044.[7] Ophel was indeed part of the holy city, having a wall of its own; and it

was sometimes counted in, sometimes counted out of the city, as here. "These were

augmented by a 10% levy drawn from the surrounding areas, and an unspecified

number of volunteers (�ehemiah 11:2)."[8]

Scholars disagree on the exact meaning of �ehemiah 11:1. Some take it, as did

Whitcomb, to mean that the population was readjusted, so that ten percent of the

returnees lived in the city, and ninety percent in the Outlying areas. If so

interpreted, it would mean that, "The population of Judea had increased

considerably during the previous century; because the 50,000 who returned with

Zerubbabel from Babylon included women and children."[9] The approximately

3,000 men in Jerusalem before this adjustment took place would mean that there

were 30,000 Jewish men then living in Palestine, besides women and children. At a

ratio of four to one, this would make the number of Israelites then in Judea about

120,000. Keil, however, wrote that, "The passage can have no other meaning, but

that the population of Jerusalem was increased by a 10% fraction of the population

living outside the city."[10] He admitted, however, that, "The statement, taken by

itself, is very brief, and its connection with �ehemiah 7:5 not very evident."[11]

ELLICOTT, "(19) An hundred seventy and two.—In 1 Chronicles 9 the number is

212. The difference between the two accounts may partly be explained by the fact

that in the Chronicles the list is confined to those who came with Zerubbabel, while

here addition is made of those who came with Ezra. But see the commentary on 1

Chronicles 9.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:19. Akkub, Talmon.—The list in 1 Chronicles9 adds

Shallum (as chief of all) and Ahiman, and makes the number 212 instead of172. The

account in 1 Chron. is much more extended on this matter of the porters, thus

showing that this record (as is that also) is but a fragment of an older document.

Both copies have been marred in the transcribing.

20 The rest of the Israelites, with the priests and

Levites, were in all the towns of Judah, each on

their ancestral property.

BAR�ES, "The returned community, though consisting mainly of members of the two tribes, represented the entire people of Israel. The ground, however, which they occupied, was not the whole land, but that which had constituted the kingdom of Judah.

GILL, "And the residue of Israel, of the priests and the Levites,..... All of them, besides those that dwelt at Jerusalem: were

in all the cities of Judah, everyone in his inheritance; the Israelites in the cities, houses, and estates enjoyed by their ancestors, and the priests and Levites in the cities given out of the several tribes.

HE�RY 20-36, "Having given an account of the principal persons that dwelt in Jerusalem (a larger account of whom he had before, 1Ch_9:2, etc.), Nehemiah, in these verses, gives us some account of the other cities, in which dwelt the residue of Israel,Neh_11:20. It was requisite that Jerusalem should be replenished, yet not so as to drain the country. The king himself is served of the field, which will do little service if there be not hands to manage it. Let there therefore be no strife, no envy, no contempt, no ill will, between the inhabitants of the cities and those of the villages; both are needful, both useful, and neither can be spared. 1. The Nethinims, the posterity of the Gibeonites, dwelt in Ophel, which was upon the wall of Jerusalem (Neh_3:26), because they were to do the servile work of the temple, which therefore they must be posted near to, that they might be ready to attend, Neh_11:21. 2. Though the Levites were dispersed through the cities of Judah, yet they had an overseer who resided in Jerusalem, superior of their order and their provincial, to whom they applied for direction, who took care of their affairs and took cognizance of their conduct, whether they did their duty, Neh_11:22. 3. Some of the singers were appointed to look after the necessary repairs of the temple, being ingenious men, and having leisure between their hours of service; they were over the business of the house of God, Neh_11:22. And, it seems, the king of Persia had such a kindness for their office that he allotted a particular maintenance for them, besides what belonged to them as Levites, Neh_11:23. 4. Here is one that was the king's commissioner at Jerusalem. He was of the posterity of Zerah (Neh_11:24); for of that family of Judah there were some new settled in Jerusalem, and not all of Pharez, as appears by that other catalogue, 1Ch_9:6. He is said to be at the king's hand, or on the king's part, in all matters concerning the people, to determine controversies that arose between the king's officers and his subjects, to see that what was due to the king from the people was duly paid in and what was allowed by the king for the temple service was duly paid out, and happy it was for the Jews that one of themselves was in this post. 5. Here is an account of the villages, or country towns, which were inhabited by the residue of Israel - the towns in which the children of Judah dwelt (Neh_11:25-30), those that were inhabited by the children of Benjamin (Neh_11:31-35), and divisions for the Levites among both, Neh_11:36. We will now suppose them safe and easy, though few and poor, but by the blessing of God they were likely to increase in wealth and power, and they would have been more likely if there had not been that general profaneness among them, and lukewarmness in religion, with which they were charged in God's name by the prophet Malachi, who, it is supposed, prophesied about this time, and in whom prophecy ceased for some ages, till it revived in the great prophet and his forerunner.

K&D, "Certain special remarks follow in Neh_11:20. - Neh_11:20 states that the rest of the Israelites, priests, and Levites dwelt in all the (other) cities of Judah, each in his inheritance. These cities are enumerated in Neh_11:25.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:20

‘And the residue of Israel, of the priests, the Levites, were in all the cities of Judah,

every one in his inheritance.’

This still left a residue, which included priests and Levites, living in the all the cities

of Judah. We have learned earlier that this residue consisted of nine tenths of the

men of Judah. We were not told what proportion of the priests and Levites resided

there, but they were among the people as God’s representatives, teaching and

guiding, and watching over the collection of tithes. This summary in �ehemiah

11:20 possibly ended the record from which this information was taken, unless we

include �ehemiah 11:21. On the other hand what follows in �ehemiah 11:25

onwards expands on this verse (and on �ehemiah 11:3), and we must beware of

applying what conforms to the modern mind with the methods of ancient writers.

They may well not have been so systematic.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:20 And the residue of Israel, of the priests, [and] the Levites,

[were] in all the cities of Judah, every one in his inheritance.

Ver. 20. Were in all the cities] Dispersed abroad to instruct the people, and to be as

the salt of the earth, to keep it from putrifying.

21 The temple servants lived on the hill of Ophel,

and Ziha and Gishpa were in charge of them.

BAR�ES, "Ophel, the southern spur of the temple hill, having a wall of its own Neh_3:27 might be reckoned either in Jerusalem or outside it. Here it is made a separate place.

GILL, "But the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel,.... An high place or tower on the wall of Jerusalem, see 2Ch_27:3,

and Ziha, and Gispa, were over the Nethinims; had the oversight of them, and took care that they did their work; they were such themselves, but the principal of them, see Ezr_2:43.

K&D, "Neh_11:21

The Nethinim dwelt in Ophel, the southern slope of Mount Moriah; see rem. on Neh_

3:26. Their chiefs were Zihah and Gispa. ציחה occurs Ezr_2:43, followed by חשופא, as head of a division of Levites; whence Bertheau tries, but unsuccessfully, to identify the

latter name with ש@אA. For it does not follow that, because a division of Nethinim was

descended from Hasupha, that Gishpa, one of the chiefs of those Nethinim who dwelt on Ophel, must be the same individual as this Hasupha.

PETT, "Verse 21

The �ethinim (�ehemiah 11:21).

We already know from �ehemiah 3:26; �ehemiah 3:31 that the �ethinim (given

ones) dwelt in the Ophel. They were lower level Temple servants previously given by

the kings for Temple service. They had probably largely been taken as prisoners of

war, but were now fully integrated into Israel, and appeared to take pride in their

status, as is demonstrated by the number who returned from Exile (�ehemiah 7:60).

We must remember that they chose to return.

Apart from 1 Chronicles 9:2 they are not mentioned outside Ezra-�ehemiah, and 1

Chronicles, having there mentioned them, ignores them completely. They were thus

clearly not highly regarded by the elite. Their already having residence in Jerusalem

is why some see this as an added note, and not an integral part of �ehemiah 11:1-20.

If they already dwelt in Jerusalem we would not have expected them to be included

in a list of those who now took up residence. It could then be seen as simply adding

to the picture. On the other hand it is possible that many �ethinim had resided

outside Jerusalem (see 1 Chronicles 9:2 which may suggest so), in which case this is

evidencing their change of residence also.

�ehemiah 11:21

‘But the �ethinim dwelt in Ophel. And Ziha and Gishpa were over the �ethinim.’

The Temple servants necessarily lived near the Temple. They lived on the Ophel,

probably on the eastern or southern slope of the Temple Mount. They were under

the leadership of Ziha and Gishpa. But some may previously have lived outside

Jerusalem, coming in and temporarily residing when it was time for them to

perform their duties. All now seemingly moved into Jerusalem permanently.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:21 But the �ethinims dwelt in Ophel: and Ziha and Gispa

[were] over the �ethinims.

Ver. 21. Dwelt in Ophel] See �ehemiah 3:26. Some will have it to be not a tower, but

a village, near to Jerusalem.

22 The chief officer of the Levites in Jerusalem

was Uzzi son of Bani, the son of Hashabiah, the

son of Mattaniah, the son of Mika. Uzzi was one of

Asaph’s descendants, who were the musicians

responsible for the service of the house of God.

BAR�ES, "The business intended was probably the internal business, as distinct from the “outward business” Neh_11:16 : a part of which was the apportionment of the royal bounty among the members of the choir Neh_11:23.

CLARKE, "The overseer also of the Levites - pekid, the visitant, the פקיד

inspector; translated επισκοπος, bishop, both by the Septuagint and Vulgate.

GILL, "The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi, the son of Bani,.... He was the supervisor of them, that looked after them that they did their work in ministering to the priests, as they had occasion for them; this man's genealogy is further traced through Hashabiah and Mattaniah, to Micha the son of Asaph, Neh_11:17,

of the sons of Asaph, the singers were over the business of the house of God; which, according to Jarchi, was to take care of the repairs of the temple and other things; but one would think rather that part of the service of the house which lay in singing the songs of it is respected.

JAMISO�,"the sons of Asaph, the singers were over the business of the house of God — They were selected to take charge of providing those things which were required for the interior of the temple and its service, while to others was committed the care of the “outward business of the house of God” (Neh_11:16). This duty was very properly assigned to the sons of Asaph; for, though they were Levites, they did not repair in rotation to Jerusalem, as the other ministers of religion. Being permanent residents, and employed in duties which were comparatively light and easy, they were very competent to undertake this charge.

K&D 22=23, "Neh_11:22-23

And the overseer (chief) of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi, the son of Bani, of the

sons of Asaph, the singers, in the business of the house of God. The מלאכה of the house of

God was the duty of the Levites of the house of Shemaiah, Neh_11:15. Hence the remark in the present verse is supplementary to Neh_11:15. The chiefs or presidents of the two other divisions of Levites - of those to whom the outward business was entrusted, and of the singers - are named in Neh_11:16 and Neh_11:17; while, in the case of those entrusted with the business of the house of God, Neh_11:15, the chiefs are not named, probably because they were over the singers, the sons of Asaph, who in Neh_11:15 had

not as yet been named. This is therefore done afterwards in Neh_11:22. מלאכת ,לנגדcoram opere, i.e., circa ea negotia, quae coram in templo exigenda erant (Burm. in

Ramb.), does not belong to ה�שררים, but to הלו8ם Uzzi was overseer of the Levites in :@קיד

respect of their business in the house of God, i.e., of those Levites who had the charge of this business. The reason of this is thus given in Neh_11:23 : “for a command of the king was over them, and an ordinance was over the singers concerning the matter of every

day.” עליהם refers to the Levites. “A command of the king was over them” means: the

king had commanded them. This command was concerning �יומו יום the matter of ,�בר

every day. The words stand at the end of the verse, because they refer to the two subjects

is an arrangement depending upon mutual agreement, a treaty, an אמנה .אמנה and ה�לך&

obligation entered into by agreement; comp. Neh_10:1. The meaning of the verse is: The every-day matter was laid upon the Levites by the command of the king, upon the

singers by an agreement entered into. �יומו יום pensum quotidianum, is correctly ,�בר

explained by Schmid: de rebus necessariis in singulos dies. That we are not to understand thereby the contribution for every day, the rations of food (Ramb., Berth.), but the duty to be done on each day, is obvious from the context, in which not provisions, but the business of the Levites, is spoken of; and Uzzi the Asaphite was placed over the Levites in respect of their business in the house of God, and not in respect of food and drink. The business of the Levites in the house of God was determined by the command of the king; the business of the singers, on the contrary, especially that one of the singers should exercise a supervision over the services of the

Levites in worship, was made the matter of an אמנה, an agreement entered into among

themselves by the different divisions of Levites. The king is not David, who once regulated the services of the Levites (1Ch_23:4.), but the Persian king Artaxerxes, who is

mentioned as &ה�לך in Neh_11:24; and &ה�לך undoubtedly refers to the full power מצות

bestowed by Artaxerxes upon Ezra to order all that concerned the worship of God at Jerusalem; Ezr_7:12.

BE�SO�, "�ehemiah 11:22. The sons of Asaph were over the business of the house

of God — Were to take care at Jerusalem for the supply of such things as were

necessary for the temple and the service of God, from time to time, while others

minded the outward business, �ehemiah 11:16. And this office was very proper for

them, both as they were Levites, to whose care those things belonged; and as they

were singers, who were not to come up to Jerusalem by turns, as other Levites, and

as the priests did, but were constantly to reside there, and therefore were more

capable of minding this business. Besides, their employment was not so frequent nor

so great as some others were, and therefore they had more leisure for it.

PETT, "Verses 22-24

Extra Details Concerning The Singers/Musicians (�ehemiah 11:22-24).

The singers/musicians have already been mentioned in �ehemiah 11:17. �ow

further details are given concerning them.

�ehemiah 11:22

‘The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, the son of

Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Mica, of the sons of Asaph, the singers,

over the business of the house of God.’

Head over the singers/musicians was Uzzi, a ‘son of Asaph’. Asaph was the chief

musician in David’s day (1 Chronicles 16:5). Uzzi, along with his fellow-musicians,

had responsibility for the use of music in the worship in the Temple. His pedigree,

which is listed, was impeccable.

COFFMA�, "Verse 22

ARTAXERXES SUPPORTED THE LEVITES

"The overseer also of the Levites in Jerusalem was Uzzi, the son of Bani, the son of

Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Mica, of the sons of Asaph, the singers,

over the business of the house of God. For there was a commandment from the king

concerning them, and a settled provision for the singers, as every day required. And

Pethahiah the son of Meshezabel, of the children of Zerah the son of Judah, was at

the king's hand in all matters concerning the people."

Artaxerxes was indeed a friend of Israel; and here we find that he had allotted a

regular payment for the Levites and singers. He had already exempted them from

all tolls, tribute, custom and taxes of every kind (Ezra 7:24); and his cooperation

with both Ezra and �ehemiah in all of the things done for the Chosen People is the

sine qua non of everything in both of these Biblical books. "�ow he had even gone

further and assigned an allotment from the royal revenue for the support of the

persons mentioned here."[12] It is also of interest that the king showed in this action

a definite preference for the Levites, as compared with the priests. Artaxerxes was

probably aware of the general corruption of the priesthood, a corruption that

merited and received a curse from Almighty God Himself (Malachi 2:2) because of

their detestable immorality. The king must have been aware that, if any prayers

were to be offered for, "the king and his sons" (Ezra 6:10), the Levites, not the

priests, would be the ones who did it.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:22 The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem [was] Uzzi

the son of Bani, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micha. Of

the sons of Asaph, the singers [were] over the business of the house of God.

Ver. 22. The overseer] The Vulgate has it, the bishop.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:22. The pakid (see on �ehemiah 11:9)all the Levites,

including the �ethinim, was Uzzi. The last clause should read: The singers of the

sons of Asaph (or some of the sons of Asaph, the singers,—see same construction in

�ehemiah 11:25) were over the business of the house of God. This “business” is not

the “outward business” of �ehemiah 11:16. If (with Keil) we disregard the Athnahh,

we may consider Uzzi’s pedigree as going on in this last clause, thus: “the son of

Micha, of the sons of Asaph the singers in the service of the house of God.” In this

case the parallel with �ehemiah 11:17 would be striking. There may be an omission

in that verse before Mattaniah, and this Uzzi may be the first of the three leading

singers—Bakbukiah and Abda being the other two. But see next note.

PULPIT, "Properly, the whole of this verse forms a single sentence, and should run

as follows:—"And the overseer of the Levites in Jerusalem, Huzzi, the son of Bani,

the son of Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micha, of the sons of Asaph

the singers, was over the business of the house of God." As Shabbethai and Jozabad

"had the oversight of the outward business" (�ehemiah 11:16), so the internal

business was under the superintendence of Huzzi, or Uzzi. Uzzi appears as taking

part in the dedication of the wall (�ehemiah 12:42).

23 The musicians were under the king’s orders,

which regulated their daily activity.

BAR�ES, "The goodwill of Artaxerxes toward the ministers employed in the temple service, had been previously shown by his exempting them from taxation of every kind Ezr_7:24. Now, it would seem, he had gone further and assigned to the singers an allowance from the royal revenue.

CLARKE, "It was the king’s commandment - By the king some understand David, and others

Artaxerxes. It is most probable that it was the latter; who wished that a provision should be made for these, a part of whose office was to offer up prayers also, as well as praises. For we know that Darius made an ample provision for the priests, that they might offer sacrifices of sweet savor unto the God of heaven; and pray for the life of the king and of his sons, Ezr_6:10. Some have thought that they had been Jewish singers employed in the service of the Persian king, to whom he had given a salary, and to whom he wished still to continue the same.

GILL, "For it was the king's commandment concerning them,.... Either of King David as some, see Neh_12:24 or rather of the king of Persia:

that a certain portion should be for the singers, due for every day; he settled a daily salary for them, to be paid out of his treasury; having perhaps a peculiar respect for such sort of men, being a lover of music, by means of which they had a settled habitation in Jerusalem.

JAMISO�,"it was the king’s commandment — It was the will of the Persian monarch in issuing his edict that the temple service should be revived in all its religious fullness and solemnity. As this special provision for the singers is said to have been by the king’s commandment, the order was probably given at the request or suggestion of Ezra or Nehemiah.

COKE, "�ehemiah 11:23. It was the king's commandment, &c.— 1:e. As it is

generally thought, the commandment of the king of Persia, who, out of his great

munificence, gave it for their better support; it being common in all countries to

have a particular regard for those who sung hymns in praise of their gods.

Houbigant renders the words, was at the king's hand, in the next verse, was the

king's minister.

REFLECTIO�S.—1st, Jerusalem, the holy city, though now walled, and the temple

service carried on, was but thinly inhabited. �ote; (1.) The fear of man deters many

from dwelling in the holy city. (2.) Selfish ends and private advantages are generally

more powerful inducements than God's glory, and the interests of his church and

people. To remedy this evil, we have the steps taken to replenish it with inhabitants.

1. The rulers of the people, with their families and attendants, fixed there, as the

duty of their office required, and as an encouragement to others to follow their

example. �ote; (1.) They whom God distinguishes with honour should distinguish

themselves by zeal for his cause. (2.) A great and good example is very prevalent.

2. Many voluntarily offered themselves, and received the deserved commendations

of their brethren, who could not but praise that generous self-denial which they

cared not to imitate. �ote; (1.) Many more will commend what is excellent than copy

it. (2.) They who, for God's glory, forego their own advantage, shall never lose their

reward.

BE�SO�, "�ehemiah 11:23. It was the king’s commandment, &c. — That is, as it is

generally thought, the commandment of the king of Persia, who, out of his great

munificence, gave it for their better support, it being common in all countries to

have a particular regard for those who sung hymns in praise of their gods.

Houbigant renders the words, was at the king’s hand, in the next verse, was the

king’s minister.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:23

‘For there was a commandment from the king concerning them, and a settled

provision for the singers, as every day required.’

If we translate like this these singers were maintained by the Persian royal house,

‘as every day required’. The king’s expectation would thus be that thereby God

would be pleased and would bless the Persian kings. We can compare how they were

also relieved from taxes (Ezra 7:24). The Persian kings went to great lengths to keep

on the right side of the gods.

However, it may be translated ‘the command of the king was over them in the

matters of every day’. It may therefor relate, not to provisioning, but to the duties

required of them by the king as part of their worship, including the duty to

intercede on behalf of him and his sons (see Ezra 6:10).

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:23 For [it was] the king’s commandment concerning them,

that a certain portion should be for the singers, due for every day.

Ver. 23. The king’s] viz. Of Persia, Ezra 6:8-9; Ezra 7:2; Ezra 7:24.

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:23. Read: for it was the king’s commandment concerning

them and a sure ordinance for the singers for each day’s duty (lit. “the thing of a

day on its day”). Uzzi was pakid of the Levites generally, but the Asaphites took

turns in directing the Levitical work. This 23 d verse—making the singers (in the

plural) the main subject, seems to show that our E. V. is right in stopping Uzzi’s

genealogy (in �ehemiah 11:22) at Micha, and then beginning a new passage. The

Masorites took this view, as the Athnahh with Micha shows. There is probably some

confusion between �ehemiah 11:22 and �ehemiah 11:15; �ehemiah 11:17, if we

may judge from the names. Compare the passage in 1 Chronicles9.

PULPIT, "For it was the king's commandment concerning them. Artaxerxes, it

appears, had assigned a certain stipend from the royal revenue for the support of

such Levites as were singers, and this stipend had to be paid to them day by day. It

is suggested as the grounds for this special favour—

1. That the Levites engaged in the choral service were regarded as those especially

who prayed "for the life of the king and of his sons" (Ezra 6:10); and,

2. That the singing Levites who returned from Babylon, being so few in number

(128), had to be constantly on duty in the temple, and so needed a regular daily

stipend. The nexus of this verse with the preceding one imp!ice that the payment in

question was an important part of the internal business of the house committed to

Uzzi.

24 Pethahiah son of Meshezabel, one of the

descendants of Zerah son of Judah, was the king’s

agent in all affairs relating to the people.

BAR�ES, "It is difficult to say what office Pethahiah filled. So far as we know, the only regular officers under the Persian system of government were the satrap, the subsatrap, the permanent royal secretary, the commandant, and the occasional commissary.

CLARKE, "Pethahiah - was at the king’s hand - He was the governor appointed by the Persian king over the Jewish nation in those matters in which the civil government interfered with Jewish concerns. He no doubt fixed, levied, and received the tribute.

GILL, "And Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel, of the children of Zerah, the son of Judah,.... The twin brother of Pharez, Gen_38:30 was

at the king's hand in all matters concerning the people; to speak for them to the king, as Jarchi; when they had a favour to ask of him, a petition to present to him, he delivered it for them, and by him the king returned the answer.

JAMISO�,"Pethahiah ... was at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people — This person was entrusted with judicial power, either for the interest, or by the appointment, of the Persian monarch, and his duty consisted either in adjusting cases of civil dispute, or in regulating fiscal concerns.

K&D, "Neh_11:24

Finally, the official is named who had to transact with the king the affairs of the people, i.e., of the whole Jewish community in Judah and Jerusalem. Pethahiah, a Jew of the descendants of Zerah, was at the king's hand in all matters concerning the people.

ה�לך& can scarcely be understood of a royal commissioner at Jerusalem, but certainly ליד

designates an official transacting the affairs of the Jewish community at the hand of the king, at his court.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:24

‘And Pethahiah the son of Meshezabel, of the sons of Zerah the son of Judah, was at

the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people.’

The kings of Persia took an interest in the religious affairs of their subjects (they

wanted to ensure that their gods would honour the Persian royal family) and

therefore had to hand a representative for Jewish affairs, at this time one named

Pethahiah, who presumably lived at the Persian court but maintained a close watch

on Jewish affairs on the king’s behalf.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:24 And Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel, of the children of

Zerah the son of Judah, [was] at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the

people.

Ver. 24. At the king’s hand] Was his plenipotentiary. {Invested with full power, esp.

as the deputy, representative, or envoy of a sovereign ruler; exercising absolute

power or authority.}

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:24. Pethahiah of the Zerahites (or Zarhites) was at the hand

of the king.—This does not mean that he was at Susa, but that he was the king’s

special agent. Comp. 1 Chronicles 23:28, where the Levites are said to be at the

hand of the sons of Aaron. Pethahiah’s office may have taken him often to Susa, and

he would thus be the go-between between the king and �ehemiah.

PULPIT, "Pethahiah … of the children of Zerah. We have here an indication of the

imperfection of the preceding catalogue, which has mentioned no descendants of

Zerah among the Jews dwelling in Jerusalem, but made them all sons of Perez

(�ehemiah 11:6). As already observed, a verse equivalent to 1 Chronicles 6:9 must

have fallen out between 1 Chronicles 6:6 and 1 Chronicles 6:7 of this chapter. The

exact office borne by Pethahiah cannot be determined; but he evidently held a

confidential position, which made him an intermediary for certain purposes

between the Persian king and the Jewish people. Perhaps he received and forwarded

petitions and complaints.

25 As for the villages with their fields, some of the

people of Judah lived in Kiriath Arba and its

surrounding settlements, in Dibon and its

settlements, in Jekabzeel and its villages,

BAR�ES, "Kirjath-arba - i. e., Hebron. In the absence of the Hebrews during the captivity, the place had recovered its old name Jos_15:13.

GILL 15-30, "And for the villages, with their fields,.... The cities and villages in the country, an account of the inhabitants of them next follows:

some of the children of Judah dwelt at Kirjatharba, and in the villages thereof; the same with Hebron, Jos_15:54

and at Dibon; the same with Dimonah, Jos_15:22

and at Jekabzeel, and in the villages thereof; the same with Kabzeel, one of the uttermost cities of the tribe of Judah southward, Jos_15:21, of which city was Benaiah, one of David's worthies, 2Sa_23:20, from hence to the end of Neh_11:30 mention is made of various cities and towns, in the tribe of Judah, inhabited by the men of it, which are to be met with in Jos_15:1 excepting Jeshua and Mekonah, Neh_11:26, of which we nowhere else read.

JAMISO�,"some of the children of Judah dwelt at Kirjath-arba — The whole region in which the villages here mentioned were situated had been completely devastated by the Chaldean invasion; and, therefore, it must be assumed, that these villages had been rebuilt before “the children dwelt in them.”

K&D, "The inhabitants of the towns of Judah and Benjamin. - The heads who, with their houses, inhabited country districts are here no longer enumerated, but only the towns, with their adjacent neighbourhoods, which were inhabited by Jews and Benjamites; and even these are but summarily mentioned.

Neh_11:25-30

The districts inhabited by the children of Judah. “And with respect to the towns in their fields, there dwelt of the sons of Judah in Kirjath-arba and its daughters,” etc. The

use of אל as an introductory or emphatic particle is peculiar to this passage, &ל&,egassap

being elsewhere customary in this sense; comp. Ew. §310, a. אל denotes a respect to

something. חצרים, properly enclosures, signifies, according to Lev_25:31, villages, towns,

boroughs, without walls. שדות, fields, field boundaries. &�נותיה, the villages and estates

belonging to a town; as frequently in the lists of towns in the book of Joshua. Kirjath-

arba is Hebron, Gen_23:2. Jekabzeel, like Kabzeel, Jos_15:21. &חצריה, its enclosed places,

the estates belonging to a town, as in Jos_15:45. Jeshua, mentioned only here, and unknown. Moladah and Beth-phelet, Jos_15:26-27. Hazar-shual, i.e., Fox-court, probably to be sought for in the ruins of Thaly; see rem. on Jos_15:28. Beersheba, now Bir es Seba; see rem. on Gen_21:31. Ziklag, at the ancient Asluj, see Jos_15:31. Mekonah, mentioned only here, and unknown. En-rimmon; see rem. on 1Ch_4:32. Zareah, Jarmuth, Zanoah, and Adullam in the plains (see Jos_15:33-35), where were also Lachish and Azekah; see on 2Ch_11:9. - In Neh_11:30 the whole region then inhabited by Jews is comprised in the words: “And they dwelt from Beer-sheba (the south-western boundary of Canaan) to the valley of Hinnom, in Jerusalem,” through which ran the boundaries of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos_15:8).

PETT, "Verse 25

Towns In The Former Judean Uplands (�ehemiah 11:25).

These towns in the former Judean uplands were on the whole outside the Persian

Province of Judah, but had seemingly been resettled by the returnees. This is in no

way an attempt to list all the towns in Judah. Rather the aim was to indicate how

widespread God’s people were throughout the ancient land.

�ehemiah 11:25

‘And as for the villages, with their fields, some of the children of Judah dwelt in

Kiriath-arba and its towns, and in Dibon and its towns, and in Jekabzeel and its

villages,

‘As for the villages, with their fields.’ Probably better translated ‘as for the towns

with their surrounding countryside.’ ‘Kiriath-arba and its towns’ indicated Hebron

and its satellite towns (Judges 1:10), and by this time the area was at least partly

Idumaean. The Edomites had occupied a southern Judah devastated by the

Babyonian invasion, as they fled from the Arab invasion of Edom. Dibon is

unknown, but is possibly the Dimonah of Joshua 15:22. Jekabzeel was probably

south of Hebron in the �egeb, and so clearly in ‘foreign’ territory (that is, outside

the Persian province of Judah). It is clear, therefore, that in order to take up

residence in their native cities, some Jews had taken up residence outside of the

Persian province of Judah, in cities which contained Jewish inhabitants who had not

been much affected by the Exile.

Verses 25-30

The Dwellingplaces Of The Children Of Judah Outside Jerusalem (�ehemiah

11:25-30).

Meanwhile, as �ehemiah 11:20 tells us, ‘the residue of Israel, of the priests and the

Levites, were all in the cities of Judah, every one in his inheritance.’ We are now

therefore given details of some of these, demonstrating that they have again taken

up God’s inheritance. They had not, of course, returned to an empty land. The poor

of the land, who had been left behind by the Babylonians, and would have been

numerous, would have taken possession of these cities (Jeremiah 39:10); as would

Jews who returned, having fled before the invasion (Jeremiah 40:11), together with

others who were taking advantage of an empty land, whilst most of southern Judah

had been occupied by the Edomites as they fled from the invading Arabs. It would

appear also that the �egeb still retained a substantial Judean population. Thus

there was a good sprinkling of Jews throughout ancient Judah, although in many

cases a lack of leadership. The returnees had settled among all these peoples.

It should be noted that this is not a comprehensive list of Judean cities. Bethlehem,

for example, is not mentioned. It is rather intended to indicate the widespread

nature of the land occupied by the returnees, and it is significant that a considerable

number of the towns were outside the Province of Judah (Persian version). The first

to be mentioned are ‘the people of Judah’. They ‘encamped’ from Beer-sheba in the

extreme south, to the Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem (compare Joshua 15:8). The

use of the verb is interesting. It suggests either the newness of their arrival, or that

they were like ancient Israel who ‘encamped’ around the Tabernacle. But the

overall aim appears to be to indicate that God’s people once more occupied the

whole of God’s land, not just the Persian province of Judah (Yehud). Beersheba, for

example, was in the �egeb, well outside the province of Judah. Thus it is apparent

that some of the returning Jews had settled outside the province of Judah, and yet

were seen as a part of the revived people of God.

The use of the word ‘encamped (dwelt in tents)’ may well be intended to connect

this description back to the wilderness period, when Israel literally all dwelt in tents.

(�ote how elsewhere the command for Israelite soldiers to return home is in terms

of ‘return to your tents’ e.g. 2 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings 12:16; Judges 7:8). It was as

though they were again encamped around God’s sanctuary, as they had been of old

(�umbers 1-2). Behind the word may be a desire to emphasise that they were taking

part in a new Exodus, seeing themselves as encamped and travelling towards the

establishment of the kingdom of God, with ‘the holy city’ as its fulcrum. This would

especially be so as many of the returnees were dwelling outside contemporary Judah

(i.e. the Persian province). Or it may be that they saw Judah as encamped around

the holy city, in the same way as in �umbers 1-2 the tribes encamped around the

Tabernacle. (Such ideas recurred later at Qumran).

The impression of partaking in a new Exodus with a view to the establishment of the

new kingdom of God is possibly brought out by the fact that certain cities are

selected and listed very much as in the Book of Joshua, even using ancient names.

Possibly it was seen as a new ‘conquest’. We must not, however, assume too much

for there are far more names mentioned in the Book of Joshua than are mentioned

here, and the Benjamite towns mentioned later are not on the whole mentioned by

Joshua. On the other hand the ancient names may have deliberately been taken up

by the returnees with this in mind. Consider how Kiriath-arba, the ancient name for

Hebron, is used. The name may well have been revived by the returnees in order to

emphasise their ancient roots.

The towns are listed in three groups which we may roughly see as:

· Towns in the former Judean uplands (�ehemiah 11:25).

· Towns in and around the �egeb ( �ehemiah 11:26-29 a).

· Towns in the Shephelah (�ehemiah 11:29-30).

The purpose is seemingly in order to indicate that Judah had been reoccupied as it

was of yore. It is giving an impression of comprehensiveness, ignoring the fact that

much of southern Judah was now occupied by the Edomites.

COFFMA�, "Verse 25

A ROSTER OF TOW�S A�D VILLAGES �EAR JERUSALEM

"And as for the villages, with their fields, some of the children of Judah dwelt in

Kireath-arba and the towns thereof, and in Dihon and the towns thereof, and in

Jekabzeel and the villages thereof, and in Jeshua, Moladah, and Beth-pelet, and in

Hazar-shual and in Beer-sheba and the towns thereof, and in Ziklag and in

Meconah and in the towns thereof, and in En-rimmon, and in Zorah, and in

Jarmuth, Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and the fields thereof,

Azekah and the towns thereof. So they encamped from Beer-sheba unto the valley of

Hinnom. The children of Benjamin also dwelt from Geba onward, at Michmash and

Aija, and at Beth-el and the towns thereof, at Anathoth, �ob, Ananiah, Hazer,

Ramah, Gittaim, Hadid, Zeboim, �eballat, Lod, and Ono, the valley of craftsmen.

And of the Levites, certain courses in Judah were joined to Bethlehem."

There is hardly a place-name in this list that is not loaded with many associations

concerning events and persons mentioned in the long history of Israel; and it is

impossible to note all of such connections here. Kiriath-arba, for example is Hebron;

but during the long absence of Israel, it had again become known by its ancient

name. As Hebron, it was one of the cities of Refuge; Ziklag is the city that the king

of Gath gave to David; Anathoth was the home of Jeremiah; �ob is where Saul

murdered the priests; Adullam was noted for a nearby cave where David was a

fugitive from Saul; Lachish, the second largest city of Judea was taken by

Sennacherib; the valley of Ono was the place to which Sanballat and Tobiah sought

to lure �ehemiah to his death; Beer-sheba, the southernmost place in ancient Israel

was frequently mentioned; Ramah featured prominently in the history of Ahab;

"Lod, now Ludd, is the Lydda of Acts of Apostles; it was on the eastern edge of the

Shephelah, about nine miles southeast of Joppa."[13] Bethel, another famous town,

was where Jeroboam I installed one of his golden calves. "It is strange that Gibeon,

Mizpah and Jericho are not mentioned, although they are listed in �ehemiah 3."[14]

Perhaps this should alert us to the truth that this record is abbreviated.

This brings us near to the dedication of the wall, related in the next chapter; but

�ehemiah was by no means finished with providing security and safety for

Jerusalem. There yet remained the treacherous infiltration of the holy city itself by

the godless Tobiah, aided and abetted by the High Priest himself; and that would be

the subject of the final chapter.

TRAPP, "�ehemiah 11:25 And for the villages, with their fields, [some] of the

children of Judah dwelt at Kirjatharba, and [in] the villages thereof, and at Dibon,

and [in] the villages thereof, and at Jekabzeel, and [in] the villages thereof,

Ver. 25. In the villages thereof] Heb. In the daughters: for villages seem to be so to

the greater cities.

CO�STABLE, "Verses 25-36

2. The residents of the outlying towns11:25-36

The towns south of Jerusalem, from the Hinnom Valley just south of the city as far

as Beersheba, were those in the territory belonging to the tribe of Judah. Those

north of Jerusalem stretching to the neighboring province of Samaria were towns of

Benjamin. These were the two sections of the Persian province of Yehud (Judah).

�ehemiah mentioned17 prominent towns in Judah here ( �ehemiah 11:25-30),

and15 in Benjamin ( �ehemiah 11:31-35). The Levites lived among the general

population, as when the Israelites first entered the Promised Land under Joshua , in

order to be a good influence and to act as spiritual resource persons ( �ehemiah

11:36).

"In a time when self-centeredness seems to dominate Western life-styles, the Word

of God calls us to work and live together as a community, to be dependent upon one

another, and to help one another in achieving the task God has set before us."

[�ote: Breneman, p263.]

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:25. Kirjath-Arba—i.e., Hebron ( Joshua 14:15). The

villages thereof.—Lit. the daughters thereof. The word is a different one from that

at the beginning of the verse (hatzér). It is repeated after Dibon, but the other word

returns after Jekabzeel. This use of daughters for dependent towns is common in the

earlier books. Dibon.—Doubtless the Dimonah of Joshua 15:22. Jekabzeel.—The

Kabzeel of Joshua 15:21.

PULPIT, "And for the villages. Or, "And, as regards the villages." The writer here

at last passes away altogether from Jerusalem, and proceeds to speak of the country

population of Judaea. This was chiefly located in villages or hamlets, to each of

which was attached a territory suitable for cultivation. The principal of these

settlements are now enumerated, and will be found to comprise seventeen places

belonging to Judah, and fifteen belonging to Benjamin. Of these thirty-two, a

considerable proper tion had subordinate hamlets attached to them. Kirjath-arba,

or Hebron. During the captivity the old name had reasserted itself (see Joshua

14:15). Dibon is not the important Moabite town whence came the famous "Moabite

Stone," but the city anciently called Dimonah, which is coupled with "Kabzeel" and

"Moladah" in Joshua 15:21-26. Jekabzeel is no doubt the ancient "Kabzeel"

(Joshua 15:21).

26 in Jeshua, in Moladah, in Beth Pelet,

BAR�ES 26-35, "Many of the places mentioned in these verses are mentioned in Jos_15:27-39; Jos_18:21-28.

CLARKE, "And at Jeshua - This city is nowhere else mentioned.

GILL 25-30, "And for the villages, with their fields,.... The cities and villages in the country, an account of the inhabitants of them next follows:

some of the children of Judah dwelt at Kirjatharba, and in the villages thereof; the same with Hebron, Jos_15:54

and at Dibon; the same with Dimonah, Jos_15:22

and at Jekabzeel, and in the villages thereof; the same with Kabzeel, one of the uttermost cities of the tribe of Judah southward, Jos_15:21, of which city was Benaiah, one of David's worthies, 2Sa_23:20, from hence to the end of Neh_11:30 mention is made of various cities and towns, in the tribe of Judah, inhabited by the men of it, which are to be met with in Jos_15:1 excepting Jeshua and Mekonah, Neh_11:26, of which we nowhere else read.

PETT, "Verses 26-29

Towns In The �egeb And the Related Area. The Extreme South Of Former Judah

(�ehemiah 11:26-29 a).

The �egeb (‘the Dry’) was the southernmost part of ancient Judah, its expansive

area forming its southern border. It was on the whole pasture land, being semi-

desert, with its towns built at ancient springs, although it had at times been more

extensively farmed by the use of irrigation techniques. It would probably not have

been so badly affected by the Babylonian invasion. The towns now described were

all in that area.

�ehemiah 11:26

‘And in Jeshua, and in Moladah, and Beth-pelet,’

These cities appear to have been in the �egeb, and thus again outside the Persian

province of Judah. Jeshua may be identical with Shema (Joshua 15:26) and Sheba

(Joshua 19:2). Originally being called Shema, it would develop into Sheba, and

finally into Shewa, with the Je (Yah) being added. For Moladah see Joshua 15:26;

Joshua 19:2; 1 Chronicles 4:28. It was probably east of Beersheba. Beth-pelet is

unknown.

27 in Hazar Shual, in Beersheba and its

settlements,

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:27

‘And in Hazar-shual, and in Beer-sheba and its towns,’

Hazar-shual, mentioned in Joshua 19:2, is unknown, but was in the �egeb, along

with Beer-sheba which was definitely so (Joshua 19:2; Genesis 21:31; Genesis

22:19). They were originally in Simeonite territory. Beersheba indicated the

southernmost part of ancient Israel (‘from Dan to Beersheba’ - Judges 20:1; etc). It

will be apparent that there was thus a good settlement of returnees (along with Jews

who were wholly loyal to YHWH who had not gone into exile), in the �egeb region.

PULPIT, "Hazar-shual and Beer-sheba are united in Joshua 15:28, and were no

doubt near together. Hazar-shual means "the village of foxes."

28 in Ziklag, in Mekonah and its settlements,

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:28-29

‘And in Ziklag, and in Meconah and in its towns, and in En-rimmon,’’

For Ziklag see Joshua 15:31. It was the city over which David presided during his

exile among the Philistines (1 Samuel 27:6), and he retained possession of it when he

became king of Judah and then of Israel. It was in the south-west of former Judah

near the border with the province of Ashdod (Philistia). Meconah was near Ziklag.

It was either a border city of, or outside, the Province.

En-rimmon (meaning ‘spring of the pomegranate’) was also called Rimmon (Joshua

15:32; Joshua 19:7; 1 Chronicles 4:32). It may have been combined with Ain to form

one small town (1 Chronicles 4:32). Originally in Judah’s territory (Joshua 15:32) it

had soon transferred to Simeon (Joshua 19:7). It was probably fifteen kilometres

(ten miles) north of Beersheba.

PULPIT, "Ziklag is celebrated as the town given to David by Achish king of Gath (1

Samuel 27:6), and soon afterwards taken by the Amalekites (ibid. 30:1). Mekonah is

a name which occurs only in this place.

29 in En Rimmon, in Zorah, in Jarmuth,

PETT, "Verse 29-30

Towns In The Shephelah (The Western Lowlands) (�ehemiah 11:29-30).

The Shephelah was the name given to the low hills and valleys which separated the

Coastal Plain from the Central Highlands. It was well populated.

�ehemiah 11:29

‘And in Zorah, and in Jarmuth,’

Moving northward to the northern Shephelah (lowlands), west of Jerusalem, we

come to Zorah and Jarmuth. Zorah was in the lowland hills of Judah (Joshua

15:33), and associated with the stories about Samson (Judges 13:2). It was possibly

the Zarkha of the Amarna letters. It was north of Azekah. Jarmuth was five

kilometres (three miles) south of Beth-shemesh, eighteen miles west of Jerusalem. It

was previously a large Amorite city before the conquest (Joshua 10:3; Joshua

15:35).

LA�GE, "�ehemiah 11:29. En-rimmon is spoken of in Joshua 15:32 as two places.

Keil supposes them two towns closely neighboring which finally grew into one.

Zareah.—Zoreah ( Joshua 15:33) or Zorah ( Judges 13:2) is Zurah, fourteen miles

west of Jerusalem. Jarmuth Isaiah 16 miles south-west of Jerusalem, on the slope of

the mountain country, and about eight miles from the Shephelah or Philistine plain.

It Isaiah 15 miles from Hebron.

PULPIT, "En-rimmon, "the spring of Rimmon," is to be identified with the "Ain

and Rimmon" of Joshua 15:32—two neighbouring villages, which ultimately grew

into one. Zareah is no doubt the "Zoreah" of Joshua 15:33, which was in the

Shephelah, or low coast tract. Jarmuth is the town of Piram, who warred with

Joshua (Joshua 10:3-27). Like Zareah, it lay in the low coast tract (Joshua 15:35).

30 Zanoah, Adullam and their villages, in Lachish

and its fields, and in Azekah and its settlements.

So they were living all the way from Beersheba to

the Valley of Hinnom.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:30

‘Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and its fields, Azekah and its towns.

So they encamped from Beer-sheba to the valley of Hinnom.’

Zorah, Jarmuth, Zanoah, Adullam and Azekah are all names echoing Joshua. They

are seen as close together, along with a number of other towns, in Joshua 15:33-35.

These may well have indicated the western border of the Province of Judah, or may

even have been outside that border. Lachish was in the lowlands further south and

outside the border.

For Zanoah see �ehemiah 3:13; Joshua 15:34. It was three kilometres (two miles)

south of Beth-shemesh. The men of Zanoah were named as involved in the building

of the walls (�ehemiah 3:13). Adullam was a former Canaanite city (Joshua 12:15),

later fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:7) and referred to by Micah 1:15. It

was midway between Jerusalem and Lachish. Lachish was a large Judean city in the

southern Shephelah, outside the new Province of Judah, forty kilometres (thirty

miles) south west of Jerusalem. Its capture by the Assyrians was seen as a notable

achievement (their having failed to capture Jerusalem) and was shown on a relief

sculpture in the palace of �ineveh. Azekah was in the territory of Judah (Joshua

15:35) and was north of Lachish, both cities being referred to in the Lachish letters

as resisting the Assyrian invasion (see also Jeremiah 34:7) before finally succumbing

(Isaiah 37:8). It was seen in Joshua as being on the extremity of Judah (Joshua

10:10-11; compare 1 Samuel 17:1), and was one of Rehoboam’s fortified border

cities.

LA�GE 30-36, "�ehemiah 11:30. Zanoah is Zanua, or, perhaps, Kh. Sanut.

Adullam—identified by Ganneau with Sh. Mudhkur, on the east side of Wady Sur,

near Socoh. Lachish—36 miles south-west of Jerusalem. Azekah is Deir el Aashek.

From Beersheba unto the valley of Hinnom (or valley of the sons, or Song of

Solomon, of Hinnom) is a distance of nearly50 miles.

�ehemiah 11:31. Read: and the children of Benjamin dwelt from Geba to Michmash

and Aija and Bethel and her villages.Geba is Jeba. Michmash is Mukhmas. Aija or

Ai is probably Tell el Hajar, as Van de Velde thinks. Bethel is Beitin.

�ehemiah 11:32. Anathoth is Anata, Jeremiah’s birth-place. �ob is probably �eby

Samwil, according to Lieut. Conder’s suggestion (Quarterly Statement of Pal. Expl.

Fund. London, Jan1875). Ananiah is unknown.

�ehemiah 11:33. Hazor is not identified. Ramah is Er-Ram. Gittaim is unknown.

�ehemiah 11:34. Hadid is supposed to be near Lydda. Zeboim is not identified.

�eballat is Beit �ebala, near Lydda.

�ehemiah 11:35. Lod is Lydda (Ludd). Ono is believed to be near Lydda, at Kefr

Anna. (See Van de Velde.) The valley of craftsmen—i.e., Charashim (see 1

Chronicles 4:14) was probably in the vicinity of Lydda.

�ehemiah 11:36. Read: And of the Levites divisions of Judah went to Benjamin.

These Levites were transferred from former stations in Judahite towns to stations in

Benjamite towns.

PULPIT, "Zanoah and Adullam appear in close connection with Jarmuth in Joshua

15:34, Joshua 15:35. Zanoah was not a place of any importance, but Adullam, near

which was David's cave, is often mentioned. It had its own king in the time of

Joshua (Joshua 12:15), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:7), and

remained a city of some strength under the Maccabees (2 Macc. 12:38). Lachish is a

place even more celebrated than Adullam. Its king, Japhia, warred with Joshua

(Joshua 12:3-16). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:9). Amaziah took

refuge there when conspiracy threatened him at Jerusalem (2 Kings 14:19); and

Sennacherib "besieged it with all his power" (2 Chronicles 22:9). Azekah is joined

with Jarmuth and Adullam in Joshua 15:35. Like Adullam and Lachish, it was

fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:9). They (i.e. the children of Judah) dwelt

from Beer-sheba to the valley of Hinnom. The southernmost and the northernmost

parts of Judaea are here mentioned.

31 The descendants of the Benjamites from Geba

lived in Mikmash, Aija, Bethel and its settlements,

GILL 31-35, "The children also of Benjamin, from Geba, dwelt at Michmash,.... Geba was a city on the southern border of Benjamin, Jos_18:24 and Michmash on the northern, of which see 1Sa_13:2 in this and the four following verses are the names of several cities in the tribe of Benjamin, inhabited by the men of that tribe, as Alia, the same with Ai, that lay on the east of Bethel, here also mentioned, see Jos_7:2 Anathoth, the birth place of Jeremiah the prophet, Jer_1:1. Nob, a city of the priests, 1Sa_21:1. Ananiah is nowhere else mentioned; Hazor is to be distinguished from another of this name in the tribe of Naphtali, Jos_19:36. Ramah, a place well known in Benjamin, Jos_18:25. Gittaim, of which see 2Sa_4:3. Hadid, the same with Adida, which lay in a plain,"Simon also set up Adida in Sephela, and made it strong with gates and bars.'' (1 Maccabees 12:38)Zeboim, a valley of this name, is read in 1Sa_13:18. Neballat we read of nowhere else; of Lod and Ono, see 1Ch_8:12 and the valley of craftsmen, or Chorasin, 1Ch_4:14.

K&D, "Neh_11:31-35

The dwellings of the Benjamites. Neh_11:31 The children of Benjamin dwelt from Geba to Michmash, Aija, etc. Geba, according to 2Ki_23:8 and Jos_14:10, the northern boundary of the kingdom of Judah, is the half-ruined village of Jibia in the Wady el Jib, three leagues north of Jerusalem, and three-quarters of a league north-east of Ramah

(Er Ram); see on Jos_18:24. Michmash (מכמש or מכמס), now Mukhmas, sixty-three

minutes north-east of Geba, and three and a half leagues north of Jerusalem; see rem. on

1Sa_13:2. Aija (ע8א or ע8ת, Isa_10:28), probably one with העי, Jos_7:2; Jos_8:1., the

situation of which is still a matter of dispute, Van de Velde supposing it to be the present Tell el Hadshar, three-quarters of a league south-east of Beitin; while Schegg, on the contrary, places it in the position of the present Tayibeh, six leagues north of Jerusalem (see Delitzsch on Isa. at Isa_10:28-32, etc., translation), - a position scarcely according with Isa_10:28., the road from Tayibeh to Michmash and Geba not leading past Migron (Makhrun), which is not far from Beitin. We therefore abide by the view advocated by Krafft and Strauss, that the ruins of Medinet Chai or Gai, east of Geba, point out the situation of the ancient Ai or Ajja; see rem. on Jos_7:2. Bethel is the present Beitin; see on Jos_7:2. The position of Nob is not as yet certainly ascertained, important objections existing to its identification with the village el-Isawije, between Anâta and Jerusalem; comp. Valentiner (in the Zeitschrift d. deutsch. morgld. Gesellsch. xii. p. 169), who, on grounds worthy of consideration, transposes Nob to the northern heights before

Jerusalem, the road from which leads into the valley of Kidron. Ananiah (ענניה), a place

named only here, is conjectured by Van de Velde (after R. Schwartz), Mem. p. 284, to be

the present Beit Hanina (Arab. hnıSnâ), east of Nebi Samwil; against which conjecture

even the exchange of ע and ח raises objections; comp. Tobler, Topographie, ii. p. 414.

Hazor of Benjamin, supposed by Robinson (Palestine) to be Tell 'Assur, north of Tayibeh, is much more probably found by Tobler, Topographie, ii. p. 400, in Khirbet

Arsûr, perhaps Assur, Arab. ‛Vûr, eight minutes eastward of Bir Nebâla (between Rama

and Gibeon); comp. Van de Velde, Mem. p. 319. Ramah, now er Râm, two leagues north of Jerusalem; see rem. on Jos_18:25. Githaim, whither the Beerothites fled, 2Sa_4:3, is not yet discovered. Tobler (dritte Wand. p. 175) considers it very rash to identify it with

the village Katanneh in Wady Mansur. Hadid, Yδιδά, see rem. on Ezr_2:33. Zeboim, in a

valley of the same name (1Sa_13:18), is not yet discovered. Neballat, mentioned only here, is preserved in Beith Nebala, about two leagues north-east of Ludd (Lydda); comp. Rob. Palestine, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 336. With respect to Lod and Ono, see rem. on 1Ch_8:12; and on the valley of craftsmen, comp. 1Ch_4:14. The omission of Jericho, Gibeon, and Mizpah is the more remarkable, inasmuch as inhabitants of these towns are mentioned as taking part in the building of the wall (Neh_3:2, Neh_3:7).

PETT, "Verses 31-36

The Dwellingplaces Of The Children Of Benjamin (�ehemiah 11:31-35).

In contrast with the description of Judah, the cities and towns of Benjamin are

detailed, although this may partly indicate how thoroughly Judah had been

devastated during and after the capture of Jerusalem. The Benjamites had settled

back into their cities and towns north of Jerusalem.

�ehemiah 11:31

‘The children of Benjamin also dwelt from Geba onward, at Michmash and Aija,

and at Beth-el and its towns,’

Geba (meaning ‘a hill’) and Michmash are well known from the activities of Saul (1

Samuel 13:2-3; 1 Samuel 13:5; 1 Samuel 13:16; 1 Samuel 13:23; 1 Samuel 14:5; 1

Samuel 14:31). Geba was 11 kilometres (7 miles) north of Jerusalem, and was 5

kilometres (3 miles) from Gibeah. It was previously a Levitical city (Joshua 21:17).

It was the site of Saul’s camp during his resistance to the Philistine invasion (1

Samuel 13:23). At one point it was the northernmost town in Judah (2 Kings 23:8).

It was mentioned in Isaiah’s description of the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem

(Isaiah 10:29). Today it is called Jeba. Michmash was 12 kilometres north of

Jerusalem, and east of Bethel. It was a centre for the Philistines when they invaded

Israel in the time of Saul (1 Samuel 13:5; 1 Samuel 13:16). It is mentioned by Isaiah

as a stage in the advance of the Assyrian army on Jerusalem, the point at which they

laid up their baggage (Isaiah 10:28). It was thus situated at a crucial point. It was on

the pass between Bethel and Jericho. It is at present a ruined village called

Mukhmas, on the northern ridge of the Wadi Suweinit. �othing is known of Aija,

although some identify it with modern Khirbet Haiyan. It was seemingly in the same

area as Geba, Michmash and Bethel.

‘Bethel and its towns’ was well known throughout Israel’s history. It was about 19

kilometres (12 miles) north of Jerusalem and was known in some form to Abraham

and Jacob (Genesis 12:8; Genesis 13:3; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:7), but its site is

not certainly identified. A good number of scholars identify it with Burg Beitin or

Tel Beitin, but this, like most identifications, is uncertain. There are many tels in the

area and there is no certain way of identifying them. All we can do is consider them

in terms of the Biblical narrative. Its king was defeated by Joshua, although Bethel

itself was probably not taken at the time. It was one of the two major religious

centres of �orthern Israel after the division of the kingdom following the death of

Solomon, infamous for its idol worship (‘come to Bethel and transgress’ - Amos 4:4),

the other being Dan. It became incorporated in Judah under Josiah, at which point

Jerusalem then became the centre of the people’s worship.

PULPIT, "The children also of Benjamin from Geba dwelt at Michmash. Rather,

"Also the children of Benjamin dwelt from Geba to Michmash, and Aija, and

Bethel," etc. Geba was reckoned an extreme city of Benjamin towards the west, and

consequently occurs last in the first list of Joshua (�ehemiah 18:24). Its proximity to

Michmash and Aija (Aiath) appears in Isaiah 10:28, Isaiah 10:29. All three places

were in the near vicinity of Bethel.

32 in Anathoth, �ob and Ananiah,

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:32

‘At Anathoth, �ob, Ananiah,’

Anathoth was a Benjamite city and the home town of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26) and

Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1). It was previously a Levitical city (Joshua 21:18). Its

possible site (Deir-es-Sid) Isaiah 5 kilometres (3 miles) north east of Jerusalem. It

was one of the areas affected by �ebuchadnezzar’s march on Jerusalem (Isaiah

10:30). �ob was another such affected area, and was the last stage prior to

Jerusalem itself, indicating its nearness to Jerusalem (possible site Ras umm et-

Tais). It was where David ate holy bread while on the run from Saul (1 Samuel

21:6), and where in retaliation Saul slaughtered Ahimelech and his priestly brothers

(1 Samuel 22:9-19). Ananiah is possibly Beit Hanina, which is seven kilometres

(between three and four miles) north-north-west of Jerusalem. As will be observed,

these three towns were all within 7 kilometres (four miles) of Jerusalem, looking

north.

PULPIT, "Anathoth was on the road from Geba to Jerusalem (Isaiah 10:30), and

was a Levitical city (Joshua 21:18). �ob was still nearer to the capital, which could

be seen from it (Isaiah 10:32). It was famous for the massacre of the priests by Doeg

(1 Samuel 22:18, 1 Samuel 22:19). Ananiah is mentioned only in this place.

33 in Hazor, Ramah and Gittaim,

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:33

‘Hazor, Ramah.’

This Hazor (which simply means ‘village, settlement’) was not the well known

Hazor mentioned in Joshua 11:1-13, but was rather a lesser known one found in

Benjamite territory. It is possibly modern Khirbet Hazzur, north of Bethel. Ramah

was a resting-place on the way north. It was near Bethel (Judges 4:5) and in the

region of Gibeon and Beeroth (Joshua 18:25). It was one of the places in which the

Levite planned to stay, with his concubine, and had he finally stayed there rather

than in Gibeah (Judges 19:13-14). the history of the Benjamites might have been

different. It was where �ebuzaradan gathered the prospective exiles after the fall of

Jerusalem, and from where he released Jeremiah (Jeremiah 40:1-4). At one stage it

was a border fortress of northern Israel (1 Kings 15:17). The non-mention of

Mizpah, which was previously prominent in this area, may suggest that it had been

laid waste by �ebuchadnezzar in retaliation for the death of Gedaliah (Jeremiah

40:6 to Jeremiah 41:3).

�ehemiah 11:33-34

‘ Gittaim Hadid, Zeboim, �eballat,’

These four towns, along with Lod and Ono, were in the northern Shephelah.

Gittaim was the place to which Ish-bosheth’s captains fled in the time of David (2

Samuel 4:3). It is possibly modern Ras Abu Hamid. Hadid is named alongside Lod

and Ono in Ezra 2:33; �ehemiah 7:37, and is probably to be identified with Adida

(Septuagint Hadida) as mentioned in 1 Maccabees 12:38; 1 Maccabees 13:13, which

was described as "over against the plain." It was fortified by Simon Maccabeus. It is

represented by modern el-Haditheh, about 5 kilometres (3 miles) north-east of

Lydda. Zeboim is unknown but was presumably in the same area. �eballat is

probably to be identified with modern Beit �ebala, 6 kilometres (4 miles) north-east

of Lydda.

PULPIT, "Hazor occurs as a Benjamite city here only. Ramah is the famous town,

now er-Ram, so often mentioned as a little to the north of Jerusalem (Joshua 18:25;

4:5; 1 Kings 15:17; Isaiah 10:29; Jeremiah 31:15). Gittaim is mentioned as a

Benjamite town in 2 Samuel 4:3.

34 in Hadid, Zeboim and �eballat,

PULPIT, "Hadid is joined with Lod and Ono in Ezra 2:33 and �ehemiah 7:37. It is

probably the modern Haditheh, three miles east of Ludd or Lod, in the Shephelah.

Zeboim is not elsewhere mentioned as a town, but we hear of a "valley of Zeboim"

in 1 Samuel 13:18, which seems to have lain east of Michmash, in the bleak country

towards the Jordan. �eballat is not elsewhere mentioned.

35 in Lod and Ono, and in Ge Harashim.

CLARKE, "Lod, and Ono - These towns were built by the sons of Elpaal, 1Ch_8:12.

The valley of craftsmen - See 1Ch_4:14. Probably this latter town was built in this

valley.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:35

‘Lod, and Ono, the valley of craftsmen.’

Lod and Ono are always mentioned together. They are described as built by the

Benjamites, in 1 Chronicles 8:12, and spoken of, together with Hadid, in Ezra 2:33;

�ehemiah 7:37. They were presumably in ‘the plain of Ono’ (�ehemiah 6:2), in

which �ehemiah’s opponents intended to trap him. This may be the same as, or

contain, ‘the valley of the craftsmen’ (see also 1 Chronicles 4:14 RV margin). This

latter may have obtained its name from woodworking activity carried out there in

consequence of its nearness to Joppa, through which timber from Lebanon would be

imported. Ono is probably to be identified with modern Kafr ‘Ana, which lies near

Lydda.

PULPIT, "Lod, now Ludd (called in the Acts of the Apostles Lydda), was at the

eastern edge of the Shephelah, or low maritime plain, and about nine miles to the

S.E. of Joppa. Unimportant during the early times, it became a place of considerable

note under the Maccabees (1 Macc. 10:30, 38; 11:28, 34, 57, etc.), and so continued

till the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, soon after which its name was changed to

Diospolis. Ono is first mentioned in 1 Chronicles 8:12 in combination with Lod, with

which it is also joined in Ezra 2:33 and �ehemiah 7:37. We do not know how it

came to be called "the valley of craftsmen."

36 Some of the divisions of the Levites of Judah

settled in Benjamin.

BAR�ES, "Of the Levites were divisions - i. e., “the Levites were scattered among various towns both in Judah and Benjamin.”

CLARKE, "And of the Levites were divisions - The Levites had their dwellings in the divisions of Judah and Benjamin. This is probably the meaning: the Syriac says, They had the half of Judah and Benjamin; which is not likely.

That the people whose hearts were now turned towards the Lord, would make the best provision for the support of God’s work, and all those engaged in it, we may naturally suppose; but this could not be very great, as the complete service was not yet established, and the Levites themselves were few in number.

GILL, "And of the Levites were divisions in Judah, and in Benjamin. They were scattered about, some here and some there, in both these tribes, for the better instruction of the people.

JAMISO�,"And of the Levites were divisions in Judah, and in Benjamin—Rather, there were divisions for the Levites; that is, those who were not resident in Jerusalem were distributed in settlements throughout the provinces of Judah and Benjamin.

K&D, "Neh_11:36

The enumeration concludes with the remark, “Of the Levites came divisions of Judah to Benjamin,” which can only signify that divisions of Levites who, according to former arrangements, belonged to Judah, now came to Benjamin, i.e., dwelt among the Benjamites.

BE�SO�, "�ehemiah 11:36. Of the Levites were divisions — Or, for the Levites

(those who were not settled in Jerusalem) there were divisions; places appointed for

them and distributed among them. Thus were they settled free and easy, though few

and poor. And they might have been happy but for that general lukewarmness with

which they are charged by the Prophet Malachi, who prophesied about this time,

and in whom prophecy ceased for some ages, till it revived in the great prophet.

PETT, "�ehemiah 11:36

‘And of the Levites, certain courses in Judah (were joined/allocated) to Benjamin.’

Among these Benjamites as previously described were located a number of courses

of Levites, who would be responsible, among other things, for gathering tithes, and

teaching and guiding the people. As God’s servants they were called on to be

flexible. YHWH Himself, together with the tithes, were the inheritance of Levi, not

some earthly portion of land (�umbers 18:24; Deuteronomy 10:9).

This was not just an appended afterthought. It was a reminder that provision was

being made for the fulfilment of the covenant provisions in �ehemiah 10:38-39. The

responsibility of the Benjamites towards God was not to be overlooked. (Previously

it had been stated that the residue of the Levites were in ‘all the cities of Judah’ -

�ehemiah 11:20). It also serves as a connecting verse with chapter 12 where details

concerning the Priests and Levites is given.

PULPIT, "Of the Levites were divisions in Judah and Benjamin. The exact sense is

obscure, but we may gather from the passage that a certain number of Levites were

dispersed among the Benjamite cities. They were not now numerous enough to have

any cities to themselves.

LA�GE, "HISTORICAL A�D ETHICAL

1. Jerusalem was peculiarly the post of labor and danger,—of labor, because the

fortifications would require constant guarding, and of danger, because the enemies

of the Jews would naturally concentrate their efforts against the holy city. A willing

offering of any to dwell in Jerusalem was therefore a mark of self-denial for the sake

of country and religion. The popular blessing fell upon such. Even those who did not

so volunteer could not but admire this devotion, and join in the general admiration.

Happy is the people, where there is such a cause for the public favor.

2. The additional population of Jerusalem included men of Judah, men of Benjamin,

Levites, and �ethinim. There were, doubtless, remnants of the ten tribes with

preserved pedigrees mingled with the returned Jews, as we find four centuries later

Phanuel mentioned as of the tribe of Asher ( Luke 2:36), but none of these seem to

have been reckoned in the public genealogies. They had not come back with

Zerubbabel, for it is not probable that many (if any) from the remnant of the ten

tribes went into captivity under �ebuchadnezzar, unless we consider the coming to

Jerusalem of “divers of Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun” in Hezekiah’s day ( 2

Chronicles 30:11) was a coming for a permanent abode. But we may believe, that,

after the return, stragglers from the remnant of the northern kingdom joined the

Jews at Jerusalem, for that in the north a remnant preserved the truth against all

the immigration of heathen nations is evident from the appearance of Galilee in the

�ew Testament period, which could not be owing simply to the Maccabean

influences, such as are described in 1 Maccabees 5:21, seq.

HOMILETICAL A�D PRACTICAL

�ehemiah 11:1-2. It might be very difficult for the poorer families of the

congregation to find means of subsistence in Jerusalem, as there was no longer a

royal court there, and a troop of higher officers, who could afford work and gain to

the lower classes. They might find it much easier to get along in the country, where

they could cultivate the ground. �evertheless �ehemiah and the heads of the

congregation had to insist upon it that as many as possible should settle again in

Jerusalem. For this there were very urgent reasons. It was not the consideration

alone that the congregation would only then be worthily represented to the

neighboring people, and would only be in part secure, if it possessed a large, mighty,

and nourishing chief city, to which, in times of danger, it could withdraw as to a

trustworthy asylum. The main point was, that as many as possible of the

congregation must live in direct proximity to the Temple and its service, that their

connection with God could the better be furthered and fortified, and be promoted

and consecrated, which was so desirable for it. There was the consideration that

above all upon Zion and the mountain of the house of the Lord rested the promises

of the prophets, and that especially from them the law and the word of the Lord

should go forth. ( Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1.) The congregation should feel itself called

upon, as much as lay in its power, to help in the fulfilment of such promises, also to

further as much as possible, the honoring of the Lord there in Jerusalem. It had

certainly in the prophetic word a warrant that the Lord would here protect and

bless it. At least equally urgent calls has Christendom not to scatter itself hither and

thither into all sorts of sects and communities, neither to be satisfied with the

observance of religion in their houses, but to hold faithfully to the one church, which

is founded on God’s word and provided with His promises, and instead of despising

it on account of its insignificance, poverty, and needs, all the more to raise it by all

self-consecration and gratitude, even if one should thereby suffer disadvantages,

and even dangers, in worldly things, and should draw upon himself slights and

persecution. “And let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering, for

He is faithful that promised; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as

the manner of some is.” ( Hebrews 10:23-25.) That in which a sect has appeared to

be preferable in power of love and sanctity has proved itself generally, in great part

to be mere empty appearance.

�ehemiah 11:3-19. It is very worthy of notice that in the numbering of the

inhabitants of Jerusalem, not the priests but the tribes of Judah and Benjamin take

the lead, and only then follow the priests and Levites; so much the more worthy of

notice, because in the new congregation, following the captivity, according to the

entire direction which its development took, and according to everything which was

considered as of the greatest moment, the high-priests, and the priesthood in

general, had a particularly high significance. It is as if the consciousness were

indicated, that the priests and Levites, in spite of their distinction, which the Lord

had apportioned to them in the affairs of Israel, had been nevertheless nothing at

all, if they had not had a congregation near and around them, and if they had not

succeeded in obtaining satisfactory fruit for their activity, namely, a genuine and

true piety, which should substantially prove they were not there in vain. Would also

that Christian priests, that Isaiah, preachers of the gospel, might preserve a lively

consciousness that it is not enough for them to have fellowship with their brethren

in office, that they are nothing, and can profit and signify nothing, it not some, if

only a small congregation stand by them, in whom the seed which they sow, springs

up, grows, and bears fruit. Starke: �ehemiah 11:3. In every time there are some

pious and God-fearing people who separate themselves from the world, and seek the

good of their souls rather than of their bodies.

�ehemiah 11:25-36. When one looks at the space which the Jewish congregation

inhabited round Jerusalem, how very small was the territory occupied by the people

of God, the only race which possessed a clear knowledge of the only true and holy

God! A few miles, from three to six, north and south, east and west, comprised the

entire district. Compared with our countries, yes, even with our provinces, this

district appears to us almost as a vanishing nothing. And nevertheless what powers

for the subjugation of entire humanity, for the transformation of all its relations,

and for the subduing of all circumstances, has God the Lord been able to put in the

people of this oasis, in the, at the same time insignificant, and in many respects

miserable race, which cultivated the ground there or raised cattle! If any where

surely here arises a testimony for Paul’s word, “God hath chosen the weak things of

the world to confound the things which are mighty.” ( 1 Corinthians 1:27.) A

consoling promise also for Christendom in those times in which it appears as though

it were being compressed on all sides, and when it is in truth losing position after

position. Let it lose in length and breadth, in order afterwards to gain so much the

more in height. Even the gates of hell cannot swallow up the church of the Lord.

Starke: �ehemiah 11:25. God collects to Himself a church from among many

peoples by the word of the gospel, that the heavenly Jerusalem may be filled.