# commentaries

text:
<p>There were also some who said, We have borrowed money for the king’s tribute using our fields and our vineyards as collateral- This money was presumably borrowed from their fellow Jews. Those who lent them the money had totally failed to appreciate the grace of their salvation, and the response thereby expected from them. Jeremiah especially reveals the grace which God was so eager to show to the exiles. <a href='B:300 7:3-7'>Jer 7:3-7</a> made it clear that Judah’s return to the land was to be conditional upon them not oppressing the poor- only “then will I cause you to dwell in this place”. Yet in His grace and zeal for His people, it seems God overlooked that condition- for the returned exiles did oppress (<a href='B:160 5:1-5'>Neh 5:1-5</a>), and yet they returned to the land. And yet they would’ve dwelt in Zion “for ever and ever” (<a href='B:300 7:7'>Jer 7:7</a>) if they had not been abusive to others and truly loved God.</p>


text:
<p>Yet our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children as their children- The idea seems to be that despite all this sacrifice, they looked as emaciated from famine as those who had nothing to mortgage. They were the middle class, who owned fields and vineyards (:4); and they were now as the lowest classes.</p><p>Indeed, we have to bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants- I suggested on Nehemiah 4 that the large number of "servants" of the builders may refer to these people. On one hand the Spirit of God was working with them, and they showed faith. But their spirituality was of a collective rather than personal nature, as can so easily happen in the church today. For they were abusing their brethren in their own personal lives.</p><p>Some of our daughters have already been brought into bondage. Neither is it in our power to get out of it; for other men have our fields and our vineyards-&nbsp;Instead of subduing the nations around them with the victory of Israel’s God, they brought their own brethren into subjection / bondage unto them, that they might gain out of them (<a href='B:450 9:15'>Zec 9:15</a> s:w. <a href='B:160 5:5'>Neh 5:5</a>). It could’ve been the Kingdom, Israel could have become the joy of the whole earth and her people a joy. But instead, they were obsessed with their petty, miserable little kingdoms, and the next few centuries had nothing of the joy which Isaiah had repeatedly prophesied as being possible for them.</p><p>The princes in the restored kingdom of God were not to oppress the people (<a href='B:330 45:8'>Eze 45:8</a>); “Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession” (<a href='B:330 46:18'>Eze 46:18</a>). But they did (<a href='B:160 5:1-5'>Neh 5:1-5</a>; <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words- The same words are used of Yahweh being angry with Israel when He heard their cry in <a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a>; <a href='B:40 11:10'>Num 11:10</a>. The idea is that this was a very great apostasy, worthy of returning them to captivity, as God's anger likewise considered returning Israel to Egypt. For as noted on :1,2, they were acting as Egypt, oppressing their brethren in slavery and bondage.</p>


text:
<p>Then I considered the matter- AV is more accurate: "consulted with myself". Perhaps the idea is that he first examined himself, as to whether he himself had done anything like this, before contending with his brethren. A necessary example and principle. This is why he can present himself as an example of how the poorer brethren should have been treated (:10). But see on :10.</p><p>Then contended with the nobles and the rulers and said to them, You exact usury, each one from his brother. I held a great assembly against them- This 'contention' with his weak brethren amongst the leadership was how the book ends (s:w. <a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:17'>Neh 13:17</a>; <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>). It was as if circumstances repeated; his experience of contention with his brethren in <a href='B:160 5:7'>Neh 5:7</a> was to prepare him for the major contentions of <a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:17'>Neh 13:17</a>; <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>. We pass through one experience to prepare us for another.</p>


text:
<p>I said to them, We, as much as we could, have redeemed our brothers the Jews that were sold to the nations- Nehemiah ‘came up’ from Babylon, and was “the servant” who ‘prospered’ Yahweh’s work (<a href='B:160 1:11'>Neh 1:11</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>), just as the servant prophecies required (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>; <a href='B:290 48:15'>Isa 48:15</a>); and he was thereby the redeemer of his brethren. And yet it could be that he paid personally to redeem his brothers who had been sold to local Samaritans ["the nations"].</p><p>Would you really sell your brothers, and should they be sold to us? Then they held their peace, and found never a word to answer- Putting our brethren in impossible situations from which they need redemption is to act as the Gentile world; rather than as those who have also been redeemed. The restoration prophets had spoken of all those who left Babylon as being redeemed; but the leadership of the exiles had failed to appreciate this.</p><p>There could be the implication in the Hebrew of <a href='B:160 1:3'>Neh 1:3</a> that the majority of those who initially returned to Judah then returned back to Babylon- for Nehemiah speaks of "The remnant that are left of the captives there in the province" [of Judah]". We shouldn’t underestimate the seriousness of the famine conditions in Judah as described in Nehemiah 5. The sheer lack of food led the Jews to sell their children and land to their richer brethren just to get something to eat. <a href='B:460 3:5-15'>Mal 3:5-15</a> says that this was directly a result of their lack of zeal to rebuild and care for God’s house. What a far cry from the prophecies of plenty and huge harvests which had been made. So much potential was wasted. <a href='B:160 5:8'>Neh 5:8</a> records Nehemiah’s comment that the wealthy Jews were victimizing the poorer Jews just as Babylon once had, and now Nehemiah needed to redeem them from slavery just as God had redeemed His people from servitude in Babylon. God’s deliverance of His people simply hadn’t been responded to. Tragically, it would appear from <a href='B:160 5:15'>Neh 5:15</a> that Zerubbabel, the potential Messiah of Israel, had acted in this oppressive way too.</p>


text:
<p>Also I said, The thing that you do is not good- A verbatim quotation of <a href='B:20 18:17'>Exo 18:17</a>, but apparently out of context. But this kind of thing is to be expected in the language of a person whose mind is full of God's word; turns of phrase come to mind from the Bible even in our own language usage, even if not completely in context.</p><p>Ought you not to walk in the fear of our God- The allusion is to <a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a>; they were to fear God by walking in His ways. And His ways had been those of redemption by grace, and not of abuse. The fear of God therefore requires us to be just, as He is just and yet also the God of salvation by grace (<a href='B:10 20:11'>Gen 20:11</a>; <a href='B:100 23:3'>2Sa 23:3</a>).</p><p>Because of the reproach of the nations our enemies?- I suggest this isn't saying that they should fear what others might say about this. Rather is the idea ‘on account of the reproach wherewith our enemies have reproached us'. They should have ever remembered their abuse at the hands of the Gentiles, and so never have done this to their own brethren. They were to break the cycle whereby the abused abuses.</p>


text:
<p>For this reason, I my brothers and my servants lend them money and grain- Again, Nehemiah led by example. He lent money and grain without demanding collateral nor interest. And he presents himself as an example.</p><p>Please let us stop this usury- The RV suggests Nehemiah himself had been guilty: "And I likewise, my brethren and my servants do lend them money and corn on usury". This would explain why he pauses to look into his own heart before addressing the issue (:7). Hence the force of "let us stop". But in this case we would rather expect a note in :11 to the effect that Nehemiah personally put this right.</p>


text:
<p>Please restore to them, even this day, their fields, their vineyards, their olive groves, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the grain, the new wine, and the oil, that you are charging them- The blessings of the restored Kingdom (new wine, grain, oil etc:) were being abused. <a href='B:440 1:8'>Hag 1:8</a> describes the need to go up onto the mountain and build the temple- as if to recall attention to Ezekiel’s opening vision of the temple as built on a mountain. But Judah would not, and therefore the Kingdom blessings of corn, new wine and oil, as well as fruitfulness on the mountains, were all withheld (<a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>). These are all aspects of the promised Messianic Kingdom (e:g. <a href='B:360 2:19'>Joe 2:19</a>; <a href='B:360 2:24'>Joe 2:24</a>; <a href='B:300 31:12'>Jer 31:12</a>). The very same sequence of words occurs in <a href='B:160 5:11'>Neh 5:11</a>; <a href='B:160 10:37'>Neh 10:37</a>; <a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:5'>Neh 13:5</a> - instead of giving those things to Yahweh, the Jews stole them from each other, and jibbed about paying them as tithes to Him. And thereby they precluded the possibility of Yahweh richly blessing all His people with those very same things in a Kingdom setting. As with all those who are rejected from God’s purpose, they effectively rejected themselves from His Kingdom by their behaviour, rather than Him rejecting them Himself.</p>


text:
<p>Then they said, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do, even as you say. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them- The implication could be that the priests were themselves guilty of this abuse. The corruption of the priesthood at the restoration is a major concern of Malachi and Haggai. The possibilities of the restored Kingdom as spoken of in the restoration prophets, especially Ezekiel 40-48, were precluded by this corruption of the priesthood. And this was the very reason why they went into captivity in the first place.</p><p>That they would do according to this promise- There is no specific word for "promise" in Biblical Hebrew. A man's word was to be his promise, just as God's word is so certain of fulfilment that it is His promise. The Lord reflected this in His teaching that we need not embellish our words with oaths. For we should be absolutely truthful.</p>


text:
<p>Also I shook out my lap and said, So may God shake out every man from His house and from His work that doesn’t perform this promise; even thus may he be shaken out, and emptied. All the assembly said, Amen, and praised Yahweh. The people did according to this promise- The threat to remove such people from "His work" rather confirms my suggestion on <a href='B:160 4:22'>Neh 4:22</a> that the "servants" involved in the building work were in fact Jews who had been wrongfully made servants by the leadership abusing them. Such workers, significant as they were in the rebuilding work, would not be accepted in the work. For we cannot abuse others in the name of doing God's work. For "promise" see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even to the thirty second year of Artaxerxes the king, that is, twelve years, I and my brothers did not eat the bread of the governor- This is inserted later, as Nehemiah looks back upon his 12 years in Jerusalem. This was presumably a second visit, after the exploratory visit of Nehemiah 1. All that time, Nehemiah and his immediate family didn't eat the food which he as the governor could have demanded as tax from the local population. He realized they were starving and didn't demand this from them.</p>


text:
<p>But the former governors who were before me were supported by the people, and took bread and wine from them, besides forty shekels of silver. Yes, even their servants ruled over the people: but I didn’t do so, because of the fear of God- <a href='B:290 58:1-2'>Isa 58:1-2</a> is a criticism of Judah in exile and also of those who did return to the land- they sought God daily, and yet abused their brethren (<a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a>), just as recorded in <a href='B:160 5:15'>Neh 5:15</a>. If they had ceased from their sins, "Then shall your light break forth as the morning", if they had fed the hungry etc:, then would've been fulfilled the Messianic Kingdom prophecies of the light of Zion rising above the Gentiles etc. (<a href='B:290 58:10'>Isa 58:10</a>; <a href='B:290 58:12'>Isa 58:12</a> cp. <a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a>). "The joy of harvest" could have happened at the restoration from Babylon (<a href='B:230 126:5-6'>Psa 126:5-6</a>). But again it didn't, and we read of the miserable restored exiles suffering famine and poor harvests because they refused to repent and because their brethren abused them.</p><p>LXX "But as for the former acts of extortion wherein those who were before me oppressed them, they even took of them their last money, forty didrachms for bread and wine; and the very outcasts of them exercised authority over the people: but I did not so, because of the fear of God". Nehemiah was the governor, and as such could have demanded tax and food from the local population. But he didn't, because he saw their poverty.</p><p><a href='B:160 5:8'>Neh 5:8</a> records Nehemiah’s comment that the wealthy Jews were victimizing the poorer Jews just as Babylon once had, and now Nehemiah needed to redeem them from slavery just as God had redeemed His people from servitude in Babylon. God’s deliverance of His people simply hadn’t been responded to. Tragically, it would appear from <a href='B:160 5:15'>Neh 5:15</a> that Zerubbabel, the potential Messiah of Israel, had acted in this oppressive way too.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, also I continued in the work of this wall, neither bought we any land; and all my servants were gathered there to the work- LXX "Also in the work of the wall I treated them not with rigor, I bought not land: and all that were gathered together came thither to the work". The idea is that the impoverished people were willing to sell their land for food, they were so desperate because of the famine. But Nehemiah didn't buy their land from them. They were not receiving the abundant harvests promised as being part of the restored Kingdom of God; for they had precluded the fulfilment of those prophecies. Instead, Nehemiah put his own servants to the work, presumably implying he himself paid them. The desperation of selling their land for food recalls the situation in Egypt during the famine at the time of Joseph. The people of God had acted like Egyptians and so were being treated like them.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover there were at my table, of the Jews and the rulers, one hundred and fifty men, besides those who came to us from among the nations that were around us- Instead of demanding tax and support from the local population as he could have done, as the governor, Nehemiah did the opposite- he gave food to others, including to Gentiles. To eat at the same table was a sign of religious fellowship, and in this there was a small fulfilment of the prophetic vision of a new, multiethnic people of God in the restored Kingdom. But Nehemiah didn't go far enough in this.</p><p>Perhaps Nehemiah was some kind of potential Messiah- for the surrounding Gentiles ‘came up’ to him and shared in the luxurious temple meals (a common Kingdom prophecy- the same Hebrew words are used for the Gentiles ‘coming up’ to the temple in <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:290 60:11'>Isa 60:11</a>; <a href='B:300 16:19'>Jer 16:19</a>; <a href='B:440 2:7'>Hag 2:7</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>). Those meals could have been the Messianic banquets. &nbsp; <a href='B:290 56:6-7'>Isa 56:6-7</a> had promised that if the Gentiles accepted the God of Israel and kept the Sabbath, "even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples". But the Sabbath was polluted, as Nehemiah recorded, and the Gentiles were mixed with and affirmed in their idolatry, rather than converted and brought to worship in the temple. And so the revelation of Yahweh’s salvation and righteousness in the Kingdom was deferred. The way Jews and Gentiles ate together at Nehemiah’s table pointed forward to what was almost possible. But in the end, they mixed with and adopted the ways of the Gentiles, and their leadership arrogantly developed a theology that said that dirty Gentiles could never be saved; for salvation, they reasoned, was only for Jews. The idea that the temple was to be a place for Gentiles also to worship not only didn't come true; but the very opposite happened. The Jews became intolerant of the Gentiles, nationalistically proud, and rejected the Samaritans from worshipping in the rebuilt Jewish temple. And therefore the Samaritans had to build their own temple on Mount Gerazim. Historical records suggest that the Samaritans dearly wished to worship in the Jews' temple, and only built their own one because the Jews disallowed them. See M. Gaster, The Samaritans (Oxford: O:U:P:, 1925) p. 28 ff.</p>


text:
<p>Now that which was prepared for one day was one ox and six choice sheep; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in ten days store of all sorts of wine. Yet for all this I didn’t demand the bread due to the governor, because the bondage was heavy on this people- LXX has "yet with these I required not the bread of extortion". He was generous; and didn't demand of others what he legitimately could have done, realizing their impoverished situation. The famine, however, was a punishment for their lack of spirituality. But still Nehemiah didn't demand from them what he could have done. And we too need to be sensitive to the situation of others, even if it is partially their own fault.</p>


text:
<p>Remember me, my God, for good, for all that I have done for this people- Again we sense a works based attitude in Nehemiah, considering that good works as it were cancel out sins, and the judgment will be a summary account of the arithmetic. This isn't what judgment day will be about; salvation was to be by grace, as the restoration prophets had taught. And yet for all his faith and good works, it seems Nehemiah failed to appreciate this. And perhaps this was why he failed to be the Messianic ruler figure which he might have been.</p>


text:
<p>It was reported to Sanballat and Tobiah, and to Geshem the Arabian, and to the rest of our enemies- See on <a href='B:160 2:10'>Neh 2:10</a>.</p><p>That I had built the wall- The building of the wall was a partial fulfilment of the restoration prophecies about the rebuilding of Zion. <a href='B:370 9:11-15'>Amo 9:11-15</a> is most comfortably interpreted when read as referring to the restoration of Judah and the “remnant” of the ten tribes to the land under Ezra: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God”. “I will raise up” uses a Hebrew word very commonly featured in the records of the restoration, when the people were exhorted to “rise up and build” (<a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:15'>Ezr 10:15</a>; <a href='B:160 2:18'>Neh 2:18</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>). The statement that they would “close up the breaches thereof” is exactly the language of <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>, which records that the walls were rebuilt so that there was no breach [s:w:] therein. It was after the Babylonian invasion that Zion was “fallen” and ‘ruined’ (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:18'>Jer 31:18</a>; <a href='B:300 45:4'>Jer 45:4</a>; <a href='B:310 2:2'>Lam 2:2</a>; <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). “I will build it” is exactly the theme of the records of the return from Babylon (<a href='B:150 1:2-3'>Ezr 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 3:2'>Ezr 3:2</a>; <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezr 3:10</a>; <a href='B:150 4:1-4'>Ezr 4:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 2:5'>Neh 2:5</a>; <a href='B:160 2:17-18'>Neh 2:17-18</a>; <a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a>; <a href='B:160 3:1-3'>Neh 3:1-3</a>; <a href='B:160 3:13-15'>Neh 3:13-15</a>; <a href='B:160 4:1'>Neh 4:1</a>; <a href='B:160 4:3'>Neh 4:3</a>; <a href='B:160 4:5-6'>Neh 4:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>; <a href='B:160 4:17-18'>Neh 4:17-18</a>; <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>; <a href='B:160 6:6'>Neh 6:6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:1'>Neh 7:1</a>). Surely Amos 9 is saying that at the rebuilding at the time of the restoration, God’s people could have ushered in the Kingdom age of agricultural plenty and victory over their Arab neighbours. But they intermarried with Edom, and suffered drought because they didn’t fulfill the requirements to rebuild Zion correctly. But the words of Amos were still to come true in some form- they are given an application in <a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a> which may appear to be way out of context, i:e. to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Thus words which could have had a plain fulfilment at the restoration were given a delayed fulfilment; but they were not fulfilled in a literal sense, but in a spiritual one. And so it is with prophecies like Ezekiel 38, and the temple prophecies of Ezekiel. They will be fulfilled in spiritual essence, but probably not in strict literality, although they could have been had God’s people been more ‘fulfilling’ of them.</p><p>And that there was no breach left therein (though even to that time I had not set up the doors in the gates)- "No breach" is the language of <a href='B:330 13:5'>Eze 13:5</a>; <a href='B:330 22:30'>Eze 22:30</a>, perhaps hinting that Nehemiah and his work could potentially have been the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies of the restoration. The wall of God's vineyard had been broken down (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a>) and the rebuilding of it was intended to be in the Messianic Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Then Sanballat and Geshem sent to me saying, Come, let us meet together in the villages in the plain of Ono. But they intended to harm me- So often "dialogue" is offered with ulterior motives. We have probably all experienced this; and in those moments, passages like this come alive, God's word is a living word to us. For all our human situations have historical precedents, in essence, in the Biblical record. Nehemiah was doubtless inspired by Esther in his requesting the king for help. "Intended to harm" is the very phrase used about Haman's devices against the Jews (<a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>; <a href='B:190 9:25'>Est 9:25</a>). If we are motivated by Biblical characters, then God in essence will respond likewise as He did in their lives, and the connections between our experiences and theirs will be continued by Him.</p>


text:
<p>I sent messengers to them saying, I am doing a great work, so that I can’t come down. Why should the work cease while I leave it, and come down to you?- The greatness of the work was ever in Nehemiah's mind (also <a href='B:160 4:19'>Neh 4:19</a>). The work of restoring Yahweh's Kingdom on earth couldn't be greater; and nothing would distract him from that. Not internal politics, false accusations and claims, nor the size of the work and the apparently great size of the opposition. "The work cease" is the phrase of <a href='B:160 4:11'>Neh 4:11</a>; Nehemiah knew their intention was to make "the work cease" through this supposed dialogue, and he makes it clear he sees through their plan.</p>


text:
<p>They sent to me four times in this manner; and I kept giving them the same answer- "In this manner::. the same answer::. again [AV "in like manner", :5] are all the same phrase. The idea is of a conscious effort to wear him down by saying the same thing. As noted on :2, we have all likely experienced this kind of situation in essence.</p>


text:
<p>Then, again- Heb. "in like manner", see on :4.</p><p>Sanballat sent his servant to me the fifth time with an open letter in his hand- As noted on :2, we have all probably had this kind of experience. Accusations or statements are 'accidentally on purpose' made public knowledge, designed to spread gossip amongst the opposing side, forcing the leadership to give in to false offers of dialogue.</p>


text:
<p>in which was written, It is reported among the nations, and Gashmu says it- LXX "It has been reported among the Gentiles". This is the classic way of manipulation by such things: 'Do you know what people are saying about you?'. Nehemiah sets a fine example of focusing upon God's work and ignoring such manipulation by focusing solely upon God's perspective. "Gashmu" is Geshem of <a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a>; <a href='B:160 6:1'>Neh 6:1</a>.</p><p>That you and the Jews intend to rebel. Because of that, you are building the wall. You would be their king, according to this report- The intention was to spread fear amongst the workers; 'If you follow Nehemiah, you are going to get into big trouble with the Persian empire, because it's now known that Nehemiah wants to be a king'. If Nehemiah was indeed to fulfil the restoration prophecies, then he would indeed have been declared a king and Judah would have become totally independent of Persia. It's likely that this was all a twist of the restoration prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>You have also appointed prophets to speak up for you at Jerusalem saying, ‘There is a king in Judah!’ Now it will be reported to the king according to these words. Come now therefore, and let us take counsel together- The prophet Malachi may well have been contemporary with Nehemiah, and he does speak of Yahweh as independent king of Judah. So it seems Tobiah the apostate Jew (see on <a href='B:160 2:10'>Neh 2:10</a>) was willfully twisting the prophetic word. But Nehemiah sets a great example, in refusing to spend his energy putting out the fires of gossip and potential gossip- but gets on with the work in hand. For those fires are humanly speaking unquenchable.</p><p>Isaiah’s lengthy prophecies of the restoration must be compared against the sad reality of what actually happened. The prophecies exude a wonderfully positive and joyful spirit, which contrasts with the defeatism of the returnees. And one cannot help but wonder whether we as individuals and therefore as a community have really lived the life of joy which the NT promises for those who truly believe. Take <a href='B:290 45:20-21'>Isa 45:20-21</a> as an example: “Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations [i:e. Babylon and all the 127 provinces of Persia]::. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together”. These are the very words used to describe how the Arab opposition ‘took counsel together’ to frustrate the work of the Jews and wanted Nehemiah to join them in such counsel (<a href='B:160 6:7'>Neh 6:7</a>). Yahweh is exultantly saying: ‘Let them do it::. let them get on with it, nothing can prosper against you and your work!’. But instead, the Jews took the opposition so seriously.</p>


text:
<p>Then I sent to him, saying, ‘There are no such things done as you say, but you imagine them out of your own heart’- Here we have another Biblical example of the huge theme- that words and bad behaviour proceed out of the heart (<a href='B:480 7:21-23'>Mar 7:21-23</a>). Instead of endlessly worrying about putting out the fires of gossip, a simple, clear denial of untruth is all that is required- and God will do the rest.</p>


text:
<p>For they all would have made us afraid, saying, Their hands will be weakened from the work, that it not be done. But now, may my hands be strengthened- The restoration prophecies had stated clearly that the returned exiles would not be afraid, and that God would strengthen their hands (<a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a>). <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>: “Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid”. Isaiah’s restoration prophecies contained not only many clear commands to not fear at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>; <a href='B:290 41:13-14'>Isa 41:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:290 43:5'>Isa 43:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a>; <a href='B:290 44:8'>Isa 44:8</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>), but also a clear statement that if they were truly the re-established Kingdom, they would not fear: “Thou afflicted, tossed with tempest [s:w. <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a> re. how Judah was ‘tossed around’ by the 70 years captivity] I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires::. and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee::. and all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” (<a href='B:290 54:11-14'>Isa 54:11-14</a>). But the adversaries to the rebuilding did make the returned exiles afraid (and also <a href='B:150 3:3'>Ezr 3:3</a>). Nehemiah exhorted the people not to be afraid perhaps on the basis of Jeremiah’s words (<a href='B:160 4:14'>Neh 4:14</a>). Their fear and problem-oriented view of life stopped the Kingdom bursting forth into their experience. That fear was rooted in an obsessive self-interest that eclipsed a true faith in that which is greater and larger than us as individuals. And so it can be with us.</p>


text:
<p>I went to the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah the son of Mehetabel- Perhaps a priest, as Delaiah is mentioned in <a href='B:130 24:18'>1Ch 24:18</a>.</p><p>Who was shut in at his home- Perhaps he shut himself in as an acted parable of how he and Nehemiah ought to go into God's house and shut themselves in there (as in <a href='B:110 22:11'>1Ki 22:11</a>; <a href='B:300 28:10'>Jer 28:10</a>; <a href='B:510 21:11'>Act 21:11</a>).</p><p>And he said, Let us meet together in God’s house, within the temple, and let us shut the doors of the temple; for they will come to kill you. Yes, in the night will they come to kill you- Shemaiah was a false prophet, clearly working for the Samaritan opposition, who had many supporters amongst the Jews. He appealed to the idea that the temple was a place of sanctuary, about which there are some Biblical statements. Clearly the idea was to murder Nehemiah at night in the temple when nobody was around:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>I said, Should such a man as I flee?- He knew that God's Spirit was with him, and therefore there was no place to flee from that (<a href='B:230 139:7'>Psa 139:7</a> s:w:). He was not going to flee from his prophetic task as Jonah had attempted to (<a href='B:390 1:10'>Jon 1:10</a>). He had obeyed the call to flee the land of captivity (<a href='B:290 48:20'>Isa 48:20</a>) and was not therefore going to flee away from the promised land and flee back to Babylon / Persia as they wished.</p><p>Who is there that, being such as I, would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in- As the chief butler, Nehemiah was likely a eunuch. It would therefore not have been appropriate for him to go into the temple, and in any case he was not a priest.</p>


text:
<p>I perceived that God had not sent him; but that he pronounced this prophecy against me. Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him- Hireling prophets were one of the reasons Judah had gone into captivity in the first place. And they were acting just the same. They were hiring as it were Balaam against him (s:w. <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>). And all this was a repeat of Ezra's experience of counsellors being hired against him (s:w. <a href='B:150 4:5'>Ezr 4:5</a>). He had been inspired by Ezra. If we are motivated by Biblical characters, then God in essence will respond likewise as He did in their lives, and the connections between our experiences and theirs will be continued by Him.</p>


text:
<p>He was hired so that I would be afraid, follow his advice, and sin. Thus they would have material for an evil report, that they might reproach me- We as believers are not called upon to be naive, but to be "wise as serpents".</p>


text:
<p>Remember, my God, Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and also the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear- The false prophet Shemaiah was not acting alone. There were a group of such prophets as well as&nbsp; prophetess who were making false prophecies, in league with the Samaritan opposition. The spiritual state of Judah was indeed very weak. It was only a firm personal belief in the truth of God's actual word which preserved Nehemiah from believing these false prophets. And therefore he didn't fear. Time and again, Isaiah’s restoration prophecies told Judah that they should not fear, as Yahweh would mightily be with them in their work (<a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>; <a href='B:290 41:13-14'>Isa 41:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:290 43:5'>Isa 43:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a>; <a href='B:290 44:8'>Isa 44:8</a>; <a href='B:290 44:11'>Isa 44:11</a>; <a href='B:290 54:7'>Isa 54:7</a>; <a href='B:290 54:14'>Isa 54:14</a>; <a href='B:290 59:19'>Isa 59:19</a>). But Judah feared the surrounding nations- Ezra and Nehemiah are full of this theme (<a href='B:150 3:3'>Ezr 3:3</a>). Nehemiah refused to be put in fear by the Samaritan opposition because of his faith in Isaiah’s promises.</p>


text:
<p>So the wall was finished in the twenty-fifth day of Elul, in fifty-two days- This is absolutely credible; Themistocles built a wall around Athens in a similar time span. The roughly 40 lots into which the work of the wall was divided up in Ezra 3 would have averaged about 80 yards (73 meters) for each group. And parts of the wall would have needed less work than others; remember we are not talking about the rebuilding of the walls after the Babylonian destruction, but from the damage done to them by the Samaritans.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when all our enemies heard of it, then all the nations that were about us were afraid, and were much cast down in their own eyes; for they perceived that this work was done of our God- The restoration prophets envisaged the Gentiles joyfully accepting God's hand in that restoration; e:g. <a href='B:230 126:2'>Psa 126:2</a>, "Then said they among the nations, The Lord has done great things for them". But this wasn't quite the case. The Gentiles did accept the action of Israel's God against all odds, but the Jews intermarried with them and made false prophecies for them. And there was not the repentance intended amongst the Jews and Gentiles. The surrounding nations were intended to note the real presence of Israel's&nbsp; God and then join Him in covenant relationship. But the apostacy of the Jews, as well as Gentile impenitence, precluded this scenario from happening at the time.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters to Tobiah, and Tobiah’s letters came to them- This connection with Tobiah in particular would be understandable if indeed he was an apostate Jew as suggested on :18. The greatness of Nehemiah's achievement was that he did it in the teeth of betrayal amongst his own people, and despite all manner of politics- gossip, threats of gossip, letters going back and forth, family politics (:19), innuendo, intrigue and politics. Despite all those things he focused upon the work.</p>


text:
<p>For there were many in Judah sworn to him, because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah; and his son Jehohanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah as wife- This is tacit recognition of the fact that the apparent repentance of marrying Gentiles and the supposed separations from them in Ezra's time were fictive or not far reaching. Tobiah's name includes the termination ‘Yah’, suggesting he may have been a renegade Jew (cp. <a href='B:150 2:60'>Ezr 2:60</a>; <a href='B:450 6:10'>Zec 6:10</a>). His son’s name, Jehohanan also features the 'Yah' prefix. But he self identified as an Ammonite (<a href='B:160 2:10'>Neh 2:10</a>). It seems from <a href='B:160 13:4'>Neh 13:4</a> that even the high priest was "allied" with Tobiah by marriage. Meshullam was also a priest who had helped in the rebuilding (<a href='B:160 3:4'>Neh 3:4</a>; <a href='B:160 3:30'>Neh 3:30</a>). The priesthood and leadership was totally against Nehemiah and his plans, even though Meshullam had helped rebuild the wall. That Nehemiah succeeded in rebuilding the wall despite all the internal and external opposition, and all the murky internal politics, was clearly only the work of the Spirit of God; but we have to commend Nehemiah for his personal tenacity. He is an example of 'the power of one'. And it is so often the case that genuine intention to serve God is derailed by exhaustion with internal church politics. Nehemiah is really the parade example of a man who focused upon God's work and refused to be distracted by all this.</p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<p></p><p></p>


text:
<p>Also they spoke of his good deeds before me, and reported my words to him. Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear- The essence of this kind of thing is seen today in the bombardment of people by various forms of communication, which is so easy in our age. "Good deeds" is a play on the word "Tobiah" (Heb. tob = 'good'). He had paid the false prophets to prophesy for him (:12), so he likely used money as an instrument in his machinations; and this was likely interpreted as charitable donations. Nehemiah must have felt so isolated, with so little support amongst the Jews, and yet doing what he did solely for them rather than himself.</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened, once the wall was built and I had set up the doors, and the porters and the singers and the Levites were appointed- The implication is that they were appointed as keepers of the doors, gatekeepers. The "porters and singers" were Levites. The use of Levites to guard the gates was a conscious attempt to restore the situation in Solomon's temple (<a href='B:130 9:17-22'>1Ch 9:17-22</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12-19'>1Ch 26:12-19</a>). We should also remember that the Levites and priests accounted for about half the population of Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:6-19'>Neh 11:6-19</a> cp. <a href='B:130 9:9-22'>1Ch 9:9-22</a>). According to <a href='B:330 44:11-14'>Eze 44:11-14</a>, the repentant Levites were to be the gatekeepers in the restored temple. But there is no evidence they did repent, indeed the record in Nehemiah shows they were on the side of the Samaritan opposition, intermarrying with them; and so the Kingdom situation possible at the restoration was precluded.</p>


text:
<p>that I put my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the governor of the castle, in charge over Jerusalem: for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many- Nehemiah’s brother Hanani was given “charge over Jerusalem: for he was a faithful man”- not just because he was the boss’s brother, which is how the nepotism of those times would have usually required. It can be that human qualification, e:g. being a successful businessman, or the brother of a leading brother, is related to positions of eldership amongst us. Yet the Nehemiah passage shows that although sometimes there may be overlap between both spiritual and human qualification, it is the spiritual qualification which must be paramount. Because of this the ‘leaders’ of a healthy ecclesia will not need to give any justification for their authority. They will naturally be respected for who they are, just as a father in a healthy family. This is why the NT gives all of us guidelines on how to decide whether a brother should be respected as an elder or not. Even though some may be shepherds, they are still sheep; and they are leading others after the Lord Jesus, “the chief shepherd”, not after themselves.</p><p>Judah were to keep the charges ['perform the duty'] of God relating to His house (<a href='B:330 40:46'>Eze 40:46</a>; <a href='B:330 44:8'>Eze 44:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:14-16'>Eze 44:14-16</a>), so that the Kingdom of God might be restored in Israel. Nehemiah, seeking for Israel’s obedience to Ezekiel’s vision, tried to get them to “keep the charges” (s:w. <a href='B:160 7:2-3'>Neh 7:2-3</a>; <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a>; <a href='B:160 12:45'>Neh 12:45</a>; <a href='B:160 13:20'>Neh 13:20</a>). But soon, Judah complained that there was no benefit to them from having kept the charges (<a href='B:460 3:14'>Mal 3:14</a> s:w:). Partial obedience discouraged them from any further effort, because the fullness of blessing can only come from a way of life conformed to God’s Kingdom vision and life. This is why people get disillusioned with religion and lose even the true faith- because they seek for immediate benefit as a result of keeping a few highly specific aspects of God’s law, rather than willingly devoting their way of life to the realization of His vision.</p>


text:
<p>I said to them, Don’t let the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot. While they stand guard, let them shut the doors, and you bar them; and appoint watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, everyone in his watch, with everyone near his house- <a href='B:290 60:11'>Isa 60:11</a> had predicted that at the time of the restoration, these gates would be open continually and not locked. This was all precluded by the Jews' continued apostacy.</p><p>Due to the Jews’ abuse of the Sabbath and their refusal to believe Yahweh would be the promised wall of protecting fire to them, the gates could not be open continually, and had to be shut at night (<a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a>). And Antiochus quite soon after Nehemiah’s time destroyed them [which shows how the spirituality involved in what we do, e:g. the building of the wall, is the essential thing, rather than the achievement of anything in itself]. The implication of the prophecies about Zion’s open gates was that whosoever would could then come at any time to seek Yahweh. But men were potentially turned away from Him, and His Kingdom not realized::. just because greedy, materialistic Jews wanted to have a few more coins in their pocket as a result of their trading on the Sabbath. And so with us, our meanness, our disabling of adverts to be placed, preaching to be done::. by our selfishness, our desire to have more than we need to cover us in the case of any eventuality, all this effectively shuts up the Kingdom against men. If the Pharisees could do just this, it is possible for us to do it. The salvation of others has been delegated into our hands.</p>


text:
<p>Now the city was wide and large; but the people were few therein, and the houses were not built- <a href='B:290 65:21'>Isa 65:21</a> had prophesied that "They shall build houses and inhabit them themselves; and they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit". But very few houses were built in Zion, because the people preferred to live on their farms, in their cieled houses, outside the city. They planted vineyards, but sold the fruit to others- on the Sabbath (<a href='B:160 13:15-16'>Neh 13:15-16</a>). So the record here laments how small was the population of the restored Jerusalem. They had failed to fulfil the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 2:4'>Zec 2:4</a>: “And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein”. Likewise <a href='B:330 36:10'>Eze 36:10</a>: “And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded”. They were happier to settle outside of Jerusalem and concentrate on building up their own farms in the villages and small towns of Judah, rather than sense the importance of Zion. <a href='B:160 11:1-3'>Neh 11:1-3</a> suggests that so few wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there, that they had to draw lots to get at least a tenth of the total population to live there- in what should have been the capital. If more had returned from Babylon, if more had lived in Jerusalem, then Yahweh would have been a wall of fire to them, and then the Kingdom conditions described in the rest of Zechariah 2 would have come about. Although the restoration prophecies speak as if the increase of Zion’s population was to be unconditional, <a href='B:330 36:37'>Eze 36:37</a> implies that this would only happen if they prayed for it: “Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock”. But they got on with building their own homes and farms outside Jerusalem, they blessed those who had the courage to live in Zion itself, but didn’t earnestly pray for the fulfilment of the prophecies. They figured that the time for their fulfilment hadn’t come, as Haggai laments; instead of praying for their fulfilment. And we must assess our attitude to the fulfilment of prophecy in the light of all this.</p><p><a href='B:400 7:11-13'>Mic 7:11-13</a> RV explains how the restoration would fail to grasp the prophetic potentials: “In the day that thy walls are to be built [the restoration under Nehemiah], in that day shall the boundary [of Israel] be far removed [the boundaries of Israel would be extended, as noted in several prophecies of the Kingdom]. In that day shall they come unto thee from Assyria [Babylon] and the cities of Egypt…even to the river [Euphrates- i:e. all of scattered Israel, including those who went down to Egypt with Jeremiah 70 years beforehand, would return to the land]…Notwithstanding, the land shall be desolate”. Despite all this being made potentially possible (“notwithstanding…”), the wonderful Messianic Kingdom was disallowed from coming into existence at that time because of “the fruit of their doings” (<a href='B:400 7:13'>Mic 7:13</a>). <a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a> obliquely comments on the tragedy: “Now the city was large and great: but the people [who returned from Babylon] were few therein, and the houses were not builded”. See on <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>; <a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>My God put into my heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy- This continues the theme throughout Ezra and Nehemiah of God working directly on the human heart, inserting ideas and initiatives into human minds who were willing to respond, as in <a href='B:160 2:12'>Neh 2:12</a>. This is all the work of the Spirit. The same phrase is used of God putting wisdom into the hearts of those who built the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 36:2'>Exo 36:2</a>). It is also used of how God would give (s:w. "put") a new heart to the returned exiles (<a href='B:300 24:7'>Jer 24:7</a>). But they generally didn't make use of that gift of the Spirit and rejected the new covenant which included the promise of the Spirit. Nehemiah was one of the few who did at least partially respond to it. And even he, along with Ezra, seemed intent on keeping hold of the old covenant rather than accepting the new covenant.</p><p>I found the book of the genealogy of those who came up at the first, and I found written therein- The context of the new census was presumably to address the problem of the returnees not wanting to live in Jerusalem (see on :4). Nehemiah was therefore interested in the record of where they had originally come from. Perhaps the idea was that they should only live in their original home area (:6 "each one to his city"). It seems some who were originally from Jerusalem had grabbed land not belonging to them in other areas.</p>


text:
<p>These are the children of the province, who went up out of the captivity of those who had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and who returned to Jerusalem and to Judah, each one to his city- "Went up" is literally a 'going up'. Those who truly waited upon Yahweh would renew their strength; they would “mount up as eagles” (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a>), the s:w. used throughout Ezra and Nehemiah for the ‘going up’ to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the temple (<a href='B:150 1:3'>Ezr 1:3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 1:11'>Ezr 1:11</a>; <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 2:59'>Ezr 2:59</a>; <a href='B:150 7:6-7'>Ezr 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:1'>Ezr 8:1</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-6'>Neh 7:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:61'>Neh 7:61</a>; <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>). The idea of mounting up with wings as eagles also connects with Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim, mounting up from the captives by the rivers of Babylon, and returning to the land. But the reality was as in <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>: “And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall”. Examination of the context shows that they had just had plenty of strength; they lost physical stamina because of their spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>They came- When Nehemiah speaks of them having been redeemed by Yahweh’s “strong hand” (<a href='B:160 1:10'>Neh 1:10</a>). he is using the language of <a href='B:290 40:10'>Isa 40:10</a>, regarding how Yahweh would come to Zion and save Israel from Babylon and restore them to the land “with strong hand”. Nehemiah saw the prophecy could have been fulfilled then. The way Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-7'>Neh 7:5-7</a>), Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:8'>Ezr 7:8</a>; <a href='B:150 8:32'>Ezr 8:32</a>) and Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>) are described as ‘coming to Jerusalem’ may hint that they could have fulfilled this coming of Yahweh to Zion; they could have been Messianic figures (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>).</p><p>With Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel- Zerubbabel was the ‘head’ of the house of David (<a href='B:150 4:3'>Ezr 4:3</a>; <a href='B:440 2:23'>Hag 2:23</a>; <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12-13'>Zec 6:12-13</a>), as was his descendant Hattush (<a href='B:150 8:1-3'>Ezr 8:1-3</a> cp. <a href='B:130 3:22'>1Ch 3:22</a>). As the grandson of Jehoiachin, Judah's exiled king, Zerubbabel would've been the legitimate king of Judah. Potentially, <a href='B:350 1:11'>Hos 1:11</a> could have come true: “Judah and… Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head [Zerubbabel?]; and they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel” (RSV). And perhaps as head of the house of David, Zerubbabel was intended to be the “David my servant” who would be the one king and one shepherd who would lead Israel back to the land from exile (<a href='B:330 37:22'>Eze 37:22</a>; <a href='B:330 37:24'>Eze 37:24</a>). Significantly, <a href='B:160 7:7'>Neh 7:7</a> describes Zerubbabel as being at the head of twelve leaders of the returning exiles, who are called “the people of Israel” (cp. <a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>). And yet he let the baton drop. The prophecies and potentials were therefore reapplied and rescheduled for fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred and seventy-two-</p><p>"Children of::." can be understood literally; or the 'children of' a geographical area are the people who live in it. It seems that initially we have a list of the literal families who returned. Then those who returned, arranged according to geographical localities; and then the numbers of the priests, arranged according to families, and then according to their localities; then the families of the Nethinim&nbsp; and of Solomon's servants.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Arah, six hundred and fifty-two- "Arah" is 'wandering', perhaps aware that the Jews had been exiled to the east just as Cain was to wander east of Eden.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and eighteen- 2812 in <a href='B:150 2:6'>Ezr 2:6</a>. The numbers in the parallel record in Nehemiah 7 are sometimes higher. I suggest that that was a list of those who began the journey, or expressed interest in it; whereas Ezra 2 is the list of those who completed it. And there was far more interest in starting the journey than actually finishing it, as we see in response to the Gospel of the Kingdom today.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Elam, one thousand two hundred and fifty-four-&nbsp; Elam was the name of a neighbouring nation, so we wonder whether this was a Jew very influenced by secularism who then repented and had a spiritual revival. And he was one of the largest families to return.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Zattu, eight hundred and forty-five- <a href='B:150 2:8'>Ezr 2:8</a> says 945. 100 didn't actually make it. There was far more interest in starting the journey than actually finishing it, as we see in response to the Gospel of the Kingdom today.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Binnui, six hundred and forty-eight- "Builder", perhaps so named because he was keen to rebuild Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bebai, six hundred and twenty-eight- Bebai" isn't a Hebrew word; some of the exiles had so assimilated that they only had local Persian names. To leave all they had known was therefore a major challenge.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred and twenty-two- The differing sizes of the families may not simply mean that some were larger than others, but that some families divided more than others over this question of returning to Judah. Some stayed, and others went. And of course many families didn't respond at all.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-seven- 'Lord of the sunrise', a pagan, cultic name; again reflecting the extent to which the exiles had assimilated. I have noted on Esther how "Esther" and "Mordecai" were both local names associated with idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bigvai, two thousand and sixty-seven- A relatively large number. We are again faced with the question of why some families and geographical areas responded to the call more than others.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Adin, six hundred and fifty-five- "Adin" is s:w. "given to pleasures" (<a href='B:290 47:8'>Isa 47:8</a>). And yet the message of return to restore the Kingdom was somehow attractive even to such a person.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Hashum, three hundred and twenty-eight- "Hashum" means "enriched"; Haggai laments that the motivation for many of the returning exiles was the hope of personal enrichment.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Bezai, three hundred and twenty-four- Perhaps the same as Besai one of the Nethinim (<a href='B:150 2:49'>Ezr 2:49</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Hariph, one hundred and twelve- "Hariph" is the common word for "reproach". Perhaps he and his family were those who felt strong "push" factors from their community, and went to Judah because of them, rather than because they were 'pulled' by more spiritual reasons.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Gibeon, ninety-five- "Gibbar" of <a href='B:150 2:20'>Ezr 2:20</a> is Gibeon in Benjamin (<a href='B:160 7:25'>Neh 7:25</a>), and we note that a disproportionate number of the returnees were from Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Bethlehem and Netophah, one hundred and eighty-eight- The majority of those who returned were from Benjamin and Judah. The prophetic vision of all the tribes of Israel returning didn't come about at the time. These are pathetically small numbers, bearing in mind there were around 1 million Jews in the empire (see on <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Beth Azmaveth, forty-two- The small number was because this was known as literally "fields" near to Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 12:29'>Neh 12:29</a>). And yet 42 people returned from this area. Whereas from far larger settlements, not one.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Kiriath Jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three- They may have been listed together because these villages were close to each other, or they travelled together as if one family. The men of Kirjathjearim had looked after the ark previously (<a href='B:90 7:1-2'>1Sa 7:1-2</a>) and been blessed for it. There had been a faithful prophet there at the time of the captivity (<a href='B:300 26:20'>Jer 26:20</a>); these considerations may account for the relatively large number who returned from that area.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ramah and Geba, six hundred and twenty-one- "Gaba" is s:w. "Gibeah of Benjamin" (<a href='B:70 20:10'>Jdg 20:10</a>). This was a priestly city, given to the Levites, although very few Levites returned (<a href='B:60 21:17'>Jos 21:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Michmas, one hundred and twenty-two- The order of the towns appears to be geographical, as "Michmas" was close to "Geba" (s:w. "Gibeah") of :30 (<a href='B:90 14:5'>1Sa 14:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Bethel and Ai, a hundred and twenty-three- Mentioned together because they were geographically close (<a href='B:60 7:2'>Jos 7:2</a>; <a href='B:60 8:9'>Jos 8:9</a>). Bethel was in the ten tribe kingdom, so it seems that some of the Israelites did return along with Judah; but not to the extent of the prophetic vision, whereby a repentant Israel and Judah would be united together in a reestablished Kingdom of God in the land.</p>


text:
<p>The men of the other Nebo, fifty-two- "The other Nebo", perhaps to differentiate it from Nebo in Moab; or as LXX "Nabia".</p>


text:
<p>The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty- Whilst in this section we are reading of the names of towns and not people, this location is unknown, and means 'flat nosed' as if referring to a person. Perhaps the interesting case of the person Harim is being emphasized, in that people from his village also returned with him. See on :42.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-one- <a href='B:150 2:33'>Ezr 2:33</a> gives 725. The fact is noted that even four people began the journey, or were willing to start it, but didn't make it. These details show the abiding value to God of every human person.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Senaah, three thousand nine hundred and thirty- A relatively large number. We are again faced with the question of why some families and geographical areas responded to the call more than others. The larger cities such as Lachish had apparently not a single one who returned from there.</p>


text:
<p>The priests: The children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred and seventy-three- We have the numbers of the priests, arranged according to families, and then according to their localities. They were not particularly faithful for many of them had married Gentile women by the time Ezra came.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites: the children of Jeshua, of Kadmiel, of the children of Hodevah, seventy-four- These Levites of :43 are the ordinary Levites; :44 refers to the Levites who sung, and :45 to those who kept the gates. But only two families of the ordinary mass of Levites initially returned- a pathetic response.</p>


text:
<p>The singers: the children of Asaph, one hundred and forty-eight- This was very poor response. We note that apparently the famous singing families of Heman and Jeduthin didn't return (<a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, one hundred and thirty-eight- This is a very small number for the families of the gate keepers. The number of ordinary Levites compared to priests is very low (in the Ezra 2 account, 4289 priests, and 341 Levites). There were far more Levites than there were priests, but it seems the Levites didn't want to return and do the dirty work; everyone wanted to be religious leaders. Hence Ezra's problem in finding Levites to return (<a href='B:150 8:15'>Ezr 8:15</a>). We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>the children of Keros, the children of Sia, the children of Padon- These names could well be Persian and not Hebrew. The Nethinim were Gentiles (see on :46), and had unsurprisingly adopted Persian names in the exile. But they wanted to return to rebuild Judah. It's hard to guess whether the push or pull factor was strongest. Perhaps they felt they had never been accepted in Persian society just as they hadn't been in Jewish society and therefore felt a 'push' from exile; or perhaps they were truly faithful to the God of Israel they served, and were thereby 'pulled' by that back to His service.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Lebana, the children of Hagaba, the children of Salmai- "Lebana" is "the moon"; "Hagaba" is "the locust". These names suggest a high level of assimilation into Persian society.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Hanan, the children of Giddel, the children of Gahar- We note the lack of the 'Yah' prefix or suffix in these names. Those who responded were apparently secular people, not known for their devotion to Yahweh. That may explain why the records of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi complain that they were not well motivated and were largely only looking for personal benefit and advantage through returning to Judah. See on <a href='B:150 2:19'>Ezr 2:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Reaiah, the children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda- "Reaiah", 'Yah has seen', is one of the few names which has the 'Yah' suffix. And he was of the Nethinim, a Gentile, who had retained his devotion to Yahweh despite being made a servant of Yahweh's apostate people.</p><p>"Nekoda" is a female name. This female head of house, a Gentile of the Nethinim, meaning literally "speckled" (s:w. <a href='B:10 30:33'>Gen 30:33</a>; <a href='B:10 30:35'>Gen 30:35</a>), led her family back to Judah when many Jews wouldn't respond.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Gazzam, the children of Uzza, the children of Paseah- We note that "Uzza" and not "Uzziah" is mentioned; the 'Yah' suffix or prefix is notably missing in these names. "Paseah" means 'limping', suggesting as noted elsewhere that it was those who had some physical infirmity who returned. Thus was fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecy of limping Jacob returning from Babylon to Zion. And today likewise, it is those who are marginalized for whatever reason who are more likely to respond to the Gospel of the restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Besai, the children of Meunim, the children of Nephushesim- "Meunim" is literally 'from Maon', a location in the desert where Nabal and Abigail were from (<a href='B:90 25:2'>1Sa 25:2</a>). Perhaps some of their Gentile servants became Nethinim and remained faithful- despite all the bad examples they saw from God's ethnic people.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur- "Hakupha" means bent or crooked; "Harhur" means 'inflamed'- suggesting as noted elsewhere that it was those who had some physical infirmity who returned.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Bazlith, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha- "Bazluth" means 'peeled skin'; see on :53. "Harsha" is 'magician', confirming the impression that those who returned weren't the religious zealous but generally very secular people.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Temah- These names are all non-Hebrew; the Nethinim were originally Gentile, and these ones appear to have retained that despite returning to the land. The question is whether they were as it were pushed or pulled to return to the land; see on <a href='B:150 2:44'>Ezr 2:44</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Solomon’s servants: the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Perida- These appear to have been reckoned beneath the Nethinim. "They have been traditionally understood to be the descendants of those inhabitants of the land ‘that were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites’ of whom Solomon had hired ‘bondservants’ for the work of building his temple (<a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a>)". It was therefore the most despised classes who responded to the call of the Kingdom. And it is the same today.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Jaala, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel- "Jaalah" is the word for "profit" used of the idols whom Israel believed would profit them (<a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>; <a href='B:290 47:12'>Isa 47:12</a>; <a href='B:300 2:8'>Jer 2:8</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a>; <a href='B:300 16:19'>Jer 16:19</a> etc:). This again rather suggests that the majority of those who returned were secular folks who were not doing so from religious, spiritual motives but for secular reasons.</p>


text:
<p>the children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth Hazzebaim, the children of Amon- Shephatiah, "Yah has judged", is one of the few names in these lists which includes 'Yah'. Amongst these largely secular people who returned (judging by their names) there were some who were doing so from spiritual reasons. But they were a minority. And that impression accords with the historical information about their later behaviour in the land as found in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi.</p>


text:
<p>All the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred and ninety-two- This figure is exactly the same as that given in <a href='B:150 2:58'>Ezr 2:58</a>, whereas the numbers in the parallel record in Ezra 2 are often lower when it comes to the Jews who returned. I suggest that that was a list of those who began the journey, or expressed interest in it; whereas Ezra 2 is the list of those who completed it. And there was far more interest in starting the journey than actually finishing it, as we see in response to the Gospel of the Kingdom today. But the despised Gentile classes of the Nethinim and Solomon's servants were actually more committed.</p>


text:
<p>These were those who went up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer; but they could not prove their fathers’ houses nor their genealogies, whether they were of Israel- These people may have included Gentiles; for it is unlikely that many Jews apart from the Levites could prove their descent, and that is why those who returned are not listed according to their tribes. Indeed it would appear that the genealogical records were destroyed when the temple was burnt. So the reference here may be to those who lived near to the original encampments of the exiles who wanted to return with them. This had been the prophetic vision- that Judah and Israel would repent, Babylon would be judged and fall, and the repentant remnant of the Gentiles would return with the repentant ones of God's people to form a new, multiethnic people of God in His restored Kingdom. But the impenitence of God's people meant that things didn't work out like that. Babylon didn't "fall" in the way that was potentially possible, the majority of God's people chose to remain in exile. And only a handful of Gentiles returned, probably the poorest of the land, perhaps captives from other nations who had been grouped along with the Jews, and likely motivated by the chance of a better life.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred and forty-two- As explained on :61, these were likely Gentiles, and their names suggest that. However, "Delaiah" means 'Yah has delivered', so perhaps this was a Gentile who wished to share in Yahweh's deliverance from Babylon / Persia.</p>


text:
<p>Of the priests: the children of Hobaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name- Barzillai was famous in Israel from the times of David. This priestly family had taken the name of this family, seeking for kudos and prestige; and thereby had lost their priestly lineage.</p>


text:
<p>These searched for their genealogical records, but couldn’t find them- <a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a> records Judah being ‘reckoned by genealogies’, using the same Hebrew word which is the hallmark of the Chronicles genealogies (<a href='B:130 4:33'>1Ch 4:33</a>; <a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a>; <a href='B:130 5:7'>1Ch 5:7</a>; <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a>; <a href='B:130 7:5'>1Ch 7:5</a>; <a href='B:130 7:7'>1Ch 7:7</a>; <a href='B:130 7:9'>1Ch 7:9</a>; <a href='B:130 7:40'>1Ch 7:40</a>; <a href='B:130 9:1'>1Ch 9:1</a>; <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a>). And in this context, <a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a> compares God’s ‘bringing out’ of Judah from Babylon with His ‘bringing out’ the stars by their individual names, all wonderfully known to Him. <a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a> had prophesied something similar about the restoration of Zion’s fortunes: “The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. The Kingdom of God was to be the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom- but they had to actually get on and restore it rather than wait for it to come.</p><p>Therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood- There is a clear connection here with <a href='B:290 43:28'>Isa 43:28</a>: "Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary; and I will make Jacob a curse, and Israel an insult". They were put forth "as polluted from the priesthood". This is tacit proof enough that the restoration from Babylon failed to be the potential restoration prophesied. Indeed, the behaviour of the Jews at that time attracted further curses and judgment.</p>


text:
<p>The governor told them that they should not eat of the most holy things until there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim- This situation precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:330 42:13'>Eze 42:13</a>: “Then said he unto me, The north chambers and the south chambers, which are before the separate place, they be holy chambers, where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things”. The same words are found in <a href='B:150 2:63'>Ezr 2:63</a> and <a href='B:160 7:65'>Neh 7:65</a> - it wasn’t possible for the priests to eat of the holy things [signifying God’s acceptance of His people], because there was no record of their genealogy. Their names were not written in the “register” in fulfilment of <a href='B:330 13:9'>Eze 13:9</a>: “neither shall they be written in the writing [s:w. ‘register’, <a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a>] of the house of Israel”. Only if a priest stood up with urim and thummim could they eat of the holy things. These were two engraven stones carried in a pouch in the breastplate which flashed out Divine decisions (see H:A. Whittaker, Samuel, Saul And David for an excellent study of this). <a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a> prophesies that Joshua the High Priest would have the engraven stone with seven eyes- the urim and thummim. It would thereby have been possible for a priesthood who had lost their genealogy record during the sacking of the first temple to eat the holy things, and thus fulfil <a href='B:330 42:13'>Eze 42:13</a>. In a restoration context, <a href='B:290 66:21'>Isa 66:21</a> had prophesied that Yahweh would regather Judah, “And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD”. This implies, surely, that He would accept some as Levites who could not otherwise prove they were. <a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a>; <a href='B:450 6:13'>Zec 6:13</a> speaks of Joshua being crowned with the High Priestly mitre and ‘bearing the glory’, i:e. carrying the urim and thummim in the breastplate. But all this was conditional on Joshua’s obedience: “This shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey” (<a href='B:450 6:15'>Zec 6:15</a>). Because Joshua failed, he didn’t have urim and thummim, therefore no decision could be given about who was an acceptable priest, and therefore the ‘Kingdom’ prophecy of <a href='B:330 42:13'>Eze 42:13</a> was left unfulfilled. So much depended upon that man. And likewise, the eternal destiny of many others depends on us. Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration feature “the servant”- who was a symbol of both the people and a Messianic individual. His success was bound up with theirs. Thus <a href='B:290 65:9'>Isa 65:9</a>: “And I will bring forth a seed [singular] out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor [singular] of my mountains: and mine elect [plural] shall inherit it, and my servants [plural] shall dwell there”. His obedience would enable the peoples’ establishment as the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The whole assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty- As noted on <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>, this was but a tiny minority of the 1 million or so exiles in Babylon / Persia; and the prophetic intention that the ten tribes returned at the same time was not realized, because they too preferred the life of exile from God rather than returning to Him.</p>


text:
<p>besides their male and their female servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven: and they had two hundred and forty-five singing men and singing women- 7337 servants for 42360 people (:66) suggests that on average each family had a servant. We therefore get the impression that those who returned weren't the poorest of society, although as noted with regards to the meanings of their names above in this chapter, many of them were probably slightly marginalized. They returned seeking material benefit (<a href='B:440 1:9'>Hag 1:9</a>), as lower middle class people often do; rather than seeking to do God's work. See on :69.</p>


text:
<p>Their horses were seven hundred and thirty-six; their mules, two hundred and forty-five- See on :69. This picture of the Jews returning on various animals is to be connected with the prophecies of the restoration, where the leaders of the nations of their exile were to also make the journey to Zion, carrying the children of the Jews (<a href='B:290 49:22-23'>Isa 49:22-23</a>); and using all the animals here listed in order to bring the Jews back to Zion, and then help them rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 60:4-10'>Isa 60:4-10</a>). But this is very different to the scene we have here; of a very few Gentiles returning with a few Jews, and those Jews not even having enough animals for each of them to ride on (see on :69). Comparison with the prophecies of what was potentially possible makes for a rather sad impression. So much Divine potential was wasted; just as it is by the millions who refuse the call to the Kingdom today. See on :71.</p>


text:
<p>their camels, four hundred and thirty-five; their donkeys, six thousand seven hundred and twenty- Haggai's criticism of the returnees is more understandable if we understand that most of them were the lower classes, who hadn't 'made it' in Babylon. It would be fair to infer that only the lower class Jews returned from Babylon. The record speaks of 42,360 people returning, along with 7,337 servants and 200 singers, making a total of 49,837. And yet only 8,100 animals went with them to transport them. This means that many would have walked. They carried 5,400 vessels for use in the temple- so the picture could be that their more wealthy brethren laded them with goods, but only the poor returned. Further, the list of towns of origin suggests it was mainly those who had originally lived in peripheral villages who returned, rather than the inhabitants of Jerusalem and larger cities.</p>


text:
<p>Some from among the heads of fathers’ households gave to the work. The governor gave to the treasury one thousand darics of gold, fifty basins and five hundred and thirty priests’ garments- Note the stress on "some". It's stressed twice that only "some" of the returned exiles supported the work of the temple (:71)- which was supposed to be the main reason for their return. This hardly sounds like the glorious, positive, confident return of the captives to Zion prophesied in the restoration prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the heads of fathers’ households gave into the treasury of the work twenty thousand darics of gold, and two thousand two hundred minas of silver- This may sound significant, but it is nothing compared to the entire wealth of the lands of their exile which was intended to be brought to Jerusalem at the restoration (<a href='B:290 60:5-10'>Isa 60:5-10</a>). See on :68.</p>


text:
<p>That which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand darics of gold, and two thousand minas of silver, and sixty-seven priests’ garments- It seems some of the priestly garments had been pilfered by non-Levites, or were being used by them perhaps in idol worshipping rituals, performed in the name of Yahweh worship.</p>


text:
<p>So the priests, the Levites and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinim, and all Israel, lived in their cities. When the seventh month had come, the children of Israel were in their cities- The priests in the restored Kingdom were to live in one specific area near the temple (<a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a>), whereas under the Mosaic Law, the priests were given land to live on in each of the various tribes of Israel. And yet the record of the restoration stresses that the priests lived not around the temple, but in various cities throughout Judah (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 11:3'>Neh 11:3</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:44'>Neh 12:44</a>).</p>


text:
<p>All the people gathered themselves together as one man into the broad place that was before the water gate; and they spoke to Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which Yahweh had commanded to Israel- The LXX correctly connects this with the end of Nehemiah 7, "in the seventh month". This was the time of the feast of trumpets (<a href='B:30 23:24-25'>Lev 23:24-25</a>). But they were unaware of this feast (:14), so it seems they likely gathered together at the annual new moon festival which would have been at that time- and then discovered that actually, they were intended to be keeping the feast of booths. Perhaps the idea was that God's word was as living waters, hence it was read from "before the water gate", which was at the eastern entrance to the temple (see on :3), into which Ezekiel had prophesied the glory of Yahweh could return- if they were faithful. This is the same "broad place" near the temple of <a href='B:150 10:9'>Ezr 10:9</a>, where the Nethinim (the temple servants) lived (<a href='B:160 3:26'>Neh 3:26</a>). However, the restoration prophets had explained that the old covenant had been broken, and Israel's only hope was to accept the new covenant offered in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. And yet they all hankered to keep the old covenant, "the book of the law of Moses", rather than accepting the implications of their actions.</p><p>We wonder why Ezra only now appears on the scene in Nehemiah, and has not been mentioned earlier as working with Nehemiah. He may have returned to Babylon in that period; or perhaps his own commitment to the cause had faltered. This calling of Ezra to read the law is presented as a new and unusual move, as if he had not been in the habit of doing this previously. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women, and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month- In those days, religion was largely a hobby for adult men. We note that Israel's God sought relationship with both men and women as well as children old enough to understand (cp. <a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>), and so both men and women were to hear the law. This is repeated in :3.</p>


text:
<p>He read therein before the broad place- "Before" means therefore 'to the east' of it; see on :1.</p><p>That was before the water gate from early morning until noon, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those who could understand. The ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law- "All the people" included both men and women; see on :2. We note the commendable desire to hear the actual text of God's word for itself, when it is a human tendency to shy away from that and to prefer listening to someone else's interpretation of it without the text itself.</p>


text:
<p>Ezra the scribe stood on a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose- Literally, "for the word". This confirms the observation made on :1 that this was not a regular occurrence; it was a special reading of the law. And they had not been taught the law as they should have been, for they were unaware of the feast of booths (:14).</p><p>And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam- "The parallel passage in 1 Esdras gives seven on the right hand, inserting an Azariah between Anaiah and Uriah, but six only on the left, omitting the last name Meshullam". This would mean that if 1 Esdras is correct about only six on the left, we have a total of twelve; surely appropriate for the 12 tribes of Israel. Although mostly only those of Judah and Benjamin were present, it was God's prophetic intention that the repentant remnants of both Israel and Judah, along with converted Gentiles, would unite as a new, multiethnic people of God in the land. This didn't come about, but it was the prophetic potential. We note too that the High Priest is absent here. He was perhaps spiritually corrupted by intermarriage with the Samaritans.</p>


text:
<p>Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; for he was above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up- We note their respect of God's word. The Jews typically sat to hear and stood up to pray. But here they stand to hear the word of God. We wonder from where this great interest in God's word and respect for it came from; for it was on their initiative that the scrolls were called for (:1). Perhaps Ezra and Nehemiah had urged them to desire this. Or maybe this was all the movement of God's Spirit. Or maybe they realized that the time of the feast of trumpets (see on :1) ought to be the time of reading God's word together.</p>


text:
<p>Ezra blessed Yahweh, the great God. All the people answered, Amen, Amen, with the lifting up of their hands. They bowed their heads, and worshipped Yahweh with their faces to the ground- Ezra may have been praising God for their interest in His word which had suddenly appeared (see on :5). Their worshipping with faces to the ground recalls the scene at the inauguration of Solomon's temple (<a href='B:140 7:3'>2Ch 7:3</a>). On one hand we must allow that they may have been totally sincere; but the nationalistic desire to replicate past glory was surely also there, and as with all worship, God alone knows the motivations of every heart.</p>


text:
<p>Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah and the Levites caused the people to understand the law; and the people stayed in their place- Probably what is in view is the names of Levitical families, rather than individual Levites (cp:&nbsp; <a href='B:160 9:4-5'>Neh 9:4-5</a>; <a href='B:160 10:10-13'>Neh 10:10-13</a>; <a href='B:160 12:8'>Neh 12:8</a>). Four of these names are found in the list of Levites in <a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>, and seven in the list of Levites in <a href='B:160 10:9-14'>Neh 10:9-14</a>. I have noted earlier the tension between priests and Levites, and how few Levites there were relative to the priests amongst those who returned. The idea seems to be that there were few willing to do the work of humble service, without possessing land, which the Levites were called to. The fact they are presented here as teaching the people the law, when this was the job of the priests, is another indication that the priesthood had failed in their duty of teaching the law; see in :14.</p>


text:
<p>They read in the book, in the law of God, with interpretation; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading- LXX "And they read in the book of the law of God, and Ezra taught, and instructed them distinctly in the knowledge of the Lord, and the people understood the law in the reading". As noted on :7, it was Levites and not priests who were explaining the law. The priesthood had failed pathetically, and thus precluded the possibilities envisioned in the restoration prophets; because they wouldn't even read them, let alone believe them and share the message with the people.</p>


text:
<p>Nehemiah, who was the governor- Nehemiah himself only uses the less significant word pechah about himself (<a href='B:160 5:14-15'>Neh 5:14-15</a>; <a href='B:160 5:18'>Neh 5:18</a>). He had a commendable humility.</p><p>And Ezra the priest, the scribe, and the Levites who taught the people, said to all the people, This day is holy to Yahweh your God. Don’t mourn, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law- As noted on :1, this was the time of the feast of trumpets (<a href='B:30 23:24-25'>Lev 23:24-25</a>). But they were unaware of this feast (:14), so it seems they likely gathered together at the annual new moon festival which would have been at that time- and then discovered that actually, they were intended to be keeping the feast of booths. This is the force of "This day is holy to Yahweh"- it was His feast, and not the new moon festival.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to them, Go your way. Eat the fat, drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Don’t be grieved; for the joy of Yahweh is your strength- Isaiah had repeatedly prophesied that Judah would come with joy to Zion (e:g. <a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>), and would continue there with an everlasting joy. But the records give little indication that they were joyful; <a href='B:160 8:9-10'>Neh 8:9-10</a> shows Nehemiah encouraging them to be joyful, because “the joy of the Lord is your strength”. They didn’t want to have all joy and peace through believing; and so the Kingdom of joy didn’t come. They didn’t live the Kingdom life of joy, and so they didn’t possess or experience the Kingdom. The lowness of their petty concerns deprived them of it. They were intended to send portions to the Gentiles and the poor (<a href='B:50 16:14'>Deu 16:14</a>), recalling the spirit of Purim and the great salvation worked for them through Esther. The idea was that they would bring the Gentiles into covenant relationship with Yahweh; but as Nehemiah finally has to lament, they actually did the very opposite. Like Hezekiah, instead of doing this, they adopted their ways, and married their women.</p>


text:
<p>So the Levites stilled all the people saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be grieved- The idea is that the new moon feast they thought they were celebrating was indeed to be a holy day to Yahweh, and they were permitted to celebrate that- even though they were doing so some days earlier than written in the law (see on :15). I have several times lamented that Ezra, Nehemiah and the people seemed unaware of the restoration prophets; but they were unaware even of the most basic principles of the law of Moses concerning the feast. It is a picture of really pathetic ignorance, due to the failure of the priesthood to teach them God's word.</p>


text:
<p>All the people went their way to eat and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great joy, because they had understood the words that were declared to them- The intention was that portions be sent to the surrounding Gentiles (<a href='B:50 16:14'>Deu 16:14</a>). Seeing the Samaritans had been so bitterly opposed to them, this would have been an act of great grace; if in fact they obeyed it by sending to the Gentiles too. We wonder which "words" they understood that they so rejoiced. Perhaps it was the assurance of the passages in the law of Moses which speak of Israel always being able to repent and to accept God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>On the second day were gathered together the heads of fathers’ households of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, to Ezra the scribe, even to give attention to the words of the law- The priests were intended to teach the law; and yet realizing their ignorance even of basic commandments about the feast, they come to Ezra asking him to read and explain more to them. We can now better understand Malachi's deep criticism of the priesthood at this time.</p>


text:
<p>They found written in the law- They had not been instructed about keeping the feast of tabernacles- a tacit reflection of how little Bible teaching they had received and the utter failure of the priesthood, and raising the question discussed on :1 as to where Ezra was all this time.</p><p>How that Yahweh had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month- Keeping the feast of the seventh month was required in the restored Kingdom: <a href='B:330 45:25'>Eze 45:25</a>: “In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he [the prince] do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil”. <a href='B:450 7:5'>Zec 7:5</a> criticized the Jews for keeping this feast only externally, but not “unto me”. <a href='B:440 2:1'>Hag 2:1</a> records how on the 21st day of the 7th month- i:e. once the seven day feast that began on the 15th had finished- Haggai was sent to rebuke “the prince”, Zerubbabel, for being so slack in fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision. Even by the time of <a href='B:160 8:14-17'>Neh 8:14-17</a>, it was so that the feast of the 7th month had not been kept by Judah since the time of Joshua. They subconsciously switched off to Ezekiel’s words; just as we can all do. They reasoned that “the time” of which he spoke hadn’t come- even though the temple had miraculously been enabled to be rebuilt, for no human benefit at all to Cyrus (<a href='B:290 45:13'>Isa 45:13</a> “not for price nor reward”). They felt that all the prophecies were “marvellous” in the sense of something incapable of concrete fulfilment in their experience (<a href='B:450 8:6'>Zec 8:6</a>). This is why <a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a> rebuked them for saying “the time is not come…that the Lord’s house should be built”. They didn’t want the prophecy to be fulfilled, because it would mean ‘going up’ from their ceiled houses- both in Babylon and in the farmsteads they had built in Judah- to build the temple.</p>


text:
<p>and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem saying, Go out to the mountain, and get olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written- The commandment about the feast of tabernacles was that it should be kept on the 15th day of the 7th month (<a href='B:30 23:34'>Lev 23:34</a>). It seems that they were permitted to keep the feast a few days earlier, seeing they were all gathered together and were eager to keep it (see on :11). The trees mentioned were those which were to blossom in the restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 41:19'>Isa 41:19</a>; <a href='B:290 55:13'>Isa 55:13</a>). And God has caused them to grow; all the preconditions were set up for the people to repent and reestablish His Kingdom on earth in Judah. But such huge potential was wasted by them.</p>


text:
<p>So the people went out, and brought them, and made themselves booths, each one on the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of God’s house- Perhaps the idea was that they had 13 days to prepare. Verse 13 may refer to the 2nd day of the 7th month, and the feast was to begin on the 15th, according to the law. But I suggested above that they were permitted to keep the feast immediately.</p><p>And in the broad place of the water gate, and in the broad place of the gate of Ephraim- <a href='B:330 48:31-34'>Eze 48:31-34</a> envisaged the 12 gates of Jerusalem being named after the 12 tribes of Israel. But it seems no accident that twelve separate gates of the city are mentioned in the restoration record- but they weren't renamed after the tribes of Israel. Here are the names of the city gates in Nehemiah: valley (<a href='B:160 3:13'>Neh 3:13</a>); horse (<a href='B:160 3:28'>Neh 3:28</a>); east (<a href='B:160 3:29'>Neh 3:29</a>); Miphkad (<a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a>); water (<a href='B:160 8:16'>Neh 8:16</a>); dung (<a href='B:160 12:31'>Neh 12:31</a>); fountain (<a href='B:160 12:37'>Neh 12:37</a>); Ephraim, old, fish, sheep and prison gates (<a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a>). No wonder some wept when the rebuilt temple was finally dedicated- the pattern of Ezekiel's vision hadn't been followed, even on such basic matters as the names of the twelve gates of Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>All the assembly of those who had come again out of the captivity- Time and again, Jeremiah had prophesied how Yahweh would bring again His people and the vessels of the temple back to the land (<a href='B:300 28:3-4'>Jer 28:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 28:6'>Jer 28:6</a>; <a href='B:300 30:3'>Jer 30:3</a>; <a href='B:300 30:18'>Jer 30:18</a>; <a href='B:300 31:23'>Jer 31:23</a>); and this all had a fulfilment in the return from captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah. It was then that in some sense Yahweh ‘brought again Zion’ (<a href='B:290 52:8'>Isa 52:8</a>). The very same word used by Joel [translated “bring again”] is to be found in the references to Judah’s return at the restoration (<a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>; <a href='B:160 7:6'>Neh 7:6</a>; <a href='B:160 8:17'>Neh 8:17</a>). The same word is to be found in <a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>; <a href='B:330 39:27'>Eze 39:27</a>, where again, the invasion is to happen once Judah had been ‘brought again’ from captivity. Judah returned, and yet they didn’t rebuild the temple as they were commanded. Therefore the invasion didn’t come, and therefore the Kingdom wasn’t then established. As if knowing this, <a href='B:350 6:11'>Hos 6:11</a> had prophesied [otherwise strangely] that Judah would reap their punishment, when they returned from captivity. They returned [s:w. ‘bring again’], but not to the Most High (<a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a>). Joel 3, however, speaks from the perspective that Judah would be ‘brought again’ from Babylon under Ezra; and then&nbsp; <a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a> “I will also gather all nations:::and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land”.</p><p>Made booths, and lived in the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day the children of Israel had not done so. There was very great gladness- See on <a href='B:150 3:4'>Ezr 3:4</a>. They had kept the feast of tabernacles, but not in this way, to this extent. And they had apparently forgotten all about the feast since the time of <a href='B:150 3:4'>Ezr 3:4</a>, which presumably they kept in a ritualistic sense, as we can keep the breaking of bread meeting- and then forgot all about it. We see here the paucity of Israel's attention to God's law, and the failure of the priesthood in their intended teaching ministry- which Malachi condemned so strongly at this time.</p>


text:
<p>Also day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. They kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according to the ordinance- <a href='B:350 12:9'>Hos 12:9</a> had prophesied that keeping this feast was to be a feature of the restored Kingdom when the exiles returned. Their ignorance of it therefore reflects how the restoration prophets had just not been taken seriously.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the twenty-fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackcloth, and earth on them- This fasting and confession of sin (:2) is appropriate to the day of atonement, but this would have been on the wrong date. I noted on <a href='B:160 8:14'>Neh 8:14</a> the lamentable lack of knowledge of the law of Moses. Perhaps they were unaware of the date of the day of atonement; or perhaps given their genuine spirit, they were permitted to keep it on a different date. They were being taught thereby that the letter of the law was not so crucially important.</p>


text:
<p>The seed of Israel- A similar phrase, "the holy seed", is used in <a href='B:150 9:2'>Ezr 9:2</a>, also in the context of marriage with Gentiles. Malachi wrote at this time, and pointed out that the purpose of marriage is to "seek a Godly seed" (<a href='B:460 2:15'>Mal 2:15</a>). Marriage to unbelievers is not easily going to achieve this.</p><p>Separated themselves from all foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers- The account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (<a href='B:150 10:8'>Ezr 10:8</a>). It’s a separation- one way or the other.</p><p>The confession of the sins of their fathers was not because the son suffers for the sins of the father. Rather was this a reversal of the attitude which Ezekiel encountered amongst the exiles- that their fathers had not sinned according to the great punishment given them. Instead of minimizing the sins of their fathers, in accordance with the oriental way of glorifying ancestors as perfect and wonderful- they accepted that their fathers had indeed sinned.</p>


text:
<p>They stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of Yahweh their God a fourth part of the day; and a fourth part they confessed, and worshipped Yahweh their God- Confession of sin is directly connected here to hearing God's word. This is one intended outcome of all Bible reading- conviction of sin and repentance. There is a play on the word 'confess' meaning both to confess sins (:2) and to worship (:3). True worship is upon the basis of confession of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani of the Levites stood up on the stairs, and cried with a loud voice to Yahweh their God- See on :5. We note the continued emphasis upon the fact that Yahweh was still Israel's God (:3,5 and often). Despite their woeful lack of awareness of His word (see on <a href='B:160 8:14'>Neh 8:14</a>) and deep apostasy. Still He kept His side of the covenant with Abraham, to be the God of his seed for ever (:5 "from everlasting to everlasting"). Hence the reference to Abraham in :7.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah and Pethahiah said, Stand up and bless Yahweh your God from everlasting to everlasting!- See on :4. Again we note that it is the Levites and not the priests who are prominent. The priesthood had disgraced themselves by not teaching even the basic knowledge of God's law (see on <a href='B:160 8:14'>Neh 8:14</a>). The Levites, who focused more upon menial practical service, were the ones who are given prominence instead of the corrupt priesthood.</p><p>Blessed be Your glorious name- Nehemiah here encouraged the singing of praise on the walls of Zion (<a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>; <a href='B:160 12:46'>Neh 12:46</a>), possibly in a conscious effort to fulfil the words of <a href='B:290 60:18'>Isa 60:18</a> - that Zion’s gates in Messiah’s Kingdom would be praise.</p><p>Which is exalted above all blessing and praise!- Only ‘Yahweh’ was exalted above every other name (<a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>; <a href='B:230 148:13'>Psa 148:13</a>). &nbsp;But ‘Jesus’ in the NT becomes the Name above every Name (Php_2:9-10; <a href='B:560 1:21'>Eph 1:21</a>); <a href='B:650 12:8'>Heb 12:8</a>: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever” suggests that the three tenses of the Yahweh Name were&nbsp; supremely manifest in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>You are Yahweh, even You alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their army, the earth and all things that are on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The army of heaven worships You- "The heavenly host bows down before you"- a reference to the court of Heaven (<a href='B:110 22:19'>1Ki 22:19</a>). Nehemiah was aware of Angelic involvement in bringing about the restoration; this was one aspect of the promised work of the Spirit at that time. He&nbsp; notes that the areas around the eretz or land of Israel, the "seas" of the Gentiles, are no less given life by God; even the Samaritan opposition.</p>


text:
<p>You are Yahweh, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees- See on :4. The idea of God bringing Abraham out from Ur speaks of His grace. <a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a> made the same point: "God caused me to wander from my father’s house". We see the emphasis upon God bringing him out to separation from his relatives, rather than his obedience to the call to do so. By saying this, he would be growing closer to appreciating grace; that God caused him to be obedient when he of himself was not. This is the same work of the Spirit which continues in our days. The Gentile believers are in this sense 'made obedient' by the Spirit's work (<a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a>). Truly our salvation is not of works of obedience, lest any man should boast (<a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a>). "Terah took Abram his son::. and Sarai his daughter in law" (<a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a>). Abram had been called to leave Ur and go into Canaan. But instead he followed his father to Haran, and lived there (for some years, it seems) until his father died, and then he responded to his earlier call to journey towards Canaan. The Genesis record certainly reads as if Abram was dominated by his father and family, and this militated against an immediate response to the call he received to leave Ur and journey to Canaan. At best his father's decision enabled him to obey the command to leave Ur without having to break with his family. And yet, according to <a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a>, Abram immediately responded, as an act of faith. Thus Abram had faith in God's promise, yet may have balked at the command to leave his country and family. Providentially arranged circumstances then resulted in his aging father taking him, implying some degree of compulsion, and leading him out of his native country. Whilst not fully understanding how he could leave his father's household whilst they looked set to be accompanying him on this journey to a strange land, he went ahead in faith. It is emphasized that God "brought out" (s:w. to lead, pluck or pull out) Abram from Ur (<a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a>; <a href='B:10 15:6-7'>Gen 15:6-7</a>). The calling came through Abram's hearing of the word of promise, and providentially arranged circumstances encouraging his faithful response to it.</p><p>And gave him the name of Abraham- By grace inserting the central syllable of the Yahweh Name into the midst of Abram's name, to make 'Abraham'. The way ‘Abram’ was changed to ‘AbraHAm’ and ‘Sarah’ to ‘SarAH’ shows how God wishes to mix syllables of His Name with that of men. Jacob was changed to Isra-el, mixing God’s name with that of his father. This is indeed mutuality between God and man- and it demands so much. No longer was Abram all about exalting his own father; he was himself to be a father. We too as Abraham's children pass through this sense of redefinition; we are new creations, no longer just defined by our place in a line of genetics or ancestors, but making a radically new start, producing spiritual children who in that sense shall continue the line which we begin by the sowing of the Gospel seed.</p><p>It has been pointed out that Abram or Abiram was one of the most common names in the near East- it was common in Babylon as Abirami, and in Egypt as Abu-reheni or Abram (J:B. Pritchard, ed:, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Oxford: O:U:P:, 1950) p. 242, p. 329 note 9). Into this very common name- as normal and common as the names we bear in our societies- was added the Name of Yahweh. Abram became Abraham. The central letter of Yahweh's Name became the central letter of Abraham's. But Abram means 'my father is exalted', or more strictly as W:F. Albright&nbsp;suggests 'I am exalted with regard to / because of my father'. To jettison this name was to trash all Abraham and his culture held so dear- definition in terms of their father, where they came from. The call of the Lord Jesus in our age is in essence no different- to reject father and mother and instead follow Him, to be His. Not in the sense of hating them, but in being new persons, carved out as a totally new family. The 'h' in the middle of Yahweh's Name was now inserted into the middle of Abraham's name; Abram became Abraham, father of a multitude, a new family. Some miserable philological critics have claimed that 'h' was an unknown sound in the near East of Abraham's time (Angel Gonzales, Abraham: Father of Believers (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) p. 26):&nbsp; And maybe they're right, in which case 'h' would've been a new sound. It would be rather like importing the single Russian letter pronounced 'shch' into the English alphabet. The answer to the question 'What's your name?' would've been arresting and challenging to Abraham's contemporaries: 'Abraham' would've sounded strange and new to them. There will be something equally challenging and arresting to the world surrounding Abraham's seed as people come to know our name, to perceive who we really are.</p>


text:
<p>and found his heart faithful before You- Just as God "found" David to have a heart like His, so He searches hearts and minds to this day. But the emphasis is upon the state of the heart and not upon legalistic obedience. This was relevant to the exiles who had returned, having not kept the law of Moses for a long time, and were still not keeping every letter of it. "Faithful" is the word for 'belief' in <a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a>. Genesis 15 is clearly in view as it lists the same nations of which we now read. By grace and in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant, his seed were to rise above the Samaritan opposition and the dominance of the Persian empire, and possess the land for themselves. But Judah refused to accept the new covenant offered to them, which was in turn based upon those Abrahamic promises.</p><p>And made a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, to give it to his seed; and have performed Your words- The covenant to inherit the land was given outside of the old covenant, and to an Abram who was very weak in faith (see on :7). Again we see the relevance to the spiritually weak exiles who had returned to inherit the land of promise, and who were being invited through the words of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to accept a new covenant relationship with their God.</p><p>For You are righteous- It was that same justice&nbsp; / righteousness which saved His people which was related to God's judgment of His people (:33). The judgment and salvation by grace were all part of the same character of God.</p>


text:
<p>You saw the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heard their cry by the Red Sea- Just as God had seen their affliction in Babylon. But that affliction wasn't physical, for the book of Esther concludes with the Jews popular and wealthy. The similarities were only in spiritual terms; and "their cry" was hardly heard, for we don't get the impression that any Jews were praying for the restoration to happen and for deliverance from Persia.</p>


text:
<p>You showed signs and wonders against Pharaoh, and against all his servants, and against all the people of his land; for You knew that they dealt arrogantly against them- Egypt were brought down for their pride (<a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>), and the pride of Persia and the Samaritan opposition was likewise to be brought down. But Israel were just as proud against God (:16).</p><p>And made a name for Yourself, as it is this day- The idea was that God through the restoration was still making Himself a Name. We learn here that His Name is not simply the lexical item "Yahweh", but His Name is associated with His salvation history and personality, which climaxes in His saving by grace. In this sense God's Name is made or created in an ever ongoing sense as history progresses (<a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You divided the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land- The sea was divided at creation and also at the flood (s:w. <a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>), and the "dry land" likewise appeared at creation and at the flood. There was likewise the possibility of a new creation of Zion and the restored Kingdom at the time of the restoration, as the prophets had made clear. And all opposition to that, like the Egyptians, would be cast into the sea, just as the opposition to Noah had been. And yet Judah preferred to intermarry with the Samaritan opposition and, at least initially, worship their gods.</p><p>And You cast their pursuers into the depths, as a stone into the mighty waters- The Egyptians themselves charged in there, but this was used by God, so that He as it were threw them into the waters. Here again we see God's work with human minds, confirming them in the path they choose to go. This image of a stone thrown into the waters is that used for the fall of Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:63'>Jer 51:63</a>). The idea was that God intended Babylon / Persia to fall, and Judah to become His Kingdom in their land, no longer a mere province of another empire. This didn't happen as Divinely intended and empowered, because Judah at that time preferred the culture and ways of the old empire and didn't want to fulfil the restoration prophecies. Their sins could have been cast into the sea, as it were, at the restoration (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:19'>Mic 7:19</a>); but although at this moment they confessed their sins, and perhaps believed God had dealt with them, yet they didn't accept that reality in any abiding sense.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, You led them by day in a pillar of cloud; and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light in the way in which they should go- This leading of Israel to the land had been seen in the miraculous protection of the groups of exiles led by Ezra and Nehemiah back to the land. Clearly the same Angels in the pillars of fire and cloud were equally active. The 'leading' then had been a sign of God's grace ("in Your mercy You led them", <a href='B:20 15:13'>Exo 15:13</a>), a people still carrying the idols of Egypt and the tabernacle of Remphan; and His grace had been no less to the mixed up, Biblically ignorant exiles whom Yahweh had likewise led back.</p>


text:
<p>You came down also on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments- Nehemiah continues to forget, or be ignorant, of the fact that the restoration prophets including Zechariah, who was roughly contemporary with him, had explained that the old covenant given at Sinai had been broken by Israel, and the only hope was acceptance of the new covenant offered in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This appeal to history and the implied need to keep that covenant- was therefore somewhat misplaced. The pole of traditional nationalism had become stronger than that of God's word and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, and commanded them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses Your servant- The Sabbath was specifically "a sign between them (Israel) and Me (God), that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them" (<a href='B:330 20:12'>Eze 20:12</a>):&nbsp;As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). “::. the Lord has given you [not all mankind] the Sabbath (<a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a>); “::. You [God] made known to them [Israel] Your holy Sabbath” (<a href='B:160 9:14'>Neh 9:14</a>). The continual breaking of the Sabbath which Nehemiah will later address was therefore yet another sign that Israel had broken their covenant relationship with God; and they needed to seek a new covenant (see on :13). All arguments for Sabbath keeping today need to give due weight to these considerations.</p>


text:
<p>You gave them bread from the sky for their hunger, and brought forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and commanded them that they should go in to possess the land which You had sworn to give them- They would "go in to possess the land" if they were obedient (<a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a>; <a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>; <a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a> s:w:). They weren't; but still God brought them into the land and gave them possession of it, not because they had been obedient as required, but by grace (<a href='B:50 9:5'>Deu 9:5</a> s:w:). This was precisely the situation with the returned exiles. The same grace was being shown to them.</p>


text:
<p>But they and our fathers dealt proudly- Exactly the phrase used about the pride of the Egyptians which led to their destruction (s:w. <a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>). We noted on :10 that it was exactly because of this pride that Egypt was destroyed at the Red Sea, but Israel were in fact no better (:16,29)- they acted as the Egyptians, and were hardened just as Pharaoh and his leadership were hardened. Israel's salvation out of Babylon / Egypt was therefore by pure grace and not because they at all deserved it.</p><p>And hardened their neck, didn’t listen to Your commandments- We would likely have focused upon their idolatry and desire to return to the Egypt life. But the essential problem, as always, was human pride. The hardening of the neck was in order to refuse the yoke of Yahweh's covenant which was placed upon them; they refused to cooperate and work with Him. It was for this reason that they were taken into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:300 7:26'>Jer 7:26</a>; <a href='B:300 17:23'>Jer 17:23</a>; <a href='B:300 19:15'>Jer 19:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and refused to obey, neither were they mindful of Your wonders that You did among them- The daily miracles of the pillar of fire and cloud, the manna, quails and water from the rock, the visible presence of the glory of Yahweh in the tabernacle- were all psychologically ignored by them. This is proof enough that miracles and visible signs from God are not the basis for faith.</p><p>But hardened their neck, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage- Nehemiah may possibly be drawing a parallel with some who wished to return to Persia and abandon the entire restoration project.</p><p>But You are a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in grace, and didn’t forsake them- The punishment for a hardened neck was to be sudden destruction without remedy (<a href='B:240 29:1'>Pro 29:1</a> s:w:). But that deserved destruction without further amelioration wasn't practiced by God because of His abundant grace; the people were not forsaken in captivity just as they were not forsaken in the wilderness, even when they rebelled and attempted to return to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, they had made them a molten calf and said, ‘This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt’ and had committed awful blasphemies- The blasphemies of the Gentiles were punished (s:w. <a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>; <a href='B:330 35:12'>Eze 35:12</a>); but Israel's blasphemies were met with yet more grace and the continued presence of Yahweh amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>yet You in Your many mercies didn’t forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud didn’t depart from over them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to show them light, and the way in which they should go- There was an Angel within those pillars. <a href='B:440 2:5'>Hag 2:5</a> had likewise encouraged the returned exiles to recall Israel's history at this time: "This is the word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, and My Spirit dwelt among you. ‘Don’t be afraid’". "My Spirit (Angel- <a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>) remaineth among you" (AV), just as the same Angel was with them “when you came out of Egypt”. And with us too. God encourages those rebuilding Jerusalem to have faith because the Angel is still among them: "Yet now be strong::. and work: for I (the Angel) am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts (Angels): according to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt (the Angel made that covenant) so My Spirit (Angel) remaineth among you; fear ye not". And so Nehemiah&nbsp; recounts&nbsp; the&nbsp; past&nbsp; activities&nbsp; of&nbsp; God's Angel here in <a href='B:160 9:19-24'>Neh 9:19-24</a> as a stimulus to faith in God bringing them through immediate problems.</p>


text:
<p>You gave also Your good Spirit to instruct them, and didn’t withhold Your manna from their mouth, and gave them water for their thirst- see on <a href='B:90 10:9'>1Sa 10:9</a>. The Spirit (Angel- <a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>) was "also" with the exiles bringing them from Babylon to Judah as it had been with the Israelites coming from Egypt to the same land. He gave a "good" Spirit / Angel, when it was in His power to send an Angel / Spirit of evil (not a sinful Angel but an Angel bringing evil / disaster, as was brought upon Saul (<a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>) and the Egyptians (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>). Although Israel had acted as the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and 'dealing proudly' (see on :16), yet by grace, God dealt with them by sending "good" upon them and not "evil", as He sent upon the Egyptians. The Spirit was given to "instruct" them, but the same word is used in lament over how Israel refused to "understand" or be instructed (<a href='B:50 32:29'>Deu 32:29</a>). The Corinthians likewise were given the Spirit, but were not "spiritual" (<a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a>). And with many Christians today likewise. "Instruct" is the word just used in <a href='B:160 8:13'>Neh 8:13</a> of Nehemiah's instruction of the people at this time. This instruction was a sign of grace, as it was in the wilderness; for the people deserved destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, forty years You sustained them in the wilderness- In contrast to the priesthood of Nehemiah's time who did not feed / sustain the people (s:w. <a href='B:450 11:16'>Zec 11:16</a>).</p><p>They lacked nothing- The promise that they would "lack nothing" on the wilderness journey was repeated in the promise that once in the land, they would "lack nothing" (<a href='B:50 2:7'>Deu 2:7</a>; <a href='B:50 8:9'>Deu 8:9</a> s:w:). The returned exiles were in lack but this was because they refused to be obedient to God's plan for them; <a href='B:290 51:14'>Isa 51:14</a> uses the same phrase, although masked in many translations, to say that "the captive exile" would "lack nothing" on leaving captivity. But they had precluded the restoration prophecies from coming about.</p><p>Their clothes didn’t grow old, and their feet didn’t swell- Just as all materially necessary was provided, so through the various decrees of the Persian kings, all had been given to enable the exiles' journey to the promised land. But they had likewise abused such grace. This is a quotation from <a href='B:50 29:5'>Deu 29:5</a>, which makes this statement in the context of lamenting that "Yet Yahweh has not given you a heart to perceive nor eyes to see nor ears to hear" (<a href='B:50 29:4'>Deu 29:4</a>). They refused to perceive His great and daily grace to them as witnessed in His daily provision of food and clothing, just as we can fail to perceive it today. Regular prayers of thanksgiving before food are a good way of guarding against this human tendency to not perceive such grace. The returned exiles likewise had been miraculously provided for by the decrees of the Persian kings, but refused to perceive the grace of all that provision (<a href='B:160 9:21'>Neh 9:21</a>). The other source of this saying about their clothes not growing old is <a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a>, which again is in the context of telling Israel that this had happened so that they would be humbled before God and would consider in their humbled hearts that God intended them to inherit the land be obedient within it (<a href='B:50 8:3-5'>Deu 8:3-5</a>). This again is relevant to the returned exiles and the grace they too had received on their journey to it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover You gave them kingdoms and peoples which You allotted according to their portions. So they possessed the land of Sihon, even the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan- The intention here is to demonstrate God's extreme grace to His people despite their spiritual weakness. He had given them the territories in Palestine listed in :8, but He additionally gave them portions to the east of the Jordan river, in Sihon and Bashan.</p>


text:
<p>You also multiplied their children as the stars of the sky, and brought them into the land concerning which You had said to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it- This was a fulfilment of the promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a>; <a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a>) which were the basis of the new covenant. And the returning exiles had been told in the restoration prophets that they had broken the old covenant, and were invited to accept this new covenant. Israel multiplied in Egypt (<a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a>; <a href='B:20 1:12'>Exo 1:12</a>) and yet they were idolaters there. Again we see the idea of this potted history is to demonstrate the Divine grace which ran throughout it.</p>


text:
<p>So the children went in and possessed the land, and You subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hands, with their kings, and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they pleased- “The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. Instead of subduing them, they intermarried with them and accepted their gods. Just as Adam should have brought the serpent as part of the animal creation into subjection to him; but instead he obeyed its voice and fell away from God.</p>


text:
<p>They took fortified cities, and a rich land, and possessed houses full of all good things, cisterns dug out, vineyards, olive groves and fruit trees in abundance- A quotation from <a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>. Perhaps Deuteronomy was the part of the law which was read to the people.</p><p>So they ate, were filled, became fat, and delighted themselves in Your great grace- LXX "rioted in thy great goodness". The potted history of God's dealings with His people is to demonstrate this great grace. However, the Hebrew can be translated quite the opposite- alluding to <a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a> and <a href='B:300 5:28'>Jer 5:28</a>, they became fat and kicked against God, rioting against Him. What should have been a riot of joy at God's grace became a riot against that grace. I suggest the ambiguity of the language is intentional. The abuse of Divine grace is an abiding temptation (<a href='B:520 6:1'>Rom 6:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against You, and cast Your law behind their back, and killed your prophets that testified against them to turn them again to You, and they committed awful blasphemies- The Jews murdered Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, according to Jewish tradition; Ahab and Jezebel slew Yahweh's prophets (<a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a>); Joah murdered Zechariah (<a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a>). And the Lord alludes to this in <a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a> and <a href='B:490 11:47'>Luk 11:47</a>. The idea is that despite being given the blessings of obedience to the covenant when they were disobedient to that covenant, they abused that grace and rebelled against Yahweh just as they had done in the wilderness, when they lived under the same grace. And Nehemiah is accusing the people of his time of despising and abiding Divine grace in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them. In the time of their trouble, when they cried to You, You heard from heaven; and according to Your many mercies You gave them saviours who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries- The Hebrew phrase for "many mercies" is perhaps about the closest equivalent in the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament concept of Divine grace- see the usage in <a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>; <a href='B:230 119:156'>Psa 119:156</a>; <a href='B:290 63:7'>Isa 63:7</a>; <a href='B:340 9:18'>Dan 9:18</a>. And it is a major realization of Nehemiah, being used four times in this chapter: <a href='B:160 9:19'>Neh 9:19</a>; <a href='B:160 9:27-28'>Neh 9:27-28</a>; <a href='B:160 9:31'>Neh 9:31</a>.</p><p>The "saviours" in view are the judges. And yet often those judges were sent to save the people by grace; Samson would be an example. Israel's deliverance at the hands of the judges was related to their crying to Yahweh in faith and repentance (<a href='B:160 9:27-28'>Neh 9:27-28</a>). But it seems that they did precious little of this during the time of Samson, from what we know of them from the record. Again, the picture is of salvation by grace all the way through. The restoration was to be empowered by God if the exiles repented; they had not done so, and yet God was still seeking to save them.</p>


text:
<p>But after they had rest, they did evil again before You; therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies, so that they had the dominion over them- <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>; <a href='B:160 9:31'>Neh 9:31</a> use the same Hebrew word for forsake / abandon in two senses. “You abandoned them to the hand of their enemies::. but in your great mercy you did not abandon them” (N:I:V:). God forsook Israel, but heard them when they cried and came back to them; but in the ultimate sense He did not forsake them because of His grace and mercy. Thus Zion feels forsaken by God, but ultimately realizes this was never the case (<a href='B:290 49:14'>Isa 49:14</a>). It will then seem as just for a small moment that God forsook her (<a href='B:290 54:6-7'>Isa 54:6-7</a>). So when we read in <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a> that “You abandoned them”, it may be that this is God talking through the perceptions of His people- they thought He had abandoned them, He appeared to have abandoned them, when He ultimately hadn’t. And this was one of Israel’s experiences which God’s Son suffered on the cross.</p><p>Yet, when they returned and cried to You, You heard from heaven; and many times You delivered them according to Your mercies- The intention was that Israel were delivered when they cried and repented before God. The Jews in Persia hadn't done this and yet by utter grace God had still delivered them from the land of their enemies. But by intermarrying with Gentiles they were demonstrating that they didn't even define their enemies as God did.</p>


text:
<p>and testified against them, that You might bring them again to Your law. Yet they dealt proudly, and didn’t listen to Your commandments- "Dealt proudly" is exactly the phrase used about the pride of the Egyptians which led to their destruction (s:w. <a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>). We noted on :10 that it was exactly because of this pride that Egypt was destroyed at the Red Sea, but Israel were in fact no better (:16,29)- they acted as the Egyptians, and were hardened just as Pharaoh and his leadership were hardened. Israel's salvation out of Babylon / Egypt was therefore by pure grace and not because they at all deserved it.</p><p>But sinned against Your ordinances, which, if a man does, he shall live in them, turned their backs, stiffened their neck, and would not hear- They were intended to have the yoke of the covenant upon them, but they like a difficult beast of burden refused it. They didn't want covenant relationship with Yahweh. They "did" the ordinances as a matter of casuistic legal obedience, but didn't live in their spirit. Or we could read this as saying that living in the land was to be predicated upon doing the commandments (<a href='B:50 4:1'>Deu 4:1</a>; <a href='B:50 6:24'>Deu 6:24</a>; <a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a>). The exiles had been returned to the land, but by grace; for they were not 'doing' the commandments; see on <a href='B:330 20:11-12'>Eze 20:11-12</a>. Indeed it seems they were largely ignorant of them at Nehemiah's time.</p>


text:
<p>Yet many years You put up with them- This is a poor translation. The same Hebrew phrase is translated 'drawn to', in speaking of how God would attempt to draw the exiles back into a new covenant with Him, seeing they had broken the old covenant (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:3'>Jer 31:3</a>; <a href='B:350 11:4'>Hos 11:4</a>).</p><p>And testified against them by Your spirit through Your prophets- I noted in :20 that the "good spirit" in view there may have been an Angel, seeing that God makes His Angels spirits (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). And that may be the reference here too. Or it may simply be a reference to how the prophets were inspired by the Spirit of God, "inspired" so that their words and pleas were those of God Himself.</p><p>Yet would they not give ear. Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands- The prophets were appealing to the people, Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel already in Babylon, right up to the eve of the destruction of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless in Your many mercies- The Hebrew phrase for "many mercies" is perhaps about the closest equivalent in the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament concept of Divine grace- see the usage in <a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>; <a href='B:230 119:156'>Psa 119:156</a>; <a href='B:290 63:7'>Isa 63:7</a>; <a href='B:340 9:18'>Dan 9:18</a>. And it is a major realization of Nehemiah, being used four times in this chapter: <a href='B:160 9:19'>Neh 9:19</a>; <a href='B:160 9:27-28'>Neh 9:27-28</a>; <a href='B:160 9:31'>Neh 9:31</a>.</p><p>You did not make a full end of them, nor forsake them; for You are a gracious and merciful God- The grace of all this was that God had indeed promised to "make a full end of them" for their sins (s:w. <a href='B:290 10:23'>Isa 10:23</a>; <a href='B:290 28:22'>Isa 28:22</a>; <a href='B:330 13:13'>Eze 13:13</a>; <a href='B:430 1:18'>Zep 1:18</a>). It was only the new covenant which promised that God would not make a full end with Israel (<a href='B:300 30:11'>Jer 30:11</a> s:w:). And they needed to accept this.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant and grace- This is quoting from <a href='B:230 89:28'>Psa 89:28</a> about God's keeping of covenant with David's seed, Messiah. This means that this grace was being shown to Israel on behalf of God's future Messianic Son.</p><p>Don’t let all the travail seem little before You, that has come on us, on our kings, on our princes, priests, prophets, and on our fathers, and on all Your people, since the time of the kings of Assyria to this day- The rulership, civil and religious, had been punished for their actual sins, as the prophets make very clear, as Nehemiah admits (:34). There had been no injustice, and so Nehemiah's plea appears somewhat morally compromised. Assyria was the first empire to take God's people into captivity, and was followed by Babylon and Persia in keeping them in captivity.</p>


text:
<p>However You are just in all that has come on us; for You have dealt truly, but we have done wickedly- Having given a history of God's grace, Nehemiah now throws himself upon that grace; recognizing that their judgment had been just, but still asking God to view the human experience side of it with pity. He is quoting Daniel's prayer (<a href='B:340 9:14'>Dan 9:14</a>); we wonder if copies of the book of Daniel (which was from only a generation or so previously) were available in Persia, and Nehemiah had read it- and been influenced by it.</p>


text:
<p>Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers kept Your law, nor listened to Your commandments and Your testimonies that You pronounced against them- This was the more shameful for the priests, who were responsible for teaching God's law to others. Nehemiah appears to be quoting from <a href='B:450 1:4'>Zec 1:4</a>, which would have been a recent prophecy.</p>


text:
<p>For they have not served You in their kingdom- This therefore appears relevant to the "kings" just mentioned in :34. They didn't want to be kings of God's Kingdom, instead they had hijacked His Kingdom and turned it into "their" own kingdom; just as the temple of Yahweh and feasts of Yahweh became "the temple of the Jews" and 'feasts of the Jews'. And we too can hijack the one true faith for our own ends.</p><p>And in Your great goodness that You gave them, and in the large and rich land which You gave before them, neither did they turn from their wicked works- See on :37. The land of Palestine was not "large", but the eretz promised to Abraham was- from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Likewise, as at Nehemiah's time, the land was not always "rich", because they were punished with famines for their disobedience. So we read here of the potential which God had enabled, even though they didn't realize it.</p>


text:
<p>Indeed, we are servants this day, and as for the land that You gave to our fathers to eat its fruit and its good, we are servants in it- As Hosea ‘redeemed’ Gomer in His attempt to force through His fantasy for her (<a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a>), so Yahweh is repeatedly described in Isaiah as Israel’s go’el , redeemer (<a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:14'>Isa 43:14</a>; <a href='B:290 44:6'>Isa 44:6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a>; <a href='B:290 47:4'>Isa 47:4</a>; <a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a>; <a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a>; <a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a>; <a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). The redeemer could redeem a close relative from slavery or repurchase property lost during hard times (<a href='B:30 25:25-26'>Lev 25:25-26</a>; <a href='B:30 25:47-55'>Lev 25:47-55</a>; <a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a>; <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a>; <a href='B:80 3:12'>Rth 3:12</a>). The redeemer was also the avenger of blood (<a href='B:40 35:9-28'>Num 35:9-28</a>; <a href='B:60 20:3'>Jos 20:3</a>; <a href='B:60 20:9'>Jos 20:9</a>). All these ideas were relevant to Yahweh’s relationship to Judah in captivity. But the promised freedom didn’t come- even under Nehemiah, Judah was still a province within the Persian empire. And those who returned complained: “We are slaves this day in the land you gave…” (<a href='B:160 9:36'>Neh 9:36</a>). The wonderful prophecies of freedom and redemption from slavery weren’t realized in practice, because of the selfishness of the more wealthy Jews. And how often is it that the freedom potentially enabled for those redeemed in Christ is in practice denied them by their autocratic and abusive brethren?</p>


text:
<p>It yields much increase to the kings whom You have set over us because of our sins. They also have power over our bodies, and over our livestock, at their pleasure, and we are in great distress- <a href='B:330 34:14'>Eze 34:14</a> had prophesied of a far greater potential: “I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel”. The restored Judah did live in a “fat” pasture land (:35), but the fatness of the land was still given to the kings of Persia because of Judah’s spiritual weakness. The fact they were paying tribute in cash and kind to their overlords was proof enough that they were still under judgment for sin (<a href='B:50 28:33'>Deu 28:33</a>; <a href='B:290 26:13'>Isa 26:13</a>). And Nehemiah 5 makes it clear that the people were indeed under "great distress" in order to pay the tribute.</p>


text:
<p>Yet for all this, we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, our Levites, and our priests, seal it- The referent of "for all this" is unclear. The "yet" can be dispensed with as in AV. This would then connect the covenant with the entire potted history of Israel which has occupied Nehemiah 9; and that has been the history of God's grace to a repeatedly impenitent and disbelieving people. In this case, "for all this", on the basis of accepting that grace, those who had just been convicted of sin, the priests, Levites and princes, made a covenant expressing their repentance. They would thereby become a parade example of how the goodness of God, in this case His grace exhibited in history, leads to repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now those who sealed were: Nehemiah the governor, the son of Hacaliah, and Zedekiah- Nehemiah was presumably not personally guilty of intermarriage with Gentiles which is the context of this covenant (<a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>). But like the Lord Jesus, He was so personally identified with His people that He identified with them and their failures that Nehemiah signed the covenant. "Zedekiah" is a form of "Zadok", perhaps the scribe of <a href='B:160 13:13'>Neh 13:13</a>. The restoration prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 emphasized that the Zadokites were to work in the restored temple; but it seems they too had corrupted themselves and thus precluded the prophecy from being fulfilled at that time.</p>


text:
<p>Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah- These are the heads of families, similar to the list in Nehemiah 12 of those of a previous generation who went up with Zerubbabel; so far more were involved in intermarriage than just those listed here. Seraiah was the family of Eliashib the High Priest, so the corruption was throughout.</p>


text:
<p>Pashhur, Amariah, Malchijah- We note how even those priestly families with "Yah" in their names had intermarried with the world around them; they had a name that they lived but were dead, as we too can have.</p>


text:
<p>Hattush, Shebaniah, Malluch- Shebaniah is the Shechaniah of <a href='B:160 12:3'>Neh 12:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah- We would expect to read "Iddo" in this list, according to the list in <a href='B:160 12:4'>Neh 12:4</a>; <a href='B:160 12:16'>Neh 12:16</a>. Perhaps he refused to sign, felt he wasn't guilty, or refused to repent.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel, Ginnethon, Baruch- "Ginnethon" means "gardener" and reads strangely amongst the other priestly names, most of which have spiritual overtones. Yet the priests were not intended to do agricultural work but to be supported by the tithes. It could be that this name is a reflection of the way that some priestly families were just so in name only and had no real dedication to spiritual things. The failure of the priesthood to teach and even know God's word is evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>Meshullam, Abijah, Mijamin- "Meshullam" means "allied to", perhaps reflecting how this family were guilty of being allied to Gentile enemies of Israel in marriage (<a href='B:160 6:18'>Neh 6:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Maaziah, Bilgai, Shemaiah; these were the priests- There are 21 names listed here, of which 15 are found listed as heads of priestly houses who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel (<a href='B:160 12:2-7'>Neh 12:2-7</a>). They are also in <a href='B:160 12:11-20'>Neh 12:11-20</a> as heads of priestly families so these are not individuals as much as families. Perhaps there was an effort to restore the 24 courses of priests used in Solomon's temple, but there are only 21 listed here, as if to say that they never quite got to the full restoration intended.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites: namely, Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel- As noted on :2, these are the names of the heads of families who had returned in previous generations with Zerubbabel and then Ezra (<a href='B:150 2:40'>Ezr 2:40</a>; <a href='B:150 3:9'>Ezr 3:9</a>; <a href='B:160 7:43-44'>Neh 7:43-44</a>; <a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>). So far more were involved in intermarriage than just those listed here.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, Shebaniah, Hodiah, Kelita, Pelaiah, Hanan- "Kelita" means 'maimed'; perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>Mica, Rehob, Hashabiah- "Rehob" is a Syrian name, not a Hebrew name. Perhaps this reflects the degree of assimilation; or perhaps there were some Gentiles who had been accepted into the Levitical clans by previous intermarriage. The idea of marrying only within the family of God would therefore have been hard for them to accept; the failures of previous generations lead to weakness in later generations.</p>


text:
<p>Zaccur, Sherebiah, Shebaniah- "Zaccur", 'to bring to remembrance', is exactly what Nehemiah wanted God to do to the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:160 1:8'>Neh 1:8</a>); and indeed He did passionately 'remember' them (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a>). But they didn't respond, for the most part, for they did not remember Yahweh from afar off as they were intended to (<a href='B:300 51:50'>Jer 51:50</a>; <a href='B:330 6:9'>Eze 6:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hodiah, Bani, Beninu- Only a very few of the family of Hodiah had returned initially, but they had apparently grown into a significant family at this time (<a href='B:150 2:40'>Ezr 2:40</a>). Increase in numbers was at those times perceived as a sign of Divine blessing, so perhaps this individual family was faithful.</p>


text:
<p>The chiefs of the people: Parosh, Pahathmoab, Elam, Zattu, Bani- The family of Pahathmoab also features in those who returned under Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:6'>Ezr 2:6</a>) and were later noted for their work in rebuilding the walls (<a href='B:160 3:11'>Neh 3:11</a>). And yet the founder of this family apparently had Gentile connections- "the pit of Moab". This might explain their tendency towards marriage out of the faith. But see on <a href='B:150 8:4'>Ezr 8:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Bunni, Azgad, Bebai- "Bebai" isn't a Hebrew word; some of the exiles had so assimilated that they only had local Persian names. And so the attraction to Gentile women in Judah was in turn hard to resist. They failed to appreciate their high calling in one context and so failed in later contexts.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah, Bigvai, Adin- "Adin" is s:w. "given to pleasures" (<a href='B:290 47:8'>Isa 47:8</a>). And yet the message of return to restore the Kingdom was somehow attractive even to such a person.</p>


text:
<p>Ater, Hezekiah, Azzur- "Ater" means handicapped. Perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on :10,27.</p>


text:
<p>Hodiah, Hashum, Bezai- "Hashum" is "wealthy"; a strange name for a family of Levites who were supposed to be humble servants of the sanctuary. As strange a paradox as wealthy Christians in a world of need.</p>


text:
<p>Hariph, Anathoth, Nobai- The meaning of these names all seem to have more relevance to place names than people. The lists in Ezra 2 are clearly divided between the names of families and the geographical names of the areas they came from. It's possible that here the two ways of listing have been somehow merged.</p>


text:
<p>Magpiash, Meshullam, Hezir- "Hezir" is the word translated "pig" or "swine" in <a href='B:30 11:7'>Lev 11:7</a>; <a href='B:50 14:8'>Deu 14:8</a>; <a href='B:230 80:13'>Psa 80:13</a>; <a href='B:240 11:22'>Pro 11:22</a> etc. A strange name for a family of Levites who were supposed to be sanctified to God's service. As strange a paradox as worldly Christians.</p>


text:
<p>Meshezabel, Zadok, Jaddua- "Meshezabel" is a Babylonian word meaning 'delivered by God'; the Chaldee word for "delivered" used in <a href='B:340 6:14'>Dan 6:14</a>; <a href='B:340 6:16'>Dan 6:16</a>; <a href='B:340 6:20'>Dan 6:20</a> etc. We see here how some were so assimilated into Babylonian culture, and yet still had a sense of Divine deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Pelatiah, Hanan, Anaiah- Pelatiah, 'Yah has delivered', appears to be the Hebrew form of the Babylonian "Meshezabel" noted on :21. Clearly some retained the sense of Yahweh [as opposed to the more generic 'el'] more than others.</p>


text:
<p>Hoshea, Hananiah, Hasshub- "Hoshea" is the word just used for how Yahweh had 'saved' His people through 'saviours' by pure grace (<a href='B:160 9:27'>Neh 9:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hallohesh, Pilha, Shobek- "Hallohesh" means enchanter or magician- a reflection of how corrupted the Levites had become.</p>


text:
<p>Rehum, Hashabnah, Maaseiah- "Rehum" is a Babylonian name, shared by one of the Samaritan opposition (<a href='B:150 4:8-9'>Ezr 4:8-9</a>); again reflecting how thoroughly some of the Levites had assimilated into Babylonian culture.</p>


text:
<p>Ahiah, Hanan, Anan- Some of these Levitical families such as Anan are mentioned nowhere else; they may have been more recently arrived families who had come from Persia.</p>


text:
<p>Malluch, Harim and Baanah- "Harim" means 'snub nosed'. Perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on :10,17.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinim, and all those who had separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, each one who had knowledge, and understanding-- The people “separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters… they clave to [NEV "joined with"] their brethren” (:29). Close fellowship with one’s brethren arises from having gone out from the surrounding world, unto the things of God’s word. That, at least, was the theory. In reality, those exiles who returned found this separation very difficult. In fact, the account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings.</p><p>The account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (<a href='B:150 10:8'>Ezr 10:8</a>). It’s a separation- one way or the other.</p>


text:
<p>they joined with their brothers, their nobles- The nobles are mentioned as the brothers of the humble Levites. The common experience of conviction of sin, repentance and forgiveness is the greatest basis for unity in practice between persons of varying social status.</p><p>And entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes- The restoration prophets, including more recently Zechariah, had explained consistently that Judah had broken the old covenant. The only way to reconnection with Yahweh was through accepting the new covenant which was offered. So this attempt to reestablish their loyalty to the old covenant, the law of Moses, was misplaced. And they didn't keep it in any case.</p>


text:
<p>and that we would not give our daughters to the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons- “The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. This agreement not to intermarry was agreed in the passion of the moment; for once Nehemiah returned to Persia, we read that the people began doing so again.</p>


text:
<p>and if the peoples of the land bring wares or any grain on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy of them on the Sabbath, or on a holy day; and that we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt- The book of Nehemiah ends with the record of how they did exactly this. These agreements were therefore made on the cusp of a wave of religious enthusiasm, doubtless fuelled by a group mentality. We learn from this that God is looking for personal relationship and loyalty; and that great promises of devotion made in a group setting on the cusp of waves of emotional dedication are not lasting. Spirituality and personal relationship with Yahweh is far more profound than this.</p>


text:
<p>Also we made ordinances for ourselves, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our God- The Mosaic Law had required a half shekel temple tax, but God reduced it- again, such was His desire to work with them and have them as His people (<a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a> cp. <a href='B:160 10:32-33'>Neh 10:32-33</a>). But still they feared, still they didn’t fully believe, still they saw the establishment of God’s Kingdom as only their concern insofar as it coincided with their self-interest; and so the promised establishment of the Messianic Kingdom just didn’t come. Or it could be that the famine in the land meant that Nehemiah realized that the half shekel couldn't be paid so he was driven to amend the Mosaic law on his own initiative. The situation was therefore driving him to realize that the old covenant just couldn't be kept by them; as noted on :29, they were intended to look to the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>for the show bread, and for the continual meal offering, and for the continual burnt offering, for the Sabbaths, for the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God- The implication is that these things had not been done up to this point by the returned exiles. The restoration prophets, including more recently Zechariah, had explained consistently that Judah had broken the old covenant. The only way to reconnection with Yahweh was through accepting the new covenant which was offered. So this attempt to reestablish their loyalty to the old covenant, the law of Moses, was misplaced. And they didn't keep it in any case.</p>


text:
<p>We cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers’ houses, at times appointed, year by year, to burn on the altar of Yahweh our God, as it is written in the law- LXX "And we cast lots for the office of wood-bearing, we the priests, and the Levites, and the people, to bring wood into the house of our God, according to the house of our families". The bearing of wood and drawing of water was to be done by the Levites and Nethinim. But clearly there was no interest in doing the humble duties of God's house. We noted on Ezra 2 and elsewhere how few Levites returned, and how later Ezra had no Levites come forward to return with him. This lack of interest in humble service led to the situation later where in Malachi's time, nobody would even close the doors unless they were paid. Attitudes to menial service are significant and are highlighted here. The humble service of wood carrying was clearly unpopular, perhaps because it was perceived as women's work, as it is in much of the developing world today. At the very end of his ministry, Nehemiah still had to try to arrange for it (<a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>). As it is to this day; for there are very few real 'workers' amongst the people of God.</p>


text:
<p>and to bring the first fruits of our ground, and the first fruits of all fruit of all kinds of trees, year by year, to the house of Yahweh;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>also the first born of our sons, and of our livestock, as it is written in the law, and the first born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>and that we should bring the first fruits of our dough, and our wave offerings, and the fruit of all kinds of trees, the new wine and the oil, to the priests, to the rooms of the house of our God; and the tithes of our ground to the Levites; for they, the Levites, take the tithes in all the cities of our tillage-</p><p><a href='B:440 1:8'>Hag 1:8</a> describes the need to go up onto the mountain and build the temple- as if to recall attention to Ezekiel’s opening vision of the temple as built on a mountain. But Judah would not, and therefore the Kingdom blessings of corn, new wine and oil, as well as fruitfulness on the mountains, were all withheld (<a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>). These are all aspects of the promised Messianic Kingdom (e:g. <a href='B:360 2:19'>Joe 2:19</a>; <a href='B:360 2:24'>Joe 2:24</a>; <a href='B:300 31:12'>Jer 31:12</a>). The very same sequence of words occurs in <a href='B:160 5:11'>Neh 5:11</a>; <a href='B:160 10:37'>Neh 10:37</a>; <a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:5'>Neh 13:5</a> - instead of giving those things to Yahweh, the Jews stole them from each other, and jibbed about paying them as tithes to Him. And thereby they precluded the possibility of Yahweh richly blessing all His people with those very same things in a Kingdom setting. As with all those who are rejected from God’s purpose, they effectively rejected themselves from His Kingdom by their behaviour, rather than Him rejecting them Himself.</p>


text:
<p>The priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes; and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes to the house of our God, to the rooms, into the treasure house- GNB "Priests who are descended from Aaron are to be with the Levites when tithes are collected, and for use in the Temple the Levites are to take to the Temple storerooms one-tenth of all the tithes they collect". This hints at distrust between Levites and priests and tensions between them. In <a href='B:150 2:42'>Ezr 2:42</a>, the number of ordinary Levites compared to priests is very low (4289 priests, and 341 Levites). There were far more Levites than there were priests in the overall population, but it seems the Levites didn't want to return and do the dirty work; everyone wanted to be religious leaders. Hence Ezra's problem in finding Levites to return (<a href='B:150 8:15'>Ezr 8:15</a>). We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the wave offering of the grain, of the new wine, and of the oil, to the rooms, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests who minister, and the porters, and the singers. We will not forsake the house of our God-</p><p>They vowed not to forsake the house of their God, and yet Nehemiah concludes with the record that this is exactly what they did (<a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The princes of the people lived in Jerusalem. The rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one-tenth to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine- tenths in the other cities- When “the time to favour Zion” came, at the end of the 70 years, God’s servants Israel were to “take pleasure in her stones, and favour [even] the dust thereof”; and then, “when the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory” (<a href='B:230 102:13-16'>Psa 102:13-16</a>). But the few Jews who returned chose not to live in Jerusalem, preferring to carve out for themselves farmsteads in the countryside (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>), and the strength of those that shifted the rubble in Jerusalem decayed… they saw her dust and scattered stones as a nuisance, and didn’t take pleasure in them (<a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>). And so the Lord could not then appear in glory. See on <a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a>.</p><p><a href='B:290 62:12'>Isa 62:12</a> had prophesied that "They shall call them The holy people, The redeemed of Yahweh: and you shall be called Sought out, A city not forsaken". But Nehemiah’s record concludes on this negative note that Judah had forsaken Zion (<a href='B:160 13:10'>Neh 13:10</a>). Nobody wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there; the Levites even went and lived outside it where they had “fields”, because they weren’t given their tithes. Lots had to be drawn to get people to live there (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). It became a ghost town, when it should have been inhabited as a town without walls for the multitudes of returned exiles joyfully dwelling there (<a href='B:450 2:5'>Zec 2:5</a>). It was God’s intention that ten men (a reference to Israelites of the ten tribes?) would take hold of the skirts of a Jew (i:e. one of Judah) and come with him to worship in the new temple (<a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a>). But in fact the opposite happened. So few wanted to live in Jerusalem, that the rulers had to cast lots to force one in ten Jews to go and live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). And the ten tribes didn’t really unite with Judah, but went off and got lost in the Gentile world.</p>


text:
<p>The people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem- These are to be contrasted with those who were compelled to come because the lot had fallen upon them (:1). <a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a> laments how small was the population of the restored Jerusalem. They had failed to fulfil the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 2:4'>Zec 2:4</a>: “And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein”. Likewise <a href='B:330 36:10'>Eze 36:10</a>: “And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded”. They were happier to settle outside of Jerusalem and concentrate on building up their own farms in the villages and small towns of Judah, rather than sense the importance of Zion. <a href='B:160 11:1-3'>Neh 11:1-3</a> suggests that so few wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there, that they had to draw lots to get at least a tenth of the total population to live there- in what should have been the capital. If more had returned from Babylon, if more had lived in Jerusalem, then Yahweh would have been a wall of fire to them, and then the Kingdom conditions described in the rest of Zechariah 2 would have come about. Although the restoration prophecies speak as if the increase of Zion’s population was to be unconditional, <a href='B:330 36:37'>Eze 36:37</a> implies that this would only happen if they prayed for it: “Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock”. But they got on with building their own homes and farms outside Jerusalem, they blessed those who had the courage to live in Zion itself, but didn’t earnestly pray for the fulfilment of the prophecies. They figured that the time for their fulfilment hadn’t come, as Haggai laments; instead of praying for their fulfilment. And we must assess our attitude to the fulfilment of prophecy in the light of all this.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the chiefs of the province who lived in Jerusalem. However, in the cities of Judah each person lived in his possession in their cities: Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants- The priests in the restored Kingdom were to live in one specific area near the temple (<a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a>), whereas under the Mosaic Law, the priests were given land to live on in each of the various tribes of Israel. And yet the record of the restoration stresses that the priests lived not around the temple, but in various cities throughout Judah (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 11:3'>Neh 11:3</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:44'>Neh 12:44</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In Jerusalem lived some 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- The fact some of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh also lived there is omitted (<a href='B:130 9:3'>1Ch 9:3</a>). Perhaps Nehemiah recognizes in this edited version that the prophetic intention of Israel and Judah reuniting in Zion hadn't come about as intended. There had been no repentance, and most of them preferred to remain in exile. So he didn't even want to give the impression that the intended restoration had happened in this respect.</p>


text:
<p>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 the Shilonite- Related not to the town of Shiloh, but to the descendants of Shelah in the line of Judah (<a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a>). Shelah had a very shady beginning and might have seemed doomed to spiritual failure (<a href='B:10 38:5'>Gen 38:5</a>; <a href='B:10 38:11'>Gen 38:11</a>; <a href='B:10 38:14'>Gen 38:14</a>); he was half Canaanite. But from shaky spiritual beginnings, some do make good. And now we are reading of his descendants as those living in Jerusalem as the vanguard of the restoration of God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>All the sons of Perez who lived in Jerusalem were four hundred and sixty-eight valiant men- At this point the list in 1 Chronicles 9 gives the number of the sons of Zerah, 690. It is clear therefore that neither list is complete.</p>


text:
<p>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 Jeshaiah- Nehemiah omits the significant mention made of the sons of Zerah in the parallel <a href='B:130 9:6'>1Ch 9:6</a>. They numbered 690 soldiers, about half of the Jewish population in Jerusalem. The omission is surely intentional; perhaps Nehemiah considered them somehow apostate, or in reality they left Jerusalem and lived elsewhere.</p>


text:
<p>After him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred and twenty-eight- Not mentioned in the parallel <a href='B:130 9:8'>1Ch 9:8</a> where the chiefs of Benjamin inferior to Sallu are Ibneiah, Elah and Meshullam. There is no contradiction; it's simply that neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p>


text:
<p>Joel the son of Zichri was their overseer; and Judah the son of Hassenuah was second over the city- He was second in command to Joel. In this case, the overseers of the city of <a href='B:160 7:2'>Neh 7:2</a> had been replaced by Joel. However, it could be translated with reference to "they city", as if he was overseer over the part of the city called "the second", as in <a href='B:160 3:9'>Neh 3:9</a>; <a href='B:160 3:12'>Neh 3:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Of the priests: Jedaiah the son of Joiarib, Jachin- "Son of" may need to be omitted as it is in some texts. Because the parallel <a href='B:130 9:10'>1Ch 9:10</a> has "Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, Jachin". Those three are names of the priestly orders in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth- The grandfather, in fact (<a href='B:150 7:3'>Ezr 7:3</a>). "Son of" means simply 'descendant of'.</p><p>The son of Ahitub, the ruler of God’s house- GNB "was the High Priest".</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers who did the work of the house, eight hundred and twenty-two; 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- These 822 were apparently divided into 22 courses (<a href='B:160 12:2-7'>Neh 12:2-7</a>), meaning that only about 37 of them were serving at any one time. The scale of operations was therefore not that great.</p>


text:
<p>and his brothers, chiefs of fathers’ households, two hundred and forty-two; and Amashsai the son of Azarel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer- AV: "Amashai (R:V. Amashsai) the son of Azareel (R:V. Azarel), the son of Ahasai (R:V. Ahzai), the son of Meshillemoth]". Compare the parallel in <a href='B:130 9:12'>1Ch 9:12</a>,&nbsp; "Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith". The same person is in view. Comparing the names we see how the Biblical genealogies omit some names and generations, and also how the same name is rendered slightly differently. This is partly because of the difficulty of transliterating letters from non-Latin languages, especially ancient ones. But there are also substantive differences. Names in non-literate societies were pronounced differently and spelt differently in different contexts. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, mighty men of valour, one hundred and twenty-eight; and their overseer was Zabdiel- <a href='B:130 9:13'>1Ch 9:13</a> "Very able men". Their "valour" was in their ability to serve.</p><p>The son of Haggedolim- RVmg. "the son of one of the great men".</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Bunni- <a href='B:130 9:14'>1Ch 9:14</a> adds the detail that they were "of the sons of Merari".</p>


text:
<p>and Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chiefs of the Levites, who had the oversight of the outside business of God’s house- This "business" is in contrast to the "work" of God's house, the actual rituals performed by the priests (<a href='B:160 11:22'>Neh 11:22</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and Mattaniah the son of Mica, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, who was the praise leader who began the thanksgiving in prayer, and Bakbukiah, the second among his brothers; and Abda the son of Shammua, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun- These praise leaders are inserted in the list as more senior than the singers (:22). Much of the worship would have been through choruses led by one or two leaders who began the chorus and then the "singers" joined in; several of the Psalms were intended to be used like this.</p>


text:
<p>All the Levites in the holy city were two hundred and eighty-four- "The holy city" (as in :1) may refer to Jerusalem or particularly to the area around Zion, the temple mount. Sadly the city was anything but "holy" to Yahweh as the rest of Nehemiah makes clear.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brothers, who kept watch at the gates, were one hundred and seventy-two- <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a> gives 212. It depends exactly what time 1 Chronicles 9 refers to. And guards of the gates may have included others who were not in this particular list of "porters", for as noted several times, neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of Israel, of the priests, the Levites, were in all the cities of Judah, each one in his inheritance- We note that the community is now called "Israel" even though the majority of the returned exiles were from the two tribe kingdom of Judah. However the unity envisioned by the restoration prophets was intended to be upon the basis of a joint experience of conviction of sin, repentance and forgiveness. But in reality most of the Jews and Israelites remained in exile, by their choice; and what unity was achieved in the restoration was of a national, secular nature, rather than spiritual. And we need to beware of such a semblance of "unity" in the church of today.</p>


text:
<p>But the Nethinim lived in Ophel; and Ziha and Gishpa were over the Nethinim- "Gishpa" is the "Hasupha" of <a href='B:150 2:43'>Ezr 2:43</a>; <a href='B:160 7:46'>Neh 7:46</a>. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>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 God’s house- This is in contrast to the "outward business" of the temple (:16); these were the ones who actually served in performing or assisting the performance of the Mosaic rituals.</p>


text:
<p>For there was a commandment from the king- "The king" is surely Artaxerxes (cp. <a href='B:160 2:8'>Neh 2:8</a>; <a href='B:160 11:24'>Neh 11:24</a>; <a href='B:150 7:20-24'>Ezr 7:20-24</a>).</p><p>Concerning them- The Levites.</p><p>And a settled provision for the singers, as every day required- Presumably there was a daily allowance from the Persian government for the singers. This ought to have been provided by the tithes of the people but clearly these were lacking, and the famine (see on Nehemiah 5) was such that it was hard for them to pay them. Heb. ‘the thing of a day on its day,’ as LXX. This is the idea behind the Lord's model prayer asking us to pray to be given "our daily bread". Just enough for today- with the implication being, so that we might serve God as the singers and Levites did in the temple. I will note on <a href='B:160 12:29'>Neh 12:29</a> that it seems these portions were not fully received by them.</p>


text:
<p>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- This is noted in the context of the special imperial edict regarding the daily allowance for the Levites (:23). "At the king's hand" suggests this Pethahiah was literally with the king Artaxerxes in Persia (<a href='B:160 13:13'>Neh 13:13</a>; <a href='B:130 18:17'>1Ch 18:17</a>; <a href='B:130 23:28'>1Ch 23:28</a>), and we can assume it was due to his good offices that this was arranged.</p>


text:
<p>As for the villages, with their fields, some of the children of Judah lived in Kiriath Arba and its towns, and in Dibon and its towns, and in Jekabzeel and its villages- This is the old name for Hebron, the early capital of Judah. Perhaps the old name is used because this is how it was written in the Persian records; these genealogies and lists we have in this part of the book of Nehemiah appear to have been appended by Nehemiah to his own autobiography:- These were all immediately around Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>and in Jeshua, and in Moladah, and Beth Pelet- This sounds similar to the list in <a href='B:60 15:26-27'>Jos 15:26-27</a>, in which case "Jeshua" would be a form of "Shema"; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>and in Hazar Shual, and in Beersheba and its towns- This was the southern border; perhaps the idea of this list is to demonstrate how widely the people scattered. There is no mention of opposition to their reclaiming ancestral lands all over Judah. Perhaps the population was low, further diminished by the terrible famine of Nehemiah 5.</p>


text:
<p>and in Ziklag, and in Meconah and in its towns- Larger settlements aren't mentioned, but those which are often have historical associations with the life of David (Ziklag = <a href='B:90 30:1'>1Sa 30:1</a>) and the conquest of the land at the time of Joshua. The impression may be that there was an attempt to reestablish David's kingdom. But the restoration of the Davidic kingdom was linked by the prophets to repentance and the appearance of his Messianic "son", which didn't happen. It was but an outward appearance of restoration.</p>


text:
<p>and in En Rimmon, and in Zorah, and in Jarmuth- As noted on :28 the places mentioned had association with the conquest of Joshua (here, referring to <a href='B:60 15:32-33'>Jos 15:32-33</a>; <a href='B:60 15:35'>Jos 15:35</a>). But it was but an external appearance of restoration, for the promised "Joshua" figure, the Messiah, didn't appear at the time.</p>


text:
<p>Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and its fields, Azekah and its towns. So they encamped from Beersheba to the valley of Hinnom- The idea is from the most southern point of Judah to Judah's northern boundary at the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna, outside Jerusalem (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin also lived from Geba onward, at Michmash and Aija, and at Bethel and its towns- "Aija" is Ai; Michmash was the scene of one of David's victories. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>at Anathoth, Nob, Ananiah- The very existence of "men of Anathoth" who returned was a sign of God's grace. For because of their persecution of Jeremiah, <a href='B:300 11:21'>Jer 11:21</a>; <a href='B:300 11:23'>Jer 11:23</a> had prophesied: "There shall be no remnant of them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth". Perhaps like Nineveh some repented and therefore the threatened judgment didn't come about; or Jeremiah prayed for them his enemies and was heard; or Yahweh simply pitied His people.</p><p>For Nob, see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>Hadid, Zeboim, Neballat- The people from these areas returned (<a href='B:150 2:33'>Ezr 2:33</a>), but it's not clear whether they actually went to live there. The record wishes to give that impression, of a total restoration to how things were previously, on a national and cultural level. But the spiritual aspect was sadly lacking.</p>


text:
<p>Lod, and Ono, the valley of craftsmen- <a href='B:130 4:14'>1Ch 4:14</a> "Joab the father of Gehaharashim; for they were craftsmen".</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites, certain divisions in Judah settled in Benjamin’s territory- GNB "Some groups of Levites that had lived in the territory of Judah were assigned to live with the people of Benjamin". This suggests there were simply not enough Levites, and instead of remaining around the temple in Judah where they were needed, they instead went to live in Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the priests and the Levites who went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra- Those who truly waited upon Yahweh would renew their strength; they would “mount up as eagles” (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a>), the s:w. used throughout Ezra and Nehemiah for the ‘going up’ ["went up"] to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the temple (<a href='B:150 1:3'>Ezr 1:3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 1:11'>Ezr 1:11</a>; <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 2:59'>Ezr 2:59</a>; <a href='B:150 7:6-7'>Ezr 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:1'>Ezr 8:1</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-6'>Neh 7:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:61'>Neh 7:61</a>; <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>). The idea of mounting up with wings as eagles also connects with Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim, mounting up from the captives by the rivers of Babylon, and returning to the land. But the reality was as in <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>: “And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall”. Examination of the context shows that they had just had plenty of strength; they lost physical stamina because of their spiritual weakness.</p><p>Zerubbabel and Joshua between them were intended to be the king-priest of the restoration, according to Zechariah's prophecy, who would between them fulfil the requirements for a messianic figure in the restored Kingdom. But they failed in this, and despite other possible fulfillments, as Zechariah offers, this figure never appeared.</p>


text:
<p>Amariah, Malluch, Hattush- There were more priests than this who returned, these are the heads of houses listed here. All these names are repeated in :12-21 with the exception of Hattush; perhaps he failed in some way and was excluded, although he signed the covenant in <a href='B:160 10:4'>Neh 10:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Iddo, Ginnethoi, Abijah- 'Ginnethoi' means "gardener" and reads strangely amongst the other priestly names, most of which have spiritual overtones. Yet the priests were not intended to do agricultural work but to be supported by the tithes. It could be that this name is a reflection of the way that some priestly families were just so in name only and had no real dedication to spiritual things. The failure of the priesthood to teach and even know God's word is evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>Mijamin, Maadiah, Bilgah- "Maadiah", 'ornament of Yah' or 'adorned by Yah', could be one of the few names which connect with the hope of the restoration prophets; that the restored Israel would be adorned by Yah (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>). I have noted that generally the situation in Nehemiah's time had very little connection with the restoration prophets; they were simply focused upon restoring the situation as it had been under the old covenant, which was now permanently broken.</p>


text:
<p>Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah- Joiarib was drawn to serve first in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>, but presumably the lots came out differently when they were drawn at the restoration, and he is now drawn 17th out of 22 orders.</p>


text:
<p>Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chiefs of the priests and of their brothers in the days of Jeshua- The 22 names in this list fall short of the 24 courses of priests in the original temple.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, who was the praise leader, he and his brothers- "Praise leader" is the word used in <a href='B:300 25:30'>Jer 25:30</a>; <a href='B:300 51:14'>Jer 51:14</a> of the 'shouting' or 'praise' which was to be heard in the restored Kingdom. But those who were to be making it intermarried with Gentiles and failed to act as intended for the restored Kingdom, and so the potential fulfillment didn't happen. Just as so many situations in our own lives.</p>


text:
<p>Also Bakbukiah and Unno, their brothers, were over against them- The same Hebrew in <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>, "The priests sounded trumpets before them", the idea perhaps being that they answered the Levites in choral praise (see :24).</p><p>According to their offices- "Offices" could be translated "watches", as if even at this stage the community were under threat of disruption and attack- from the very people with whom they had intermarried.</p>


text:
<p>Jeshua became the father of Joiakim, and Joiakim became the father of Eliashib, and Eliashib became the father of Joiada- We now have a brief genealogy of the high priest. The list follows right on from the list of high priests in <a href='B:130 6:3-15'>1Ch 6:3-15</a> which concluded with Jehozadak father of Jeshua / Joshua, who "went into captivity when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar".</p>


text:
<p>and Joiada became the father of Jonathan, and Jonathan became the father of Jaddua- In :22, ‘Johanan’ comes between Joiada and Jaddua. He is stated to be son of Eliashib in :23. Perhaps Jonathan is a form of Johanan; or maybe Jonathan was briefly high priest, before Johanan took over.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Joiakim there were priests, heads of fathers’ households: of Seraiah, Meraiah; of Jeremiah, Hananiah- Joiakim would have been contemporary with the events of the book of Esther and king Xerxes. Perhaps he compiled the following list of the courses of the priests which were in existence at the time of high priest Joiakim (:10).</p>


text:
<p>of Ezra, Meshullam; of Amariah, Jehohanan- Generally the names of the priests feature more names with the 'Yah' suffix than the names of the priests who first returned. That may have been a sign of increasing spirituality, or maybe just simply a return to their cultural roots. This is ever an issue in western Christianity; for one can be culturally Christian without being spiritually Christian.</p>


text:
<p>of Malluchi, Jonathan; of Shebaniah, Joseph- "Malluchi" is a form of the common word for "king". Perhaps in this man an family the kingly line of Judah and the priestly line mixed- preparing yet more potential fulfillments of the king-priest Messiah who could have appeared at the restoration, according to Isaiah and Zechariah; but nobody rose up to it.</p>


text:
<p>of Harim, Adna; of Meraioth, Helkai- "Harim" means 'snub nosed'. Perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on <a href='B:160 10:10'>Neh 10:10</a>; <a href='B:160 10:17'>Neh 10:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>of Iddo, Zechariah; of Ginnethon, Meshullam- Ginnethoi' means "gardener" and reads strangely amongst the other priestly names, most of which have spiritual overtones. Yet the priests were not intended to do agricultural work but to be supported by the tithes. It could be that this name is a reflection of the way that some priestly families were just so in name only and had no real dedication to spiritual things. The failure of the priesthood to teach and even know God's word is evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>of Abijah, Zichri; of Miniamin, of Moadiah, Piltai- "Maadiah", 'ornament of Yah' or 'adorned by Yah', could be one of the few names which connect with the hope of the restoration prophets; that the restored Israel would be adorned by Yah (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>). I have noted that generally the situation in Nehemiah's time had very little connection with the restoration prophets; they were simply focused upon restoring the situation as it had been under the old covenant, which was now permanently broken.</p>


text:
<p>of Bilgah, Shammua; of Shemaiah, Jehonathan- "Shammua" is the word used of the 'desolation' of the land during the exile (<a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>; <a href='B:30 26:35'>Lev 26:35</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>; <a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a>; <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>; <a href='B:300 33:10'>Jer 33:10</a>). This would indicate in this name at least a mourning for the situation in the land just as Nehemiah did in Nehemiah 1, in contrast to the majority who preferred to remain in Persia.</p>


text:
<p>and of Joiarib, Mattenai; of Jedaiah, Uzzi- The relatively low place in the list of Joiarib and Jedaiah may be because they didn't seal the covenant of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>of Sallai, Kallai; of Amok, Eber- "Kallai" means 'frivolous' and is the word used of how the priesthood had 'made itself vile' (<a href='B:90 3:13'>1Sa 3:13</a>). The word is translated "curse" in <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>. It contrasts with the generally spiritual names recorded here.</p>


text:
<p>of Hilkiah, Hashabiah; of Jedaiah, Nethanel- "Hashabiah" means 'Yah has counted', the same words used of how Yahweh counted Abraham righteous (<a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a>). As noted on :20, there is a wide range in the meanings of the names, as if to give the impression that some were spiritual and others were far from spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers’ households; also the priests, in the reign of Darius the Persian- See on :11. "In the reign::." would be better "to the reign of Darius". The Darius in view is likely Darius Codomannus, who fought with Alexander the Great, and would have been contemporary with Jaddua the high priest.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Levi, heads of fathers’ households, were written in the book of the chronicles, even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib- For Johanan, see on :11.</p>


text:
<p>The chiefs of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brothers over against them, to praise and give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, watch next to watch- LXX "Course by course". But all 24 courses of priests didn't return from exile; only four of them initially, according to <a href='B:150 2:37'>Ezr 2:37</a>, although others likely came later. Like Ezra, Nehemiah seemed more concerned with restoring the religion as it was under the old covenant, than accepting the new covenant promised in the restoration prophets. For in that, according to Ezekiel, the priests were not to be the Levites and Aaronites but the sons of Zadok.</p>


text:
<p>Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the watch at the storehouses of the gates- Again there is the implication that there was still much opposition and potential risk of theft.</p>


text:
<p>These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest the scribe- The book of Nehemiah appears to be the autobiography of Nehemiah, perhaps written in a hope that God would thereby take note of his good deeds- not an altogether spiritually mature approach. However in chapters 10-12 he appears to have appended various genealogical records. Now he returns to the narrative for the rest of the book.</p>


text:
<p>At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with gladness, both with giving thanks, and with singing, with cymbals, stringed instruments, and with harps- The seeking of the Levites to come in from the fields they were farming outside of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:36)::. rather suggests they weren't that willing. The entire picture is so negative.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of the singers gathered themselves together, both out of the plain around Jerusalem, and from the villages of the Netophathite- This gathering together on their own initiative contrasts with the seeking of the Levites in :27; as if the Levites had to be cajoled to come, but the singers came themselves. We marvel at how degrees of human response are noted and recorded by God; and He is no less sensitive to our responses today.</p>


text:
<p>also from Beth Gilgal, and out of the fields of Geba and Azmaveth. The singers had built themselves villages around Jerusalem- The singers were supposed to be supported by direct grant from the King of Persia (<a href='B:160 11:23'>Neh 11:23</a>) but the mention of them living in fields and villages suggests things went missing along the path and they had to support themselves.</p>


text:
<p>The priests and the Levites purified themselves; and they purified the people, and the gates, and the wall- <a href='B:330 36:24-29'>Eze 36:24-29</a> had prophesied: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh”. The captives were taken from among the many nations that comprised Babylon / Persia; they were brought, as many as could be bothered to go, to their own land. They were cleansed there (s:w. <a href='B:150 6:20'>Ezr 6:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:30'>Neh 12:30</a>). But they became un-cleansed through allowing Tobiah into the temple chambers, by trading on the Sabbath, and by marrying Gentiles (<a href='B:160 13:9'>Neh 13:9</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:30'>Neh 13:30</a>). The priesthood needed to be “cleansed” again (<a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a> s:w:). The promise of Ezekiel 36 sounds unconditional- as if, whoosh, God would make His sinful people righteous regardless of their own will. And so some have misunderstood the operation of God’s Spirit in our own days. But although not directly stated, the promise of entry into the new covenant, whereby God would encourage obedience through the work of His Spirit, was conditional. Judah could have entered the new covenant there and then, with all its requirements for a Messiah figure to abrogate the Mosaic law. But they turned back to their uncleannesses, they would not keep God’s statutes, and their potential Messiah figures failed to appear. Yet again, the promise of entry into a new covenant was deferred, to be fulfilled in a new Israel who are sprinkled through the waters of baptism. The promise was fulfilled, but in a far different context to that intended.</p>


text:
<p>Then I brought up the princes of Judah on the wall, and appointed two great companies who gave thanks and went in procession. One went on the right hand on the wall- One group went around the northern wall and the other around the southern wall. They would have met in the open space to the east of the temple. See on :38.</p><p>Toward the dung gate- <a href='B:330 48:31-34'>Eze 48:31-34</a> envisaged the 12 gates of Jerusalem being named after the 12 tribes of Israel. But it seems no accident that twelve separate gates of the city are mentioned in the restoration record- but they weren't renamed after the tribes of Israel. Here are the names of the city gates in Nehemiah: valley (<a href='B:160 3:13'>Neh 3:13</a>); horse (<a href='B:160 3:28'>Neh 3:28</a>); east (<a href='B:160 3:29'>Neh 3:29</a>); Miphkad (<a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a>); water (<a href='B:160 8:16'>Neh 8:16</a>); dung (<a href='B:160 12:31'>Neh 12:31</a>); fountain (<a href='B:160 12:37'>Neh 12:37</a>); Ephraim, old, fish, sheep and prison gates (<a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a>). No wonder some wept when the rebuilt temple was finally dedicated- the pattern of Ezekiel's vision hadn't been followed, even on such basic matters as the names of the twelve gates of Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>and after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah- We wonder why Judah is emphasized, when the idea of the restoration was that "Israel" was to now be comprised of all the tribes. Again we get a sense of parochialism and a yearning for how things had once been, which dwarfed any spiritual aspect.</p>


text:
<p>and Azariah, Ezra, and Meshullam- They were priests (<a href='B:160 10:2'>Neh 10:2</a> cp. <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>; <a href='B:160 12:13'>Neh 12:13</a>); there was a mixture of princes of Judah and priests, as if they were vaguely aware that the intended Messiah of the restoration was pictured by Isaiah and Zechariah as a king-priest in whom would meet the lines of Judah and Levi.</p>


text:
<p>Judah, and Benjamin, and Shemaiah, and Jeremiah- Jerusalem was clearly still being seen as the city of "Judah and Benjamin", situated on the borders of those two tribes; rather than a city of all Israel and indeed the Gentile world. Again we note the sense of parochialism.</p>


text:
<p>and some of the priests’ sons with trumpets: Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micaiah, the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph- This confirms the impression that groups of priests were followed by groups of men of Judah and Benjamin, and then again more priests. The fuller list of the priests' sons is in :41.</p>


text:
<p>and his brothers, Shemaiah, and Azarel, Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethanel, and Judah, Hanani, with the musical instruments of David the man of God; and Ezra the scribe was before them- LXX "the hymns of David", i:e. the Psalms. "Was before them" suggests Ezra went with one group and Nehemiah with the other (:38).</p>


text:
<p>By the spring gate, and straight before them, they went up by the stairs of the city of David, at the ascent of the wall, above the house of David, even to the water gate eastward- "Instead of following the wall round the spurs of the Ophel, the procession went straight on up the steps ascending the brow of the hill".</p>


text:
<p>The other company of those who gave thanks went to meet them, and I after them, with the half of the people, on the wall, above the tower of the furnaces, even to the broad wall-&nbsp; "I after them" suggests Ezra went with one group and Nehemiah with the other (cp. :36). "To meet them" translates a Hebrew word which with one consonant different would mean "to the left hand", the intention being to give the other hand of the scene of :31 "at the right hand".</p>


text:
<p>and above the gate of Ephraim- A gate not mentioned as ever being rebuilt in Nehemiah 3. Maybe it was a new gate built at the restoration, on the road leading to Ephraim, perhaps intended to symbolize the unity with the ten tribes.</p><p>And by the old gate, and by the fish gate, and the tower of Hananel, and the tower of Hammeah, even to the sheep gate; and they stood still in the gate of the guard- At the eastern entrance to the temple.</p>


text:
<p>So stood the two companies of those who gave thanks in God’s house, and I, and the half of the rulers with me- Ezra went with one group and Nehemiah with the other (:36 cp. :38).</p>


text:
<p>and the priests, Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Micaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah, and Hananiah, with trumpets- These presumably are the equivalent of the priests' sons with trumpets of :35.</p>


text:
<p>and Maaseiah, and Shemaiah, and Eleazar, and Uzzi, and Jehohanan, and Malchijah, and Elam, and Ezer. The singers sang loud, with Jezrahiah their overseer- LXX "And the singers were heard, and were numbered". It is axiomatic that singers are heard, so the idea is that they sang loudly and their message was heard / understood. In the parallel group which went around the temple walls, Zechariah was the overseer (:35).</p>


text:
<p>They offered great sacrifices that day, and rejoiced; for God had made them rejoice with great joy; and the women also and the children rejoiced; so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off- God's psychological influencing of people is a parade example of how His Spirit works upon the human spirit (as in <a href='B:140 20:27'>2Ch 20:27</a>). The joy of the restored Zion was intended to be a witness to the Gentiles. But those who made this great and loud witness were to yet again intermarry with the Gentiles rather than bring them to Israel's God.</p>


text:
<p>On that day were men appointed over the rooms for the treasures, for the wave offerings, for the first fruits, and for the tithes, to gather into them, according to the fields of the cities, the portions appointed by the law for the priests and Levites; for Judah rejoiced for the priests and for the Levites who waited- The idea is that they were glad that the priests and Levites were 'waiting' i:e. doing God's service. It could be that as happens today, people were happy to pay others to do the work for God which they ought to be doing, and are made somehow happy by having parted with their money for the sake of others doing the work.</p><p>The priests in the restored Kingdom were to live in one specific area near the temple (<a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a>), whereas under the Mosaic Law, the priests were given land to live on in each of the various tribes of Israel. And yet the record of the restoration stresses that the priests lived not around the temple, but in various cities throughout Judah (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 11:3'>Neh 11:3</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:44'>Neh 12:44</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They performed the duty of their God, and the duty of the purification, and so did the singers and the porters, according to the commandment of David, and of Solomon his son- Judah were to keep the charges ['perform the duty'] of God relating to His house (<a href='B:330 40:46'>Eze 40:46</a>; <a href='B:330 44:8'>Eze 44:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:14-16'>Eze 44:14-16</a>), so that the Kingdom of God might be restored in Israel. Nehemiah, seeking for Israel’s obedience to Ezekiel’s vision, tried to get them to “keep the charges” (s:w. <a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a>; <a href='B:160 12:45'>Neh 12:45</a>; <a href='B:160 13:20'>Neh 13:20</a>). But soon, Judah complained that there was no benefit to them from having kept the charges (<a href='B:460 3:14'>Mal 3:14</a> s:w:). Partial obedience discouraged them from any further effort, because the fullness of blessing can only come from a way of life conformed to God’s Kingdom vision and life. This is why people get disillusioned with religion and lose even the true faith- because they seek for immediate benefit as a result of keeping a few highly specific aspects of God’s law, rather than willingly devoting their way of life to the realization of His vision.</p>


text:
<p>For in the days of David and Asaph of old there was a chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving to God- See on <a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>. LXX "For in the days of David Asaph was originally first of the singers, and they sang hymns and praise to God". There seemed far more interest in replicating the past than in seeking to obey the prophecies of the restored Kingdom; see on :44,45.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, as every day required: and they set apart that which was for the Levites; and the Levites set apart that which was for the sons of Aaron- There had been tensions between Levites and priests in Ezra's time. We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>). But things were arranged so that the Levites, who were the manual workers, collected the tithes and then paid these to the priests ("the sons of Aaron"). This was an attempt to overcome these tensions and the sense that the priests were superior to the Levites; for the Levites were to as it were pay the priests, and the priests were thereby dependent upon the Levites for their food and income.</p>


text:
<p>On that day- This could mean just "at that time", but it may refer to the day of the dedication of the wall (<a href='B:160 12:27'>Neh 12:27</a>) when they brought the Levites to Jerusalem. But the Levites were the teachers of the people. The fact they were not living in Jerusalem because tithes hadn't been given them meant that there was little teaching of God's word, with the result that the masses were Biblically ignorant.</p><p>They read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God forever- As noted above, it seems there was a huge Biblical ignorance, partly due to the Levites not teaching the people. They "found written" what they ought surely to have been aware of.</p>


text:
<p>Because they didn’t meet the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them; however our God turned the curse into a blessing- The interpretation or additional comment was added by the Levites as they read the law, as a kind of midrash. See on :1. The turning of curse into blessing was what had been the intended result of Judah's exile; the intention was that they would return and articulate with God in reestablishing His Kingdom in Israel with all the attendant blessings.</p>


text:
<p>It came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude- This reads as if they heard what they hadn't realized before in God's law, and then obeyed it immediately. The idea isn't that they threw these foreigners out of the territory of Judah, but rather that they didn't allow them to participate in the signs of covenant relationship (as in <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>).</p><p>The accounts of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similarly to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (<a href='B:150 10:8'>Ezr 10:8</a>). It’s a separation- one way or the other.</p>


text:
<p>Now before this- This may refer to the "this" of :6, the interval between Nehemiah's first and second rulerships in Jerusalem.</p><p>Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the rooms of the house of our God, being allied to Tobiah- The same high priest of :28 and <a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>. His name is significantly absent from the list of those who signed the covenant of purity in Nehemiah 10. The alliance (s:w. <a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a>) to Tobiah was presumably through marriage of a family member; Tobiah had married a daughter of Shecaniah; and his son Jehohanan had married a daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Both Shecaniah and Meshullam are mentioned in <a href='B:160 3:20'>Neh 3:20</a>; <a href='B:160 3:30'>Neh 3:30</a> as high ranking priests.</p>


text:
<p>had prepared for him a great room, where before they laid the meal offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the grain, the new wine, and the oil, which were given by commandment to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters; and the wave offerings for the priests- This "great room", LXX "treasury", was the storehouse and vault for all the valuable things. As explained on :8, Tobiah turned this into his own private residence. The tithes were effectively given to him and not to the Levites; and so this discouraged people from paying them, and the Levites left Jerusalem to farm land which could give them subsistence food. And so the great potentials of Ezekiel 40-48, where the holiness of the temple chambers is emphasized, were all precluded from fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>But in all this, I was not at Jerusalem; for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon I went to the king: and after certain days asked I leave of the king- Whilst Nehemiah writes this to clear himself of any wrong doing, it is also a tacit admission that the reforms and such spirituality as there was were due to his sole influence. Without his personal presence, the people returned to their usual sins.</p>


text:
<p>When I returned to Jerusalem- "Returned" is literally "came". When Nehemiah speaks of them having been redeemed by Yahweh’s “strong hand” (<a href='B:160 1:10'>Neh 1:10</a>), he is using the language of <a href='B:290 40:10'>Isa 40:10</a>, regarding how Yahweh would come to Zion and save Israel from Babylon and restore them to the land “with strong hand”. Nehemiah saw the prophecy could have been fulfilled then. The way Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-7'>Neh 7:5-7</a>), Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:8'>Ezr 7:8</a>; <a href='B:150 8:32'>Ezr 8:32</a>) and Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>) are described as ‘coming to Jerusalem’ may hint that they could have fulfilled this coming of Yahweh to Zion; they could have been Messianic figures (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>).</p><p>And understood the evil that Eliashib had done for Tobiah, in preparing him a room in the courts of God’s house- Tobiah the Ammonite was given a chamber in the temple for him to use as an office for undermining God’s people (<a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>). This precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecies. There were to be “holy chambers” in the temple for the Levites (<a href='B:330 46:19'>Eze 46:19</a> and very often in Ezekiel 40-48). The uncircumcised Gentiles were not to be brought into the sanctuary (<a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>). It was God’s intention that when Judah returned from Babylon, the uncircumcised would not come into Zion (the temple), and the Kingdom would be established (<a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a>; <a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a>). There was to be no Canaanite in the house of Yahweh (<a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>it grieved me severely- Hearts that bleed will feel not only for the world, but for our brethren too. Think of Nehemiah: "I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber (<a href='B:160 13:8'>Neh 13:8</a>). His grief led him to discipline Tobiah. Grief should likewise be the motive for ecclesial discipline today (as in <a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a>). The same word is translated "sad" in <a href='B:160 2:3'>Neh 2:3</a>: "Why should not my countenance be sad [grieved], when the city, the place of my fathers sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?". The King observed that his "sorrow of heart" was written all over his face, even though he was trying to conceal it. His sadness for His weak people was engraven in His body language. It could not be hidden, even though he became as it were a fool for Christ’s sake.</p><p>Therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the room- He had created a large room out of the temple chambers, and had made it the treasury; and yet he himself lived there. It's rather like a bank manager declaring his own private home as the money storage vault for the bank. Clearly there was an element of corruption involved. "Household stuff" is the same phrase as in the common term "vessels of the house" of Yahweh (e:g. <a href='B:140 24:14'>2Ch 24:14</a>). He had made Yahweh's house his house. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>Then I commanded, and they cleansed the rooms; and there brought I again the vessels of God’s house, with the meal offerings and the frankincense- But there is no mention of the tithes being brought back there (cp. :5) because they were not being paid. This was an attempt to cleanse the temple to try to obey the principle that the house of the restored Kingdom was not to be profaned (<a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>). But Judah profaned the Sabbath (<a href='B:160 13:17-18'>Neh 13:17-18</a>), and profaned the temple by their marriage with Gentiles and their “weariness” with the temple ordinances (<a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>; <a href='B:460 2:10-11'>Mal 2:10-11</a>). They got bored with the things of the Kingdom, and so they had no part in it. And so the possibility of the fulfilment of Ezekiel 40-48 was precluded despite Nehemiah's efforts.</p>


text:
<p>I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them; so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, had fled everyone to his field- I suggested on :5 that this was because Tobiah was keeping them for himself. The priests returned to mind their own fields because the tithes weren’t paid to them, and so this precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 31:14'>Jer 31:14</a>: “And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness".</p><p><a href='B:290 62:12'>Isa 62:12</a> had prophesied that "They shall call them The holy people, The redeemed of Yahweh: and you shall be called Sought out, A city not forsaken". But Nehemiah’s record concludes on this negative note that Judah had forsaken Zion. Nobody wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there; the Levites even went and lived outside it where they had “fields”, because they weren’t given their tithes. Lots had to be drawn to get people to live there (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). It became a ghost town, when it should have been inhabited as a town without walls for the multitudes of returned exiles joyfully dwelling there (<a href='B:450 2:5'>Zec 2:5</a>). It was God’s intention that ten men (a reference to Israelites of the ten tribes?) would take hold of the skirts of a Jew (i:e. one of Judah) and come with him to worship in the new temple (<a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a>). But in fact the opposite happened. So few wanted to live in Jerusalem, that the rulers had to cast lots to force one in ten Jews to go and live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). And the ten tribes didn’t really unite with Judah, but went off and got lost in the Gentile world.</p>


text:
<p>Then I contended with the rulers and said, Why is God’s house forsaken?- I suggested on :8 that Tobiah had effectively turned God's house into his own house. The people had allowed this to happen, thinking that loyalty to Tobiah was better than strict loyalty to Yahweh:&nbsp;They vowed not to forsake the house of their God, and yet Nehemiah concludes with the record that this is exactly what they did (<a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>). Nehemiah was heartbroken that the temple was “forsaken”, because the “Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field” because the tithes weren’t paid to them. Thus they had precluded the fulfilment of the restoration potential of <a href='B:300 33:18'>Jer 33:18</a>: “Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually”.</p><p>I gathered them together, and set them in their place- GNB interprets this as meaning "I brought the Levites and musicians back to the Temple and put them to work again". With the tithes no longer going to Tobiah, they went to the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>Then brought all Judah the tithe of the grain and the new wine and the oil to the treasuries- This can be read positively, or negatively, in that perhaps the hint is that there were tithes of other things which ought to have been brought, but weren't.</p>


text:
<p>I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah. Next to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah; for they were counted faithful, and their business was to distribute to their brothers- This was instead of the tithes coming to the treasury, which Tobiah had made his personal home; and the obvious implication is that he had not been faithful in these things. Effectively this was a rejection of Eliashib the high priest who had previously been over the treasuries (:4). The corruption of the high priest meant that again, the potentials of the high priest in Zechariah's prophecies were being disallowed.</p>


text:
<p>Remember me, my God, concerning this, and don’t wipe out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and for its observances- Nehemiah seems to have been personally fearful of his own salvation, concluding by throwing himself upon God's grace in :22. He was very works oriented, and it could be that he wrote up his memoirs or autobiography in this book almost to as it were remind God of all his good works. This at best is a spiritually immature attitude. Or we could assume that he here understood that although salvation is by grace, in that we all receive the same penny of salvation no matter how hard we work; it is all the same true that the nature of our eternity will reflect our works. And therefore he asks that his works be remembered. For this principle is true; who we shall eternally be is a reflection of our works in this life. We now in this tiny fraction of eternity are molding the nature of our eternity. Which is a truth to live by absolutely every moment.</p><p>Nehemiah asks for his good deeds not to be blotted out just as he asks for the sins of the Samaritan opposition not to be blotted out (<a href='B:160 4:5'>Neh 4:5</a>). He clearly had a legalistic mindset, where good and bad deeds as it were balance each other out. He had not clearly grasped the idea of salvation by pure grace which was offered to sinners who accepted the new covenant which the exiles were being invited to accept.</p>


text:
<p>In those days I saw in Judah some men treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and loading donkeys; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day in which they sold food- Isaiah repeatedly stated that the surrounding nation would come to Zion and share in her joy. <a href='B:20 23:12'>Exo 23:12</a> had commanded that the Gentile who lived with Israel must keep the Sabbath. If the Jews had not done their pleasure on the Sabbath, then the Messianic Kingdom could have come (<a href='B:290 58:13-14'>Isa 58:13-14</a>). But instead the Gentiles who lived around Jerusalem traded with the Jews on the Sabbath (<a href='B:160 13:16'>Neh 13:16</a> RSV), they intermarried, and Israel / Zion was not a city set on a hill to enlighten the surrounding world; because they preferred to be influenced by the world around them, rather than vice versa.</p><p><a href='B:290 65:21'>Isa 65:21</a> had prophesied that "They shall build houses and inhabit them themselves; and they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit". But very few houses were built in Zion, because the people preferred to live on their farms, in their cieled houses, outside the city (<a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a>). They planted vineyards, but sold the fruit to others- on the Sabbath. <a href='B:300 31:5'>Jer 31:5</a> had prophesied of the restoration: “Again you shall plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria; the planters shall plant, and shall enjoy its fruit”. They did this at the restoration, but became so obsessed with treading out the grapes that they did it even on the Sabbath, and thereby disallowed the fulfilment of the Kingdom&nbsp; prophecies which were dependent upon them keeping the Sabbath (<a href='B:290 58:13'>Isa 58:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There also lived men of Tyre therein, who brought in fish and all kinds of wares, and sold on the Sabbath to the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem- The prophesied abundance of fertility in the land, according to the restoration prophecies, would have removed the need or even attraction of buying delicacies from Gentiles. But they were not interested in obeying the restoration prophecies nor making them come about, and so they were prone to these temptations to trade in luxuries on the Sabbath.</p>


text:
<p>Then I contended with the nobles of Judah and said to them, What evil thing is this that you do, and profane the Sabbath day?- The wealthier nobles were particularly involved because it was luxury items such as fish (:16), wine and figs (:15) which were being traded. Judah profaned the Sabbath (:18), and profaned the temple by their marriage with Gentiles and their “weariness” with the temple ordinances (<a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>; <a href='B:460 2:10-11'>Mal 2:10-11</a>). They got bored with the things of the Kingdom, and so they had no part in it. For the house of the restored Kingdom was not to be profaned (<a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t your fathers do thus, and didn’t our God bring all this evil on us, and on this city? Yet you bring more wrath on Israel by profaning the Sabbath- Here and in :26, Nehemiah appeals to historical precedent as a reason not to repeat mistakes. This is how the Bible, which is largely history, becomes a living word to us. The breaking of the Sabbath is repeatedly listed as a major reason for the exile (<a href='B:300 17:21-27'>Jer 17:21-27</a>; <a href='B:330 20:13'>Eze 20:13</a>; <a href='B:330 22:8'>Eze 22:8</a>; <a href='B:330 22:26'>Eze 22:26</a>); the land had to lay desolate 70 years to enjoy the Sabbaths she had been denied by such disobedience ( <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>). This emphasis is perhaps because the Sabbath taught the rejection of all trust in human works, and total faith and trust in God's saving grace. Thus the Sabbath became a unique sign between God and His people; to desecrate it was to deny His grace.</p>


text:
<p>It came to pass that, when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut, and commanded that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. I set some of my servants over the gates, so that no burden should be brought in on the Sabbath day- An indication that Nehemiah could have been a Messiah figure is to be found in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> RV, which laments that even if one man could be found to shut the temple doors properly, then God’s pleasure would have returned to Israel. It was Nehemiah who shut the doors (<a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a> - i:e. organized the temple services?), but presumably the implication is that he didn’t continue as required.</p><p>“The people of the land” hung around the gates of the city on the Sabbath in order to do some trading of goods. By allowing this, the Jews precluded the fulfilment of <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>: “Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the LORD in the Sabbaths and in the new moons”. <a href='B:290 60:10'>Isa 60:10</a> had prophesied that "Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you". The reality was that the walls were built from a motive not of glorifying Zion in fulfilment of prophecy, but for defence against the Gentiles:&nbsp; But the gates had to be shut to keep the Gentiles out, lest they yet further corrupted the Jews who were eager to trade with them on the Sabbath rather than convert them to the God of Israel. Instead of bringing their goods through the gates to lay before Yahweh, they brought in their goods to sell to His people in trade. But returned Judah didn’t act as a nation of priests, the food the Gentiles brought in to Zion was to be sold for profit to the Jews. They failed to be a missionary nation, and rather were mere trading / economic partners on an equal footing [cp. the church today?]. The prophecy that the gates would be always open will now only come true in the future Kingdom of God on earth (<a href='B:730 21:25-26'>Rev 21:25-26</a>).</p><p>Due to the Jews’ abuse of the Sabbath and their refusal to believe Yahweh would be the promised wall of protecting fire to them, the gates could not be open continually, and had to be shut at night (<a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a>). And Antiochus quite soon after Nehemiah’s time destroyed them [which shows how the spirituality involved in what we do, e:g. the building of the wall, is the essential thing, rather than the achievement of anything in itself]. The implication of the prophecies about Zion’s open gates was that whosoever would could then come at any time to seek Yahweh. But men were potentially turned away from Him, and His Kingdom not realized::. just because greedy, materialistic Jews wanted to have a few more coins in their pocket as a result of their trading on the Sabbath. And so with us, our meanness, our disabling of adverts to be placed, preaching to be done::. by our selfishness, our desire to have more than we need to cover us in the case of any eventuality, all this effectively shuts up the Kingdom against men. If the Pharisees could do just this, it is possible for us to do it. The salvation of others has been delegated into our hands.</p>


text:
<p>So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside of Jerusalem once or twice- The impression we get from here and :21 is that Nehemiah alone scared these people away; again we sense that there was little real spirituality amongst the returned exiles, and Nehemiah was a singular force in reforming things.</p>


text:
<p>Then I testified against them and said to them, Why do you stay around the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time on, they didn’t come on the Sabbath- "I will lay hands::." again suggests as on :20 that Nehemiah alone was threatening action. He appears to have had no significant group of spiritual supporters in the community of returned exiles, again reflecting how the great potentials of the restoration prophecies weren't fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day- They were to "come" and live in Jerusalem, abandoning the lands they were farming for themselves. This was perhaps why the Levites needed reminding here to keep the Sabbath. The majority of those who did return, only did so in order for purely personal benefit- of having their own house and land. They ‘went up’ to the land, but not to Zion. With reference to <a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a>, "get up to the high mountain” of Zion, <a href='B:440 1:7-9'>Hag 1:7-9</a> exhorted them: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD. Ye looked for much [i:e. they expected the promised Kingdom blessings], and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house”. Their focus was on their own lands and farms rather than the glory of Zion. They stood related to the things of God’s kingdom, but never ventured beyond their own personal self-interest. They would not accept that God manifestation rather than human salvation and pleasure was the essential purpose of their God.</p><p>Remember me, my God, for this also, and spare me according to the greatness of Your loving grace- Nehemiah was inspired by Samson (<a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a> = <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>), implying that despite his tendency to judgmentalism and self-righteousness, he did also appreciate his own desperate weakness and need for grace- perhaps because he finally recognized his self-righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>In those days I also saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab- The Jews who returned from exile were not spiritually strong. These Gentile peoples had perhaps been moved into Palestine by the Babylonians, or came there to trade.</p>


text:
<p>And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people- This would imply that the Jewish men had married women whose language they didn't understand. There is also the implication that only speaking broken Hebrew was counted as not speaking Hebrew. This language issue would have precluded them from hearing the law of Moses explained or hearing the history of Israel read.</p>


text:
<p>I contended with them and cursed them, and struck certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves- To have hair plucked off was if Nehemiah was trying to force them to repent; but we cannot force repentance in others, even if we try to force them to go through the external motions of it, in this case, the plucking off of hair as repentance for marriage out of the faith. Ezra rends his clothes and plucks off his hair, as if he has married out of the Faith (<a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a> cp. <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>; likewise the Lord received the same sinner's treatment, <a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a>). Jeremiah too speaks as if he has committed Israel's sins; Moses' prayer for God to relent and let him enter the land was only rejected for the sake of his association with Israel's sins (<a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a>). The Lord would have meditated upon the way righteous men had taken upon themselves the sins of their people.</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him that was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless foreign women caused even him to sin- Here and in :18, Nehemiah appeals to historical precedent as a reason not to repeat mistakes. This is how the Bible, which is largely history, becomes a living word to us. And this was the tragedy of the children of the intermarried Jews being unable to read or hear Hebrew; this history wouldn't be available to them. The power of women is here emphasized, as if unbelieving wives are as it were stronger than all the special love of God poured out upon a man. This stands in stark contrast to the prevailing culture, which viewed women as powerless and the man as supremely dominant in a marriage. God's continual warning about the influence of wives is actually a deconstruction of this; and the Jewish men who married Gentile women likely believed in their cultural views of women more than they did God's word. They assumed those women were powerless to influence them. God's word accords far more value and meaning to every human person, including Gentile females.</p>


text:
<p>Shall we then listen to you to do all this great evil, in breaking covenant with our God in marrying foreign wives?- See on :26. Perhaps the nobles had made some official statement that marrying Gentile women was acceptable, and Nehemiah is saying that this should not be listened to. Or perhaps he was saying that their example in marrying these women was effectively a voice beckoning others to do likewise, which should be ignored. For in marital and moral matters, the voice of example is indeed very loud. This verse is in my view the strongest single argument against marriage out of the faith, because it seems to state that in this case, these men would be breaking covenant with Yahweh by marrying those not in that covenant.</p>


text:
<p>One of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me- Eliashib himself was connected by marriage with Tobiah. We have presented here the apostasy of the high priestly family. They had broken covenant with God (:27) and yet were the spiritual leaders of the returned exiles. We are given the impression of deep corruption of the people. This man was chased from Nehemiah, perhaps meaning he was not allowed any place in the leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Remember them, my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites- LXX "for their false connection with the priesthood". The son of Joiada who had married Sanballat's Gentile daughter therefore had no connection with the priesthood, in God's eyes. The "covenant of the priesthood" was "everlasting" (<a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a>), just as the old covenant was; but it was eternal from God's side. The fact is that the Levites broke the eternal covenant by their sins. We may query whether Nehemiah's request that their sins be "remembered" was in fact in harmony with God's way of not wishing to "remember" sin against people. And even if He does, why would Nehemiah ask Him to do so? It seems another indication of a somewhat legalistic and judgmental attitude in Nehemiah.</p>


text:
<p>Thus I cleansed them from all foreigners, and appointed duties for the priests and for the Levites, each one in his work- The cleansing seems to have involved making the spiritual leadership break up from their foreign wives. But the idea here may also be that despite the apostasy of the leadership, Nehemiah organized the ordinary priests and Levites to get on with the Lord's work- which is a lesson for us all when spiritual leadership goes wrong morally, or becomes dysfunctional.</p>


text:
<p>And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the first fruits- It was this humble service, which was supposed to be the work of the Nethinim, which nobody much wanted to do. Ezra had had huge problems getting any Levites to come to Jerusalem to do such menial work. Nehemiah had already tried to sort out who would gather firewood in <a href='B:160 10:34'>Neh 10:34</a>; but clearly it remained an abiding problem. As it is to this day; for there are very few real 'workers' amongst the people of God.</p><p>Remember me, my God, for good- This repeated and even desperate request to be remembered for good in the last day was perhaps what influenced the penitent thief to ask the same of the dying Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<e>Esther: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces)- The LXX adds at this point: "In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the great king, on the first day of Nisan, Mardochaeus the son of Jarius, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaus, of the tribe of Benjamine, a Jew dwelling in the city Susa, a great man, serving in the king's palace, saw a vision. Now he was of the captivity which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried captive from Jerusalem, with Jachonias the king of Judea.</p><p>And this was his dream: Behold, voices and a noise, thunders and earthquake, tumult upon the earth. And, behold, two great serpents came forth, both ready for conflict, and there came from them a great voice, and by their voice every nation was prepared for battle, even to fight against the nation of the just. And, behold, a day of darkness and blackness, tribulation and anguish, affection and tumult upon the earth. And all the righteous nation was troubled, fearing their own afflictions; and they prepared to die, and cried to God: and from their cry there came as it were a great river from a little fountain , even much water. And light and the sun arose, and the lowly were exalted, and devoured the honorable. And Mardochaeus who had seen this vision and what God desired to do, having awoke, kept it in his heart, and desired by all means to interpret it, even till night. And Mardochaeus rested quiet in the palace with Gabatha and Tharrha the king's two chamberlains, eunuchs who guarded the palace. And he heard their reasoning and searched out their plans, and learnt that they were preparing to lay hands on king Artaxerxes: and he informed the king concerning them. And the king examined the two chamberlains, and they confessed, and were executed. And the king wrote these things for a memorial: also Mardochaeus wrote concerning these matters".</p>


text:
<p>that in those days, when the King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom which was in Shushan the palace- The impression is given that he had recently ascended the throne and was seeking to demonstrate his power and authority. "Shushan" is the Hebrew word for "lily", which was iconicly associated with the Jerusalem temple (s:w. <a href='B:110 7:19'>1Ki 7:19</a>; <a href='B:110 7:22'>1Ki 7:22</a>; <a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a>; <a href='B:140 4:5'>2Ch 4:5</a>). This sets the scene for the impression discussed on :7 that we have here a fake, imitation kingdom and temple of Yahweh.</p><p><a href='B:190 1:3'>Est 1:3</a> in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the powerful ones of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him- The impression is given of a man with huge power "before him". And this powerful man is set to be manipulated by the invisible hand of God working through a nervous, not very spiritually strong Jewish refugee teenager.</p>


text:
<p>He displayed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even one hundred and eighty days- This was the kind of thing Hezekiah did after his deliverance, giving all glory to himself rather than Yahweh and His Kingdom. Riches, glory, honour, majesty and Kingdom are words and ideas all associated with Yahweh's Kingdom, which is the ultimate Kingdom; and which will be displayed eternally and not for 180 days. Again this sets the scene for the impression discussed on :7 that we have here a fake, imitation kingdom of Yahweh; just as Rabshakeh described the kingdom of Assyria in identical language to the description of Yahweh's Kingdom, where Jews would dwell with confidence under their own vine and fig tree. The kingdoms of the world continue to present themselves to us as God's Kingdom, enjoyable now if we submit to them.</p>


text:
<p>When those days were fulfilled, the king made a seven day feast for all the people who were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace- LXX adds in various different details: "Then, I say, the days of the marriage feast were completed, the king made a banquet to the nations who were present in the city six days, in the court of the king's house". This would imply that his queen was a new queen; and that he was kindly disposed towards foreigners. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>There were hangings of white, green and blue material, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and marble pillars. The couches were of gold and silver, on a pavement of red, white, yellow and black marble- The LXX brings out the similarities with the tabernacle and the pavement of emerald upon which Yahweh was manifest to Moses in <a href='B:20 24:10'>Exo 24:10</a> and which becomes the picture of the Heavenly throne room in <a href='B:730 4:3'>Rev 4:3</a>: "On a pavement of emerald stone, and of pearl, and of Parian stone, and open-worked coverings variously flowered, having roses worked round about". The motif of flowers was likewise found in some of the tabernacle furnishings and equipment (<a href='B:20 25:31'>Exo 25:31</a> etc:). See on :7 for the significance of all this.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them ample drinks in golden vessels of various kinds, including the wine of the kingdom, according to the bounty of the king- These golden cups may well have been those looted from the temple and used by Belshazzar. For Cyrus to order them sent back to Jerusalem would be a fair statement of repentance by him. Again the impression is given as in :6 that this was a fake tabernacle and temple; see on :2,4,8,9,10,14. And yet even within that, the glory of God was being worked out by the God who is invisible in Esther, "God" never being mentioned in the Hebrew text. This was to teach that God was not inactive with the Jews in exile, although He was not visible as He had been in the time of the tabernacle and temple. And that is a lesson for us today.</p>


text:
<p>In accordance with the law- This undefined reference to "the law" may be another hint as in :6,7 that we are being given here a picture of a fake tabernacle / temple system.</p><p>The drinking was not compulsory; for so the king had instructed all the officials of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure- The LXX changes the sense: "And this banquet was not according to the appointed law; but so the king would have it". This was to nudge him towawrds accepting that his law could be broken or ammended, as it was to be later with the destruction of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p>Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carcass, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king- This may continue the theme of a fake imitation of the heavenly throne room, which has seven spirits (Angels?) standing before the throne of God.</p>


text:
<p>To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was beautiful- The LXX confirms the impression of :5 LXX that Vashti was only now becoming queen: "to enthrone her, and crown her with the diadem".</p>


text:
<p>But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by the eunuchs. Therefore the king was very angry, and his anger burned in him- Seeing the king was drunk and he had this idea whilst he was drunk (:10), the intention was surely to have her strip or dance naked.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times, (for it was the king’s custom to consult those who knew law and judgement- Her refusal probably broke no law; see on :15; <a href='B:190 3:5'>Est 3:5</a>. Here the king finds himself trapped by his own laws; he obviously wanted to have her slain, but he could find no law which prescribed death. The only law relevant was the law which said the queen could be killed if she came to the king without an invitation. There was apparently no law regarding what would happen if she refused an invitation. God wanted to save that drunk man, with his hurt pride. And so He was nudging him to realize that his own laws were going to have to be broken if he really wanted to have his way; which meant that he was not in fact divine. For divine beings were imagined to be unchanging, and to never change their laws. This was going to be developed when later he wishes to change his law to destroy the Jews. God likewise works with us.</p>


text:
<p>and those next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom)- The idea of some in the throne room who see the king's face is another of the suggestions listed on :7 which suggest we have here an imitation of the Heavenly throne room.</p>


text:
<p>What shall we do to the queen Vashti according to law, because she has not done the bidding of the King Ahasuerus by the eunuchs?- As explained on :13, "according to law" she couldn't be punished; for there was likely no law governing such a refusal.</p>


text:
<p>Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen has not done wrong to only the king, but also to all the princes, and to all the people who are in all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus- If there was a law prescribing death in this case, it would have been cited. But there was none. See on :13. And so Memucan comforts the king that indeed they considered she had "done wrong" and labours the implications of what she had done.</p>


text:
<p>For this deed of the queen will become known to all women, causing them to show contempt for their husbands when it is reported, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she didn’t come’- The male assumption of female obedience was such that there was no law prescribing what should be done if a queen refused to come to a king's party. This was God beginning to nudge the king towards obedience and perception of His principles, and to resign his claims to be divine. We would likely not have bothered even trying to work with such a drunken megalomaniac. We would write him off as too hard a case. But God works so gently and persistently with all kinds of people, to lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Today, the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s deed will likewise tell all the king’s princes. This will cause much contempt and wrath- The execution of Vashti would have put an end to such fears. And the king surely wanted to do this; but he was trapped by his own legal system, just as he was to be later on when he makes the law to kill the Jews. He was going to end up killing his queen whom he loved, which he had earlier wanted to do to his former queen but couldn't. This paradox was to try to teach him the folly of his own laws and respect of them. It was to help him realize he was not divine, and God's invisible grace was more powerful than any legal system.</p>


text:
<p>If it please the king, let a royal commandment go from him and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, so that it cannot be altered, that Vashti may never again come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate to another who is better than she- Kingship and power were thought to be expressed by making laws and not changing them. The God of Israel however does change His position on things, alters His purpose in accordance with human response (<a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>), and annulled His own eternal law. He does so unashamedly, in reflection of His sensitivity. The LXX has "and let him not alter it". The king could change his own laws but it would involve a loss of face and an admission he was not divine; for they thought that God cannot change in any way. Hence the refusal of Darius to change his law about Daniel was not because he was unable to, but because he lacked humility.</p>


text:
<p>When the king’s decree which he shall make is published throughout all his kingdom (for it is great), all the wives will give their husbands honour, both great and small- The reminder of the greatness of the kingdom was an appeal to his vanity. Their solution was actually very weak. It amounted to: 'If a woman refuses to dance naked before her husband's friends, then he can divorce her and take another wife'. This was fairly mild for the Persians; the death penalty wasn't in view. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This advice pleased the king and the princes, and the king did according to the word of Memucan- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn't conceive; and the lesson was repeated to him in <a href='B:190 2:4'>Est 2:4</a>. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>for he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, that every man should rule his own house, and that it should be published in the language of each people- This idea is alluded to in <a href='B:610 3:5'>1Ti 3:5</a>, where a brother is supposed to "rule his own house" spiritually. And yet in the same letter (<a href='B:610 5:14'>1Ti 5:14</a>) a woman is supposed to rule the household (Gk:); perhaps subverting the expectation of male rulership in practical matters, and yet saying in <a href='B:610 3:5'>1Ti 3:5</a> that the cultural expectation that a man should "rule the household" be reinterpreted in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was pacified, he remembered Vashti and what she had done, and what was decreed against her- The LXX reverses this: "he no more mentioned Astin, bearing in mind what she had said, and how he had condemned her". This is perhaps painting a picture of the king as generally living for the moment and forgetting the past and its implications. It would explain why he agrees to Haman's request in an irresponsible manner, forgetting that his servant Mordecai was a Jew. And it fits with his forgetting of how Mordecai had saved him from assassination, and he had forgotten to reward him.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who served him said, Let beautiful young virgins be sought for the king- As explained on :1, he had forgotten the whole issue with Vashti, perhaps because he was drunk for many days whilst it was all going on (<a href='B:190 1:10'>Est 1:10</a>). He likely had many wives and concubines and may literally have forgotten about the whole business. He is now as it were reminded by his servants of his publicized intention to replace Vashti, as if he needed to get on with it. The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:12), five years after Vashti was fired (:16), would suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another.</p>


text:
<p>Let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the beautiful young virgins to the citadel of Susa, to the women’s house, to the custody of Hegai the king’s eunuch, keeper of the women. Let cosmetics be given them- This house of the women and "keeper of the women" would suggest that Vashti was far from his only wife / queen and he had a special harem of women.</p>


text:
<p>and let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti. The thing pleased the king, and he did so- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn't conceive; and this is a repeat of the lesson given to him in <a href='B:190 1:21'>Est 1:21</a> when again he is obedient to the words of others. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>There was a certain Jew in the citadel of Susa, whose name was Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish a Benjamite- So much of later Isaiah is taken up with mockery and criticism of the Babylonian gods and the Marduk cult. The book of Esther, with Mordecai as the joint hero, named as he was after Marduk, demonstrates how caught up were the Jews with the Babylonian gods. Ezekiel repeatedly reveals the idolatry of the captives. Isaiah was therefore an appeal for the Jews to quit the Marduk cult and believe in the radical prophecies about the overthrow of Babylon. We know from Ezekiel 8, Jeremiah 44 and Zechariah 5 that many Jews had accepted the idols of their Babylonian conquerors, rather like Ahaz did after his defeat by Assyria (<a href='B:120 16:10'>2Ki 16:10</a>). The spirit of ridiculing the idolatry of Babylon whilst living in it, waiting the call to leave, is so relevant to modern Christians working, living and waiting in latter day Babylon. Mordecai was a descendant of the family of Saul; he isn't presented as a particularly spiritual man to start with. The fact he worked in the palace also indicates that, seeing he would have to go along with much paganism to do his job. If the LXX is correct, he sacrificed his own intended wife because he loved the idea of having power and prestige more than he did his wife. Again, not a very spiritual impression.</p>


text:
<p>who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away- Note the triple repetition of "carried away". This is to se up the similarity but spiritual contrast with Daniel who is described in the same way.</p>


text:
<p>He brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter; for she had neither father nor mother- "Myrtle" ['Hadassah'] is a plant native to Persia and not Palestine; and the group of myrtle trees in <a href='B:450 1:8'>Zec 1:8</a>; <a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a> appears to represent Persia. Esther, "Star", is another reference to Marduk (see on :5). She is hardly presented as a spiritually minded young woman, but as a Jewess who had totally assimilated into Persia.</p><p>The maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter- LXX "And he had a foster child, daughter of Aminadab his father's brother, and her name was Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself". This would be rather similar to how Uriah raised Bathsheba (according to Nathan's parable of the man with the lamb) to become his wife, and she did so. Seeing Mordecai hadn't yet married Esther, she would have been very young, perhaps still in her mid teens. That God should use such a youngster is typical of how He uses the meek and weak for His great purposes.</p>


text:
<p>So it happened that when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together to the citadel of Susa, to the custody of Hegai, Esther was taken into the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women- Hegai and his college of women was not simply a safe place for the women to stay. It was effectively a college for sex workers. And Esther willingly entered it, on Mordecai's arrangement. The whole intention was to produce women who could fulfil the king's various desires.</p>


text:
<p>The maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness from him. He quickly gave her cosmetics and her portions of food- She is contrasted with young Daniel, who in this situation refused to eat such food. She is presented as spiritually weak.</p><p>And the seven choice maidens who were to be given her out of the king’s house. He moved her and her maidens to the best place in the women’s house- Hegai clearly had a big influence upon who was finally accepted. He knew the king's taste in women as it was his job to pander to it and arrange fulfilment for him. His instinctive liking of Esther amongst the many competitors was therefore providentially arranged.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not made known her people nor her relatives, because Mordecai had instructed her that she should not make it known- This was surely an indication of spiritual weakness; and yet God worked through it, just as He may use marriage out of the faith to bring someone to the faith. She stands in stark contrast to Daniel, and yet similar to Jonah who in his weakness did not tell / make know his people to the sailors (<a href='B:390 1:8'>Jon 1:8</a> s:w:)- and at that point, he was representative of a spiritually weak Judah in exile.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai walked every day in front of the court of the women’s house, to find out how Esther was doing, and what would become of her- Mordecai really wanted his plan to succeed, but for the wrong reasons. But God chose to work through it, rather than turn away from a poorly motivated man and his weak daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Each young woman’s turn came to go in to King Ahasuerus after her purification for twelve months (for so were the days of their purification accomplished, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet fragrances and with preparations for beautifying women)- The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:2) would suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another. 'Going in to the king' surely is the familiar euphemism for the sexual act. To be willing to do this with a Gentile outside of marriage is surely an indication of spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The young woman then came to the king like this: whatever she desired was given her to go with her out of the women’s house to the king’s house- This doesn't just refer to whatever cosmetics or clothing she desired. She had been given seven female assistants. The idea was that she would conceive and put on a sex show for the king; for the idea was that she was to do what Vashti had refused to do. But see on :15. The Gentile Vashti thereby appears as more moral and ethical than the Jewish Esther, as we find so often in Biblical history.</p>


text:
<p>In the evening she went, and on the next day she returned into the second women’s house, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch, who kept the concubines. She came in to the king no more, unless the king delighted in her, and she was called by name- That Esther 'went in' to the king in the evening and then returned in the morning, having spent the night with the king, to the separate dwelling, of women with whom the king had slept and who were no longer virgins, indicates clearly enough that she slept with him. She knew this was to be the procedure and that statistically he was unlikely to 'marry' her seeing there were many such competitors. To participate in this, let alone with the enthusiasm for it which Mordecai showed, was clearly sinful and a betrayal of all the moral principles Israel were supposed to be committed to.</p>


text:
<p>Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, came to go in to the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. Esther obtained favour in the sight of all those who looked at her- I suggested on :13 that she had been given the seven other young women in order to prepare a sex show for the king. But it could appear that she didn't take them with her, and only used the cosmetics and clothing provided. Perhaps it was this unusual departure from the norm which focused the king's attention singularly upon her. So perhaps she too was being taught that her even slight attention to some level of morality was being blessed.</p>


text:
<p>So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. This was about five years after the Vashti incident; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favour and kindness in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti- This was also from God; He worked on the tastes and perceptions of the king so that he favoured Esther. For all such attraction is subjective and deeply personal. But God worked through this.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast; and he proclaimed a holiday in the provinces, and gave gifts according to the king’s bounty- "Holiday" is literally "release"- from taxation, or from military service, or from both, for a specified period.</p>


text:
<p>When the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate- It would seem that the gathering of virgins to the king for him to choose a queen was a regular occurrence. The houses for the girls were already built and the system of preparing them was already organized. But it could be that there was an attempt to replace Esther with the puppet of some other group. Esther had won the conquest because (under God's hand) the king preferred her. But there were likely men interest groups like Mordecai who wanted their daughters to be chosen. The repetition of Mordecai being "In the king's gate" in :21 would suggest that it was because of his position there that he uncovered the assassination plot. And this would have solidified his position, when perhaps it was under threat from other pretenders who were aware that Esther was his daughter, even though the king seems unaware of it.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not yet made known her relatives nor her people, as Mordecai had commanded her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai, like she did when she was brought up by him- LXX "and Esther changed not her manner of life" may suggest she did not have any spiritual transformation whilst in the palace. She was still a spiritually weak young woman who rose up to the situation.</p>


text:
<p>In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate, two of the king’s eunuchs who were doorkeepers, Bigthan and Teresh, were angry, and sought to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- LXX claims they were angry because Mordecai had been promoted.</p>


text:
<p>This thing became known to Mordecai, who informed Esther the queen; and Esther informed the king in Mordecai’s name- This was clearly the invisible hand of God working to set up Esther and Mordecai positively in the king's eyes.</p>


text:
<p>When this matter was investigated, and it was found to be so, they were both hanged on a tree; and it was written in the book of the chronicles in the king’s presence- And yet the king seems to have forgotten about Mordecai, who was well known as a Jew, because he signs the decree for killing all the Jews without thinking about that. He comes over as a superficial man with no interest in the past or its consequences. And yet God was working to nudge even such a person towards Him.</p>


text:
<p>After these things- Between the seventh (<a href='B:190 2:16'>Est 2:16</a>) and the twelfth (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>) years of Xerxes’ reign.</p><p>King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him- Again we see the superficial nature of the king, to promote such a person to the greatest position of power. "Agagite" is a form of "Gog", and so he is set up as the representative of the latter day attempted persecutor of God's people. But Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews xi. 6. 5) and the Targum understand this to mean that Haman was descended from Agag, king of Amalek. But Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (<a href='B:190 2:5'>Est 2:5</a>), and thus connected with Saul, who had conquered Agag. This would partly account for the natural personality clash between Haman and Mordecai. It would also mean that the people killed by the Jews towards the end of the story would likely have been Amalekites, and this would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag").</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage- Although I have painted Mordecai as spiritually weak, he remained devoted to his insistent belief in Yahweh as the only God. And yet we get the impression that he harnessed this religious belief to augment his side of a personality clash with Haman- as we see so often in church life.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate said to Mordecai, Why do you disobey the king’s commandment?- This question may have been from inquisitive interest; they were surprised a Jew wouldn't bow down to a man. And yet there were many Jews in Shushan, as archeology also bears out; enough to kill hundreds of men as recorded later in <a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>. They hadn't see any other Jew articulate their belief in this way- a tacit reflection upon the spiritual weakness of the Jews generally, highlighting all the more the sensitive conscience of Daniel. For it is so hard to uphold principles when our own brethren don't uphold them or consider them merely cosmetic issues. Not bowing down to men was however not specifically commanded in the Mosaic law, and there are accounts of Israelites bowing down to men (<a href='B:110 1:16'>1Ki 1:16</a>; <a href='B:100 14:4'>2Sa 14:4</a>; <a href='B:100 18:28'>2Sa 18:28</a>). It would be a reflection of a very sensitive conscience toward God to refuse to do so. Perhaps he reasoned that the Messianic king would be higher than Agag (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a>) or that Haman was setting himself as a divine figure. And yet Mordecai was clearly not such a high sensitized believer; the very fact he worked in the palace was evidence enough. For whenever Daniel was promoted to power, he seems to have slipped out of the job and is only later recalled. This confirms my suggestion on :2 that Mordecai was using religious issues as part of a personality struggle with Haman. And we must beware we don't do the same. See on <a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him and he didn’t listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s position would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew- Haman was apparently unaware Mordecai was a Jew; it was the servants who told him of this. Again we are left with the impression that Mordecai was not a particularly strong believer, and was using the issue of not bowing down to any apart from Yahweh as an excuse to legitimize his native despising of Haman. See on <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When Haman saw that Mordecai didn’t bow down nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath- Circumstances repeat in human lives, both within the same life and between persons. This was just the response of the king when Vashti refused to expose herself. Like the king, Haman wanted to have the disrespectful person murdered. But there was no law in place, apparently, which allowed him to do this. It was just assumed that all bowed down to the first minister, just as it was assumed that wives must obey their husbands, especially if he was the divine king. See on <a href='B:190 1:13'>Est 1:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But he scorned the thought of laying hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him Mordecai’s people. Therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even Mordecai’s people- We have here an insight into the thought processes of Haman which only an inspired record could give. Haman thought for a moment of just destroying Haman, but scorned that thought, and instead went on to thinking of destroying all the Jews. Again we see how sin starts from within the human mind and not due to any possession by demons or a cosmic Satan figure. See on <a href='B:190 4:13'>Est 4:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, and chose the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- The idea is that every day they cast lots to see which month and day they should do it on, but the date given was about as far distant within the course of a year as possible. There was therefore going to be maximum time for the Jews to defend themselves, and for the king to change his mind. As Ahasuerus felt bound by his own law and couldn't kill Vashti as he wanted to, so was Haman. He obviously wanted to execute the massacre as soon as possible; but he was disallowed from doing this by his own structures of superstitions and laws.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from other people’s. They don’t keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to allow them to remain- There is the implication that the king was so dim witted or befuddled by alcohol that he didn't even ask for the "people" to be defined, and just gave his signet ring to Haman to do as he wished. It could well be that he made these decisions whilst drunk (see on :15; <a href='B:190 7:2'>Est 7:2</a>), and his personality was such that he didn't worry about the past but just lived for the present, with no thought to the implications of what he had done or agreed in the past. For surely he knew that Mordecai was a Jew (<a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>) and that the Jews were in positions of power throughout the empire.</p><p>The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a> to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>: “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom::.". It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom” (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>), and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon” (<a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a>). And consider <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a>: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i:e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, <a href='B:450 8:7-8'>Zec 8:7-8</a> speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa.</p>


text:
<p>If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who are in charge of the king’s business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy- To give Haman authority to act in his name was surely unwise. Especially when it would not surely have been hard to perceive that Haman had his personal agendas for wanting the Jews destroyed, and was a man obsessed. Again the king comes over as seriously lacking judgment, perhaps due to making these decisions when drunk (:15).</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Haman, The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you- This may be a reference to the assumption that the "silver" or wealth of executed persons went to the state; rather than saying Haman could keep it all for himself; for the intention was still to pay the money to the king's treasuries (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). But again this sounds like the wild kind of promise made when drunk (see on :15).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king’s ring- "The thirteenth having been found to be a lucky day for the massacre itself, Haman may have thought it advisable to choose the same day of the first month for entering upon the preparation for it". The word for "princes" is a technical terms referring to the chiefs of the various conquered peoples.</p>


text:
<p>Letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions- The LXX claims to report a copy of the letter: "And the message was sent by posts throughout the kingdom of Artaxerxes, to destroy utterly the race of the Jews on the first day of the twelfth month, which is Adar, and to plunder their goods. </p><p>And the following is the copy of the letter; The great king Artaxerxes writes thus to the rulers and inferior governors of a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India even to Ethiopia, who hold authority under him. Ruling over many nations and having obtained dominion over the whole world, I was minded (not elated by the confidence of power, but ever conducting myself with great moderation and gentleness) to make the lives of my subjects continually tranquil, desiring both to maintain the kingdom quiet and orderly to its utmost limits, and to restore the peace desired by all men. But when I had enquired of my counsellors how this should be brought to pass. Aman, who excels in soundness of judgment among us, and has been manifestly well inclined without wavering and with unshaken fidelity, and had obtained the second post in the kingdom, informed us that a certain ill-disposed people is mixed up with all the tribes throughout the world, opposed in their law to every other nation, and continually neglecting the commands of the king, so that the united government blamelessly administered by us is not quietly established. Having then conceived that this nation alone of all others is continually set in opposition to every man, introducing as a change a foreign code of laws, and injuriously plotting to accomplish the worst of evils against our interests, and against the happy establishment of the monarchy; we signified to you in the letter written by Aman, who is set over the public affairs and is our second governor, to destroy them all utterly with their wives and children by the swords of the enemies, without pitying or sparing any, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, of the present year; that the people aforetime and now ill-disposed to us having been violently consigned to death in one day, may hereafter secure to us continually a well constituted and quiet state of affairs".</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be prepared against that day- LXX "all the nations", looking ahead to the day when "all nations" will be gathered against the Jews. The stress upon all provinces and languages (:12) is a reflection of how widely the Jews had been scattered in the previous 70 years.</p>


text:
<p>The couriers went forth in haste by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed- The haste was no doubt ordered by Haman because he feared the king might change his mind. if the king was an alcoholic, this would explain his apparent memory loss and acting as if he was unaware of the consequences of his past actions and decisions.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Mordecai found out all that was done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and wailed loudly and a bitterly- He wished to now come out openly as a Jew. He doubtless realized that so much suffering was going to come on God's people because of his refusal to bow to Haman, due to his personality clash with him (see on Esther 3). And this in itself was good for him spiritually- for he openly identified himself now with God's people, instead of teaching Esther not to do so, and not being known to Haman as a Jew initially (<a href='B:190 3:4'>Est 3:4</a>). His wailing is recorded in the LXX: "A nation that has done no wrong is going to be destroyed". If this is indeed so, he was far from understanding the persistent prophetic message- that Judah had indeed done wrong and were therefore in exile, and were worthy of complete destruction.</p>


text:
<p>He came even before the king’s gate; for no one was allowed inside the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth- He was hoping to thereby be noticed and the message relayed somehow to Esther, with whom he didn't have constant contact. He wanted her to "come out" and do as he was doing.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, weeping and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes- This may well be the language of repentance. God's plan had been that the exiles would repent and then return to restore the Kingdom. But they generally didn't return, preferring the kingdom of Babylon and their own wealth to that of Yahweh. This persecution was the sending of "hunters" to chase them back, and bring them to repentance (<a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a>). And they did repent- but when their destruction was averted by the prayer and repentance of a minority, they returned to their old position. Which is why the book of Esther finishes rather sadly, with the Jews again wealthy and even more prosperous and established within their local societies, and thereby even less likely to return to the land.</p>


text:
<p>Esther’s maidens and her eunuchs came and told her this, and the queen was exceedingly grieved. She sent clothing to Mordecai, to replace his sackcloth; but he didn’t receive it- She this began to openly identify herself with Mordecai and the Jews, although at this point she had not heard about the decree; for it was known that Mordecai was a Jew, and now she is moved to identify with him. This first response from her was then developed by God until she totally "came out" in self-identification as a Jewess. She did what was not worldly-wise, because of her grief for people. God likewise gives us opportunities to make small responses to Him, He develops our consciences until we are then given larger opportunities to respond. She could of course have disowned any knowledge of Mordecai or stressed she was only his adopted daughter. But we must ask how we would have responded; how emotionally do we feel connected to the rest of God’s people?</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs, whom he had appointed to attend her, and commanded him to go to Mordecai, to find out what this was, and why it was- As noted on :4, Esther at this point didn't know about the decree; but she had been moved to identify with the Jews by deciding to openly care for Mordecai and thus identify herself with him. And God was going to move her further along the path of "coming out" for Him.</p>


text:
<p>So Hathach went out to Mordecai, to the city square which was before the king’s gate- See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai told him of all that had happened to him, and the exact sum of money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 3:9'>Est 3:9</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>He also gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given out in Shushan to destroy them, to show it to Esther, and to declare it to her, and to urge her to go in to the king to make supplication to him, to make request before him for her people- Heb. 'ask for favour'. The passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. She was to ask the king for favour, but clearly she was asking God for favour, even though they were unworthy of it. And God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>), and their deliverance from Haman is an example of it. But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>Hathach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai- LXX adds that Mordecai appealed to her to respond, "remembering, said he, the days of thy low estate, how thou wert nursed by my hand: because Aman who holds the next place to the king has spoken against us for death". Her own salvation by grace was to move her to save others; and this again is a timeless principle for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther spoke to Hathach and gave him a message to Mordecai- All this communication through a messenger meant that surely the news of the Esther-Mordecai relationship and her intended actions would have not been secret and would have started to spread within the palace and further.</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that whoever, whether man or woman, comes to the king into the inner court without being invited, there is one law for him, that he be put to death; except those to whom the king might hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live. I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days- This lack of invitation would have made her wonder whether she had fallen out of favour with him; although he had many wives and concubines. "To come in to the king" could possibly allude to the sexual act; and "thirty days" might suggest she was menstruating. There is a purposefully ambiguity in these things. Because we are being invited to imagine how it might have been, to enter thereby into her angst. She was initially unwilling to risk death in order to save her people. She needed to be persuaded by the later reflection of Mordecai that she would be found out as a Jewess and also be slain herself; and that God would indeed deliver His people but her refusal to cooperate with His plan would result in her death anyway (:13,14). We see again her development; from selfish self-preservation to a wider sense of responsibility for her entire people. And in broad outline terms, this is something we are all to pass through. See on <a href='B:190 6:4'>Est 6:4</a>; <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Mordecai asked them to return answer to Esther, Don’t think to yourself that you will escape in the king’s house any more than all the Jews- As noted on <a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a>, we have here an insight into the thought processes of Esther which only an inspired record could give. The Bible continually emphasizes the importance of self-talk and how we think in our hearts. She was tempted to adopt a path of thought which was effectively saying that she would be the only Jew who would survive; and that was not going to happen. The 'house of the kingdom' of Babylon would not save her from death.</p>


text:
<p>For if you remain silent now, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Who knows if you haven’t come to the kingdom for such a time as this?- Mordecai speaks with authority, but he is only making assumptions; that if help came from another quarter, then Esther and her family, including Mordecai, would "perish" even if the other Jews didn't. And the source of that 'perishing' would be God's judgment, not Haman. "Mordecai also seems confident that deliverance would arise from "another place". From another place" clearly means "God", but God is never mentioned in the book of Esther. Perhaps at the time Mordecai just had a distinct hunch that deliverance would come, but when he thought about who else, humanly, apart from Esther, could effect this deliverance::. he would conclude that it would have to be God alone. So we see this otherwise secular, weak believer being provoked by circumstance to have a greater faith. Everyone in the story is being nudged towards greater faith and spirituality through the dysfunction of them all. This is the marvel of God's working. But the basis for Mordecai's confidence that "deliverance" would arise is because the same word was used by the prophets for how God's people would be "delivered" from the lands of their exile to return and reestablish His Kingdom in Zion (e:g. <a href='B:330 34:10'>Eze 34:10</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther asked them to answer Mordecai- LXX "Esther sent the man that came to her to Mordecai, saying"; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day. I and my maidens will also fast the same way. Then I will go in to the king, which is against the law-&nbsp; The text carefully omits any mention of prayer to God, perhaps because of His statement that He would hide His face from them in the captivity. She was being taught what the king had been taught in <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a> (see note there); that law could not save. She had to go outside the law for salvation, which meant a total casting of herself upon grace. She clearly feels her inadequacy; she feels the need for the fasting of others. And she is now unashamed to identify herself with the Jews, for this message was sent through a messenger (:15) which would have meant that her identification with the Jews was now going to be spread around everywhere. There was a large Jewish community in Shushan; able to kill 300 men (<a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>).</p><p>And if I perish, I perish- The idea may be that she was going to perish anyway, if the decree wasn't changed. She had accepted Mordecai's warning about this in :13,14. And yet it is hard to avoid a sense of fatalism, using the same construction as in <a href='B:10 43:14'>Gen 43:14</a>. She had faith and weakness at the same time, as we would likewise have had. Again we are left wondering whether she had faith, or was merely fatalistic. This is to help us enter deeper into her possible feelings and to identify with her.</p>


text:
<p>So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him- Again we see a breaking of the paradigm that a woman was always to be obedient to a man. LXX adds various exaggerated claims about Esther's righteousness and prayers to God, e:g. "And having taken off her glorious apparel, she put on garments of distress and mourning; and instead of grand perfumes she filled her head with ashes and dung, and she greatly brought down her body, and she filled every place of her glad adorning with the torn curls of her hair".</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal clothing- Perhaps because as stated in <a href='B:190 4:17'>Est 4:17</a> she had taken it off in order to mourn and cover herself in sackcloth.</p><p>And stood in the inner court of the king’s house, next to the king’s house. The king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, next to the entrance of the house- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>When the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther came near, and touched the top of the sceptre- The record is as it were a video shot by the Divine cameraman. We see her standing there, see her fingers touching the very tip of the sceptre. And we get the feeling that the outcome finally will be good for her.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king asked her, What would you like, queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you even to the half of the kingdom- Esther was breaking paradigms here; it was the king who always gave invitations, and not his wife. She effectively comes to dominate him, although in a very humble and nervous way, used by God.</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, If it seems good to the king, let the king come with Haman today to the banquet that I have prepared for him-&nbsp; It seems to me that she intended to ask for mercy for the Jews. But her nerve fails here, and she asks them to come to a banquet. And when they come, her nerve fails her again, and she asks them to come to another banquet. And God worked through that weakness. Because the final request was made the night after he had recalled how Mordecai had saved him. And the intrigue and suspense was built up, his attention was particularly focused upon this one of his many wives, who was demanding his attention two or three days running. I don't personally interpret Esther here as the cleverly calculating, amateur psychologist female. Rather do I see a nervous teenager who gets stage fright at the last minute, twice. And God worked through her nervousness. Perhaps after each failure to make the request, she beat herself up for her weakness. But God worked through it. This is His style, right up to this day. LXX "To-day is my great day"; probably the king didn't even know Esther's birthday, ust as he didn't know her family or relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). Maybe it wasn't her birthday, and she just blurted out whatever came into her mind. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said, Bring Haman quickly, so that it may be done as Esther has said. So the king and Haman came to the banquet that Esther had prepared- The command to bring Haman "quickly" was because such invitations were usually given well in advance, and Esther was breaking all the paradigms by wanting everything quickly, throwing last minute parties.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther at the banquet of wine, What is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- This apparently unlimited offer leads us to expect that Esther is now going to seize the moment and ask for the Jews not to be destroyed. The Biblical text often works like this, setting up expectations in the mind of the reader or hearer, and then presenting an unexpected outcome. We are all expecting now for her to make the request, and the next verse heightens that sense of expectation- and we are then the more involved in the plot when again, Esther doesn't make the request as she maybe intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther answered and said, My petition and my request is this- The pause implied in the text heightens our sense of suspense as to whether she will find the strength to make her true request. And again her nerve fails and she rather dumbly asks for more time.</p>


text:
<p>If I have found favour in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my petition and to perform my request, let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them, and I will do tomorrow as the king has said- This could be read as saying 'I do have a petition; but your attendance at my banquet tomorrow will mean that you have agreed to the petition I have in my heart, but which I'm not telling you right now'. This would perhaps be the best support for an argument that Esther calculated all this, rather than just getting stage fright each time she was asked to tell her petition. The ambiguity and difficulty of interpretation is intentional- to direct our thinking to her motivations, to get the reader into the mind of Esther.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart, but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he didn’t stand up nor move for him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai- The record juxtaposes his prideful joy with the jealousy which then beclouds him as he sees Mordecai, dressed in sackcloth, refusing to stand up. The Esther record gives wonderful insight into the feelings and thought processes of the characters in a way in which contemporary literature of the time doesn't; the stories are full of unrealistic exaggerations, whereas the Bible focuses upon real situations and upon the state of the heart. And here we see the typical power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Haman restrained himself, and went home. There, he sent and called for his friends and Zeresh his wife- The impression is given that he wanted to murder Haman immediately, or at least ask the king to authorize it. But he waits for another day, because of the desire to do nothing without first seeking advice. And it was that day which altered the entire outcome. Again we see a man of great power, but bound by his own traditions and legal structures; just as was the king when Vashti refused to come and he wanted to kill her.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, the multitude of his children, all the things in which the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king- He had ten sons (<a href='B:190 9:7'>Est 9:7</a>). Here again we see a connection with the situation in Esther 1, where the glory of Ahasuerus is presented and then he is manipulated and circumscribed by a woman and his own laws and culture.</p>


text:
<p>Haman also said, Yes, Esther the queen let no man come in with the king to the banquet that she had prepared but myself; and tomorrow I am also invited by her together with the king- His overweening pride is being set up for a mighty fall; and this is typical of the Biblical record, to focus upon pride as the reason for judgment. What he was most proud of turned out to be the very point of his destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Yet all this avails me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate- This is the power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings. He kept in his mind the image of this man "sitting" instead of standing up and bowing. It is such mental images which are the root of so much jealousy. See on <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>; <a href='B:190 6:13'>Est 6:13</a>. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, Let a gallows be made fifty cubits high, and in the morning speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on it. Then go in merrily with the king to the banquet. This pleased Haman, so he had the gallows made- 75 feet high. "According to Persian law the power of life and death resided in the king alone". So Haman was assuming that he could get Mordecai executed, even though there was apparently no legal apparatus for him to do so. Again we see a theme of Esther continued- that the characters are all forced to act outside of the law. This was surely to prepare the Jewish audience of the book to realize the limitations of Mosaic law, especially in the casuistic sense in which they liked to use it.</p><p>Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 at this point includes her prayer to God, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel (<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>On that night, sleep fled from the king. He commanded the book of records of the chronicles to be brought, and they were read to the king- Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book, e:g. as acrostics (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>), and several times in this chapter. The message is clearly that God was active, but in a subtle, hidden way. His insomnia was due to an unconscious sense that something wasn't right, that a payback hadn't been made, or that a payback against himself was now due. Gramatically, there seems a word missing here. Literally, his sleep was taken from him; but the grammar requires the definition of who took it from him. And that isn't stated. Some versions have supplied "God" or "the Lord", but this isn't in the original. The name of God never occurs in Esther. We are to understand only by implication that it was God. The book of records is that alluded to in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>, the "book of remembrance" kept before God concerning His servants:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>It was found written that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, who were doorkeepers, who had tried to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- The fact the king had forgotten this reflects his superficial character, focusing only upon the present. But even such a person still has a conscience and a fear of judgment which keeps them awake at night.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, What honour and dignity has been bestowed on Mordecai for this? Then the king’s servants who attended him said, Nothing has been done for him- Again we get the impression that the king was forgetful, because he lived only for the immediate present and forgot his responsibilities and undertakings, perhaps resultant from his alcoholism. Likewise he had divorced Vashti and agreed to search for a replacement for her, but had to be reminded five years later to get on and do so. The recollection of having been saved by grace led him to naturally feel that he should do something positive for this man Mordecai. Any move against that man was not going to be well received by him. The entire situation is true to life and has the ring of psychological credibility to it- in contrast to the histories written at the time by uninspired writers.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Who is in the court? Now Haman had come into the outer court of the king’s house, to speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him- We learnt from <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> that anyone entering the inner court without invitation was risking their life. Haman's bitterness and jealousy was enough to lead him to risk his life by entering into the court on his own initiative to ask the king to let him kill Mordecai. The proud, self confident Haman approaching the king on his own initiative is set up in parallel to the nervous, humble Esther doing the same- risking her life to save, rather than to destroy.</p>


text:
<p>The king’s servants said to him, Behold, Haman stands in the court. The king said, Let him come in- Haman was risking his life to enter uninvited, but such was his obsessive jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>So Haman came in. The king said to him, What shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honour?- It is tempting to imagine that the king was aware of Haman's antipathy toward Mordecai, and already suspected foul play in the plan to exterminate the Jews. At least, it seems he may well have asked the question knowing that Haman would reply as he did, assuming that he was in view.</p><p>Now Haman said in his heart, Who would the king delight to honour more than myself?- Again we see the focus of the record upon the human heart and its self-talk.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to the king, For the man whom the king delights to honour- Haman's eyes were on the throne, and so he asks that this person be set up as the successor of the king; thinking it should be himself. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Let royal clothing be brought which the king wears, and the horse that the king rides on, and on the head of which a crown royal is set- "Royal clothing" is LXX "the robe of fine linen". As noted on Esther 1, the palace and regal system is being set up as a fake temple and Kingdom of God. But the impression given here is that Mordecai is being set up as the king, wearing the king's own clothing, riding the king's horse with a royal crown upon it. David's command for Solomon to ride upon his own horse meant that he wanted Solomon to be the next king after him (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>). See on :9. This grossly exaggerated response to Mordecai's faithfulness was typical of powerful eastern monarchs; we recall how Pharaoh made the prisoner Joseph to be the Prime Minister of Egypt when just hours before he had been wallowing in a dungeon, and was totally unknown to Pharaoh. This would have been shocking to Haman; that Mordecai was suddenly being declared the successor to Ahasuerus. It seems typical of his irresponsible behaviour. But it was tantamount to replacing Haman with Mordecai; for surely Haman's eyes were on the throne for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Let the clothing and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes, that they may array the man whom the king delights to honour with them, and have him ride on horseback through the city square, and proclaim before him, ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!’- The man of the king's "delight" is a way of saying 'Whom he wishes to set upon his throne'; it is used in that sense in <a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a> and possibly <a href='B:90 18:22'>1Sa 18:22</a>. The woman whom the king 'delighted in' was made queen (<a href='B:190 2:14'>Est 2:14</a> s:w:). See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Haman, Hurry and take the clothing and the horse, as you have said, and do this for Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Let nothing fail of all that you have spoken- "The Jew" means that now Mordecai has declared his Jewishness; or perhaps a note had been made of this in the chronicles, and the king was thereby reminded of it. It could be that the king was unaware that the nation to be destroyed were the Jews; or that he had agreed to it whilst drunk (see on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>) and was unaware of what he had really agreed to. The paradox was that a man who was publically disobedient to the king's command to bow before Haman (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>) was now being exalted. Again the king is being nudged towards realizing the trap of his own legalism. He had made a law which a man whom he was deeply indebted to- had broken! He likely had heard of Mordecai's disobedience, because it was performed publically and was known by the king's servants.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman took the clothing and the horse, and arrayed Mordecai, and had him ride through the city square, and proclaimed before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!- The record naturally invites us to imagine the tone of voice in which he said this. Haman felt he had to be obedient to the king's commandment- to honour a man who was disobedient to the king's commandment (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai came back to the king’s gate, but Haman hurried to his house, mourning and having his head covered- The roles are now reversed; recently Mordecai had been weeping with covered head in the king's gate, and now Haman was. Esther mourns before going to the first banquet; and now Haman does before the second banquet. The way God brings about justice reflects His full awareness of all that has gone on in the past; unlike human justice. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and all his friends everything that had happened to him. Then his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him, If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail against him, but you will surely fall before him- These "wise men" were those who had thrown the lots in order to choose the day of the massacre (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>). Suddenly their wisdom changed- from advising to massacre the Jews and kill Mordecai, to now predicting that Haman was not going to succeed but would himself perish. Again, the folly of Persian customs, traditions and wisdom is being developed. Zeresh, his friends and wise men had only yesterday been joining him in glorying over his enemy; and now they change completely, and he is left awfully alone. The book of Esther perhaps functioned as a means of telling the Jews in exile that they were preferring the kingdom of Persia over that of Yahweh; and the kingdom they preferred was terribly weak and compromised at its very foundations. They say that he is going to "fall" before Mordecai; and it was exactly Mordecai's refusal to "fall" before Haman which had been so engraved in Haman's memory (see on <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And again we find repeated the theme of a wife being wiser than her husband and willing to be separate from his positions, as Vashti and Esther were before Zeresh; and what she says comes to pass.</p>


text:
<p>While they were yet talking with him, the king’s eunuchs came, and hurried to bring Haman to the banquet that Esther had prepared- Just as Haman had "hurried" the messengers carrying his decree to kill the Jews, so he was "hurried" by the messengers to come to the banquet; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>So the king and Haman came to banquet with Esther the queen- The record helps us see it all happening as if in a video. Haman went first to the king and then together they two came to Esther.</p>


text:
<p>The king said again to Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, What is your petition, queen Esther? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- "The banquet of wine" confirms the connection between the king and alcohol discussed on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>. "Banquet" is literally "the drinking". But in Yahweh's system of things, "wine is not for kings" (<a href='B:240 31:4'>Pro 31:4</a>). The kingdom of Persia is set up as most definitely not the kingdom of God, to which the exiles ought to have aspired rather than to prosperity in Persia's kingdom. Again we the readership wait with baited breath, knowing that surely now Esther has to overcome her stage fright and speak. And she does.</p><p>But I will argue on Esther 8-10 that although Esther is indeed heroic and a commendable example of the triumph of good over evil, neither she nor Mordecai go far enough. For they do not seek the restoration of the Jews to Judah. She is set up in conscious contrast with Nehemiah, also a Jew in the palace at Shushan. He too asked for a favour, and whilst also very nervous is asked by the king "What is your request?" (<a href='B:160 2:4'>Neh 2:4</a>). His request was for the restoration of the Jews to their land. Esther by contrast says nothing about the restoration, but asks only for short term deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen answered, If I have found favour in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request- "My request" reflects her understanding that their salvation was being made to depend upon her requesting it. The same words are used in <a href='B:150 7:6'>Ezr 7:6</a>, the only time outside of the book of Esther, to describe how "the king granted [Ezra's] request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him". Perhaps Esther had been encouraged by Ezra's example, knowing that the invisible hand of God made kings of Persia grant requests. We too should be directed and inspired by Biblical examples, and those within our own experience of the brotherhood. The ideas of 'finding favour in your sight' and asking for petitions / requests being granted are more commonly associated with people praying to God; indeed the whole verse is intended to recall Moses' plea to Yahweh to save the people, if indeed Moses has "found favour in Your sight" (<a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a>; <a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a>). This young, nervous, not very spiritually strong teenager was suddenly catapulted into the place of Moses, Judaism's most revered figure. We are surely intended to conclude that her begging the king was a reflection of her prayers to God, or at least, she would have perceived that her petitioning the king was effectively petitioning Yahweh. Again, she was led closer to God by her experience.</p><p>It simply can’t be that we rejoice in our own salvation, and don’t want to breathe a whimper of that good news to others. Esther made her request for “my life… my people” in parallel; and when her own safety was assured, she didn’t just relax and mop her brow with relief, she went on to petition for them- with all the risks this involved for her (see on <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>). We can’t possibly just rejoice in our own salvation, that we have found the Lord and are secured in Him; if we have truly experienced this, we will wish to share it with others.</p>


text:
<p>For we are sold- This could mean that the huge sum of money offered by Haman if the Jews were destroyed may not have been a reference to their goods being plundered; but rather to Haman 'buying' the Jews through a huge donation to the treasury. Esther here is an eloquent type of the Lord’s mediation for us, risked her life because she felt that “we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed”. She was tempted to reason that if she’d have kept her mouth shut, she wouldn’t have been destroyed. But she fought and won the same battle as we have daily or weekly before us: to identify ourselves with our weaker and more suffering brethren. The Lord Jesus didn’t sin Himself but He took upon Himself our sins- to the extent that He felt a sinner, even though He wasn’t. Our response to this utter and saving grace is to likewise take upon ourselves the infirmities and sins of our brethren. If one is offended, we burn too; if one is weak, we are weak; we bear the infirmities of the weak (<a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a>).</p><p>I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish- This is Esther 'coming out' as a Jewess; she seems to emphasize the point: "we::. I and my people::. we::.". It appears only later that she stated her relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). We reflect how little the king knew about his wives; he didn't know her nationality, her parents nor even her birthday (see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>).</p><p>But if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace, although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s loss- Haman the adversary had offered to compensate for the lives of the Jews by paying money to the treasury. But she is saying that even if the Jews had been enslaved and not killed, the loss to the king would never have been compensated by money. She argues for the value not only of human life, but of that human life being lived in freedom and not slavery. And we note her usage of the word "we" in reflection of her connection with her people.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he who dared presume in his heart to do so?- Again we note the emphasis of the record upon "his heart". Surely the king knew the answer. "Where is he" could as well be translated "How could he::.", as if the king is now angry with himself for letting this happen. Or perhaps he really was so disconnected from reality that he didn't guess it was Haman. We notice this disconnection from reality several times in the record (not least his not enquiring which people were to be destroyed before agreeing, and failing to make the connection between the Jews being destroyed and Mordecai being a Jew). Through all this, God was revealing His Name. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, The adversary and the enemy is even this wicked Haman!- These words "adversary and enemy" are frequently used together in the Psalms, in prayers that the adversary and enemy would not triumph but that God would triumph over them. Surely Esther was alluding to them. She could have tried to tactfully point out that the destruction of the Jews would involve her and Mordecai being killed, and work towards some negotiated solution, without wishing to offend Haman. But she calls him "this wicked Haman!". It was all or nothing. If the king took Haman's side, she would lose her life. For this was not a tactful approach. It was an outburst of accusation. But it worked. Likewise in standing up for God's people, it is all or nothing; nicespeak and negotiated solutions cannot be the answer.</p><p>I imagine that Esther could have resolved her personal problem in a quite different way. She had invited Haman and the king to a banquet / drinking of wine. She could have chatted them up nicely, waited until they were drunk, and then said to the effect: "Gents, I have a slight problem with this decree about killing the Jews; because actually, I'm a bit Jewish. Can't you just kindly resolve that little problem for me?". And her two guests would likely have proudly chuckled and said to the effect "Sure, no problem, we can just easily fix that, don't you worry, just relax, really it's nothing, sure, sleep easy tonight about that. The whole thing's under our control, nobody will touch you, all's good. And just::. bring us the next pink champagne on ice". This was the kind of thing the holocaust was full of. But she didn't take that path. Her spiritual growth was very fast, as it can be in all people. She realized now that it wasn't a case of merely her salvation, but that of the body of God's people. To focus solely upon "me being saved" would be selfish. There is more to relationship with God than that. It's about His glory and the larger picture of His purpose rather than only "me". It takes some decades to realize this; but Esther got there in the course of a few days.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>The king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden- Circumstances again repeated in his life; for he had arisen in fury from the banquet in Esther 1, seeking to have Vashti killed; and he was circumscribed by his own laws, as discussed there. Likewise here, he was angry because he was circumscribed by his own laws. It would be hard to change the law without resigning his own supposed divinity.</p><p>Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king- We recall that Haman fixed the picture in his mind of Mordecai not standing up before him in respect, and it led to terrible jealousy complexes (<a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And now he stood up and bowed in desperate respect for his life before Mordecai's Jewish daughter. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman had fallen on the couch where Esther was- The Esther story is full of the hand of providence. It seems Haman had collapsed, perhaps suffered a heart attack from the stress on top of the alcohol from the "banquet / drinking of wine" (:2). And he fell unconscious onto Esther's couch. That was surely from God, because the king was greeted by the sight of Haman's prostrate body on his wife's couch.</p><p>Then the king said, Will he even assault the queen in front of me in the house?-&nbsp; "Assault" is AV "force", and the idea is not only of force but more manipulation. The word choice reflects the king's anger at how he had been manipulated.</p><p>As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face- Condemned criminals were not allowed to see the king's face. The courtiers knew that Haman was condemned to death.</p>


text:
<p>Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs who were with the king said, Behold, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman has made for Mordecai, who spoke good for the king, is standing at Haman’s house. The king said, Hang him on it!- This may have been one of the eunuchs sent to collect Haman from his house, who had seen the gallows at Haman's home and heard from the surrounding folks what it was intended for.</p>


text:
<p>So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king’s wrath pacified- Earlier, the king's wrath had demanded pacification in killing Vashti. But he was caught by his own legal system, and had been unable to do that. We wonder whether there was any legal basis for the execution of Haman; probably there wasn't. By the letter of the law, he had done everything right. So the execution of Haman was the king departing from the letter of the law; and as discussed on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, this is a major theme of the book. God was nudging the king beyond legalism, and also to a realization that his laws weren't actually very good and needed to be changed. And therefore, he was not the divine being he liked to think he was, who made perfect laws that could never be changed because to do so would be to question his divinity and rightness.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the Jews’ enemy, to Esther the queen- "Enemy" here is LXX diabolos, the slanderer / enemy. Clearly he is set up as representative of the organized opposition to God's people, although we have here another example of how the word refers simply to a human being and not an external cosmic being. The presence of the article, the slanderer / diabolos, is significant in that it torpedoes the position of those who argue that every reference to ho diabolos refers to the cosmic being of popular theology. It doesn't, for here it refers simply to the man Haman.</p><p>Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was to her- The king was ignorant of this, apparently not knowing much about the personal history of his wives; see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>. We now see them both 'coming out' even more. We are intended to shine as candles not under a bucket but set on a hill. And God gently works to lead us all to a situation where our faith isn't solely personal but is made public.</p>


text:
<p>The king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman- The gift of a "house" to a woman and this decision making by a woman was unusual; but the whole story is about the overthrow of traditional, conservative paradigms and legalistic approaches by the movement of God's invisible Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and begged him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews- This presumably involved risking death again by going in to the king's audience uninvited. But she had learnt the lesson- that she was not to merely seek her own salvation but to continue to risk her life for that of others. She begs "with tears", apparently more emotionally and passionately than she did when she first asked about the matter. Her passion for the salvation of others had now become stronger than her desire for personal salvation; when according to our reflections on <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> her initial reaction to the news of the decree was to consider that she could save herself by keeping quiet, and she had been unwilling to go to see the king uninvited. Such spiritual growth over such a short period can be seen in the lives of God's people today and is possible for each of us.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre. So Esther arose, and stood before the king- The use of the sceptre shows she was still approaching him uninvited and at the risk of her life.</p>


text:
<p>She said, If it pleases the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and the thing seem right to the king, and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces- She stresses that Haman wrote the letters- even though they were written in the king's name. But laws of the Persians couldn't be reversed- unless the king was going to admit he wasn't actually divine. And it could be that she was asking him to make this radical step of realization and humility. To "reverse" the decree, or turn it back, was the same idea as 'repenting'. But he refuses, and instead tries to get around the problem by issuing another decree.</p><p>Clearly Esther did find favour before both the king and her God. But this apparently contradicts earlier statements in the prophets. But the passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>). But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>For how can I endure to see the evil that would come to my people? How can I endure to see the destruction of my relatives?- Life lived solely for ourselves, even eternal life, is not endurable if our brethren are not living it with us. This had multiple implications. LXX "How can I survive the destruction:::?" suggests she felt she would die with those who died. Her life was bound up with the life of her Jewish people, although previously she was but an ethnic Jewess who had totally assimilated into the life of the Persians. But she in her heart would live and die with them.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, If I have freely granted you all that was Haman's, because he laid his hand on the Jews, and hanged him on a gallows, what do you further seek?- We begin to tremour a little with Esther, wondering if the king's patience has worn thin. But we see again the king's shortsightedness and lack of empathy and appreciation of the implication of events and statements. He considered that if Haman was dead, and he had given the wealth of Haman to Mordecai, then there could be no other problem.</p>


text:
<p>Write also to the Jews, as it pleases you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring; for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, may not be reversed by any man- The idea is that the first decree could not be reversed, but the king could issue a second decree empowering the Jews to defend themselves. Again, as explained on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, the king was caught up in his own legalism. God was trying to nudge him towards realizing that he was not in fact God; for that was the basis upon which they considered that royal laws couldn't be changed, because they thought 'gods' were unchanging. But he is repeatedly taught, and the readership are taught, that any such system of legalism ends up limiting freedom of movement and ends up in contradiction. What is being highlighted is that the God of Israel isn't like that; He can and does change, even His own laws. Casuistic approaches to law were bound to fail, because God Himself is dynamic; the only point at which He doesn't change is His constant love for the sons of Jacob and not punishing them as their sins deserve (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>). His comment that the king's decree could not be reversed "by any man" may suggest that he was slightly moving towards the acceptance of a personal God far mightier than himself; for he may mean that "man" couldn't reverse it, not even himself, but God could.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called at that time, in the third month Sivan, on the twenty-third day of the first month, which is Nisan; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, and to the satraps, the governors and princes of the provinces which are from India to Ethiopia, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, and to the Jews in their writing and in their language- Again we have a tacit recognition of the degree to which the Jews had been scattered, throughout the 127 provinces of the empire- exactly in fulfilment of the prophecies of scattering. For the proud king to do this was also a tacit recognition that his laws and decision making were not infallible and he had been set up to make a major decision which was wrong. It is perhaps to his credit that he allowed the second decree to be written and sent.</p>


text:
<p>He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king’s ring, and sent letters by courier on horseback, riding on royal horses that were bred from swift steeds- There may have been an attempt to outrun the carriers of the earlier decree, even though they were also "hasted".</p>


text:
<p>In those letters, the king granted the Jews who were in every city to gather themselves together, and to defend their life, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions- The second edict is worded in the terms of the first; the Jews were empowered to do to their enemies what those enemies had wished to do to them. This is the repeated basis for judgment in the last day; thus throughout Revelation, the seals of judgment upon latter Israel are then brought upon their abusers in the form of the trumpets and vials. The LXX adds some detail; "he charged them to use their own laws in every city, and to help each other". Haman had previously made a fuss about the Jews' laws. Now they were encouraged to use their own laws, and to use them as they were intended- to help each other, after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. This was another prod of the exiles towards obedience to the law as intended, and to turn to their God more fully.</p>


text:
<p>on one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- This was the date which Haman had chosen by casting lots. And again the hand of God was invisibly in that, for now the Jews had plenty of time to prepare themselves.</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that the Jews should be ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies- Vengeance on Israel's enemies was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration. But the Jews in Persia were those who hadn't responded to that. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on :14; <a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So the couriers who rode on royal horses went out, hastened and pressed on by the king’s commandment. The decree was given out in the citadel of Susa- The parallel is clearly with the hasting of the king's commandment to destroy the Jews. Esther is full of such inversions. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai went out of the presence of the king in royal clothing of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a robe of fine linen and purple; and the city of Susa shouted and was glad- This is in conscious contrast with how at the first decree, the city of Shushan was perplexed (<a href='B:190 3:15'>Est 3:15</a>; <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>). As noted on :13,14, the impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But they didn't take this theme further, and realize that it was in Zion where their fortunes were to be finally and more totally reversed. They were experiencing a foretaste of what would be possible far more fully if they repented and returned to Zion; but they refused to take that Divine nudge.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews had light, gladness, joy, and honour- The springing up of Judah's light is spoken of in Isaiah as happening at the restoration, in terms of Zion's light coming to Jerusalem in the person of Messiah. Likewise joy and gladness was to be Judah's experience in Zion. But it seems what could have been the breaking in of the Messianic kingdom for them even in captivity didn't lead to that Kingdom. For they preferred their own kingdom of wealth in Persia. They remained there; and the true light and joy of Zion wasn't experienced by them. See on :13-15.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, and in every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness, joy, a feast, and a good day. Many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen on them- Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (:16), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 9:27'>Est 9:27</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn't make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return. See on :13-16.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the month, when the king’s commandment and his decree drew near to be put into effect, on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to conquer them, (but it was turned about so that the opposite happened- the Jews conquered those who hated them)- This theme of 'turning about so the opposite happens' is a major theme of Esther. The fasting of Esther is contrasted with the feasting of Haman and the king; and now it is the Jews who are feasting. Instead of the Jews being destroyed by their enemies, they destroy their enemies. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. The turning of curse into blessing is simply because God loves Israel (s:w. <a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a>; <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>). But the exiles had doubted His love, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear. But through this whole incident, God seeks to display His love to His people, and His grace.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hands on those who wanted to harm them. No one could withstand them, because the fear of them had fallen on all the people- Their gathering together to help each other was after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. Her example would have been inspirational in the mending of so many interpersonal relationship issues amongst the Jews, just as the Lord's example of mediation and sacrifice to achieve it should likewise for us. For "the fear::." see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>All the princes of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and those who did the king’s business helped the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them- The fear of Israel falling upon the peoples (also in :2) uses the very same phrase used about the effect of the Exodus miracles upon the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a>; <a href='B:230 105:38'>Psa 105:38</a>), with Mordecai functioning as Moses. And yet the same effect as the visible miracles was achieved by the invisible, non-miraculous hand of God working in human and national lives. The implication was that this was all to prepare the exiles for their intended exodus out of Persia and back to their land- but they refused to make good on what was set up for them.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai grew greater and greater- LXX "For the order of the king was in force, that he should be celebrated in all the kingdom". The king was obviously deeply impressed by Esther and Mordecai, and surely was being himself nudged towards accepting the God of Israel by the transformation he witnessed in these secular Jews towards truly spiritual, brave people of principle.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews struck all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they wanted to those who hated them- This suggests a primary fulfilment of the prophecy that the exiles in Babylon / Persia would become God's weapons of war with which to judge the nations where they had been taken captive (<a href='B:300 51:20'>Jer 51:20</a>). The intention was that they would judge their captors, return to the land and be part of the reestablished Kingdom of God. But the exiles only allowed a partial fulfilment of this, and remained with their wealth in Persia; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men- AV "In Shushan the palace". The extent of opposition to the Jews was therefore significant (800 killed in all, :15), despite Mordecai now being the prime minister, and the king clearly pro-Jewish. The pre-existing anti-Jewish sentiment was significant in the palace, and therefore Esther is revealed as the more brave for coming out as Jewish. Haman knew that his plan was tapping in to widespread support. If indeed Haman was the descendant of Agag the Amalekite (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>) this would mean that the people killed here by the Jews would likely have been Amalekites. This would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag"). No Messiah figure was in view; but had they returned to the land in faith and repentance, then the restoration prophecies stated that one would have arisen. And so we find here a partial fulfilment of the prophecies about Amalek and Agag, and not a complete one:&nbsp;See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>They killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha- The "ten sons" of Haman is a phrase stressed four times in :10-14, and although ten are indeed listed here, the idea may mean "all his children" as in <a href='B:90 1:8'>1Sa 1:8</a>. The Jews interpret Haman as representative of the yetzer harah, the evil inclination, which the New Testament at times understands as the great satan / adversary to spiritual life. The Jews then see in the meanings of the names of his sons the various characteristics of the flesh. Each of the names of the sons apparently contain the word “self” in the Persian language. Although the meaning of these names is hard to define, the Jewish view is that these first three names stand respectively for 'distance [from God]', 'door to bad intentions', 'gathering of money'.</p>


text:
<p>Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'a woman's private parts' [if spelt backwards]; 'pride' and 'preying like a lion to destroy others'.</p>


text:
<p>Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'ripping into division', 'subjugation of the righteous' and 'bitterness', the end result of all these various features of the fleshly life.</p>


text:
<p>the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jew’s enemy; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- This is emphasized, because they had been given the right to do this (<a href='B:190 8:11'>Est 8:11</a>). They were following the example of Abraham who refused to add to his wealth by taking the spoil of his enemies (<a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a>). This can be read as a politically astute decision, so as not to give the impression they had orchestrated all this for their benefit; but there was surely thereby a nudge from God towards remembering that they were Abraham's seed, and ought to return to the land promised them as his seed.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, the number of those who were slain in the citadel of Susa was brought before the king- A king would surely be concerned about the outbreak of civil war. The fact he allowed the slaughter to continue right on his doorstep in Susa would suggest that he perceived that those killed were not his own people, but the supporters of Haman, Amalekites. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in the citadel of Susa, including the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your further request? It shall be done- Her first intercession had brought her to a position where now the king came to her, guessing what she would like and offering it. She doesn't come to him, he perceives what she wants and offers it to her. We possibly see here some insight into the nature of the Lord's relationship with the Father after He interceded for us on the cross. Romans 8 describes all this as the intercession of the spirit, as if the Father and Son have a meeting of minds / spirit, and the Father knows and automatically grants what He knows His Son wants for His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther said, If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according to this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows- We see here how circumstances repeat. Esther had previously come to the king with a request to come to a banquet, and then repeated that same request, to come "tomorrow". The Esther story shows clearly how things work according to a Divine plan which is multidimensional and yet has internal consistencies and similarities. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded this to be done. A decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons- We have just read in :10 of the murder of his sons. Perhaps the LXX is therefore to be preferred here: "And he permitted it to be so done; and he gave up to the Jews of the city the bodies of the sons of Aman to hang".</p>


text:
<p>The Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and killed three hundred men in Shushan; but they didn’t lay their hand on the spoil- This makes a total of 800 killed over the two days. See on :6 for the significance of this anti-Jewish sentiment in Shushan. For "spoil", see on :10. For "gathered themselves together" see on :16. Their refusal to take the spoil is mentioned three times (:10,15,16), and stands in contrast to the intention of taking their property as spoil under Haman's plan (<a href='B:190 3:13'>Est 3:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The other Jews who were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, defended their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- LXX renders "gathered themselves together" as "and helped one another". They were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn't just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God's people. We see here how good spiritual attitudes can spread quickly and effectively.</p>


text:
<p>This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of that month they rested and made it a day of feasting and gladness- Israel being given "rest" from their enemies was the sign that they should now inherit the promised land (s:w. <a href='B:50 12:10'>Deu 12:10</a>); rest from their enemies meant that they were to blot out the name of Amalek (s:w. <a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a>). Clearly these things were coming about, seeing that Haman was an Amalekite and those they were killing were likely Amalekites (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>). But they failed to go further with these Divine possibilities, just as we can fail to; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>. Being given rest meant they could inherit the land (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> s:w:) but they preferred to remain in Persia. Tellingly, the same word is used in <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>, addressed to the exiles: "But after they had rest, they did evil again before You; therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But the Jews who were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth days of the month; and on the fifteenth day of that month, they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness- The subtext to this otherwise positive picture of good triumphing over evil is that their day of feasting and gladness was prophetically intended to be in Zion (<a href='B:290 25:6'>Isa 25:6</a> s:w:). They went into exile exactly because they had days of 'feasting' and didn't respond to the prophetic message (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:12'>Isa 5:12</a>). It was in Zion that they were to experience "gladness" (<a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a>) when they returned (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>). They were to leave the lands of their captivity in "gladness" and thus come to Zion (<a href='B:290 55:12'>Isa 55:12</a> s:w:). But they didn't return. They were to have eternal "gladness::. in their land" (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a>), the day of <a href='B:300 31:7'>Jer 31:7</a> (s:w:). The "day of gladness" was to be accompanied by the blowing of trumpets (s:w. <a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a>), summoning them to Zion. But there is no mention of this; because they didn't want to return there, but to remain in prosperous Persia. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Jews of the villages, who lived in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, a good day- The existence of Jews even in villages and remote settlements of the Persian empire reflects the degree of their scattering, in fulfilment of the prophecies about this.</p><p>And a day of sending presents of food to one another- Generosity to others was a reflection of their personal experience of grace. We are to be generous to others and concern ourselves with their salvation, as God did to us. "Grace" literally means a gift, and the giving of gifts ought to reflect that. As noted on :16, they were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn't just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both near and far- LXX "wrote these things in a book". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Mordecai of how he, a secular and not very religious Jew, had seen his&nbsp; weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :29 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Esther.</p>


text:
<p>To enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar yearly- Whilst this was understandable it could be argued that the subtext of the history is negative; there is no mention of them keeping the Mosaic feasts, but instead they created a new one to celebrate in the lands of exile. Instead, they ought to have returned from those lands and not remained there; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>as the days in which the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending presents of food to one another, and gifts to the needy- LXX "a change was made for them, from mourning to joy, and from sorrow to a good day". This change from mourning to joy connects with the prophecies of the restored kingdom, when mourning would be turned to joy for Zion (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>; <a href='B:290 60:20'>Isa 60:20</a>; <a href='B:290 61:3'>Isa 61:3</a>). But Judah hadn't repented nor returned to the land as intended. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. For "turned::.", see on :1.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews accepted the custom that they had begun, as Mordecai had written to them- What is specifically in view is the command to keep the 15th day as well.</p>


text:
<p>because Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the lot, to consume them, and to destroy them- LXX has "the Macedonian" for "Agagite", as if to encourage the reading of the whole story as applicable to the abuse of the Jews by Alexander of Macedon.</p>


text:
<p>but when this became known to the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows- "Wicked device" is literally wicked thoughts (s:w. <a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a>; <a href='B:290 59:7'>Isa 59:7</a>); perhaps some of the Proverbs which use the phrase to speak of wicked plans have Haman in view (<a href='B:240 6:18'>Pro 6:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>). Again we see the theme continued that it was for his thoughts that Haman was condemned; for the state of the heart is of paramount importance to God. But the phrase is used in <a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a> of how a "wicked device" against God's people was intended to elicit their repentance. It didn't, and so they went into captivity in Babylon / Persia; and now again, repentance was not elicited as intended.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they called these days Purim, from the word ‘Pur’. Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come to them- They wanted to especially remember how the lots ["pur"] drawn by Haman were overruled by God to fall in nearly a year's time, so that there was time for Esther's mediation and their preparation. The Divine overruling of the lots was therefore felt to be the parade example of Divine providence in their salvation. But again, this seems rather a case of mistaken focus; the Divine grace of it all and the brave mediation of Esther were not the focus. It could be argued that it was more of a celebration of Jewish good luck than of Divine grace. The root meaning of pur, "lots", is 'a thing of nothing' (s:w. <a href='B:230 33:10'>Psa 33:10</a>). Drawing lots was based upon astrology, and the fact the drawing of lots was to the Jews' favour hardly seems an appropriate thing to celebrate. And we are left with the impression that the Jews in Persia would now celebrate Purim religiously; whilst no mention is made of keeping Yahweh's feasts. Again, there is a subtext here that we have to read. But as ever with the book of Esther, it is below the surface.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews established and imposed on themselves and on their descendants, and on all those who joined themselves to them, so that it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to what was written, and according to its appointed time, every year- Note the reference to the Gentiles who "joined themselves to them". Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (<a href='B:190 8:16'>Est 8:16</a>), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 8:17'>Est 8:17</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn't make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return.</p>


text:
<p>and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor their memory perish from their seed- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim- LXX "wrote all that they had done". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Esther of how she, a secular and not very religious Jewess, had seen her weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :20 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Mordecai. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p>He sent letters to all the Jews, to the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21. "Peace and truth" is the language of the restored kingdom of God (<a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>); and it is the same term used by Hezekiah when he failed to grasp the potential of the Kingdom being reestablished in his times; he was content with peace and truth in his times alone (<a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>). Likewise the Jews of Esther's time were content with "peace and truth" in their times, rather than seeing that what had happened was to lead them towards the eternal peace and truth with God of His Kingdom and not their own (see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>; <a href='B:190 9:30'>Est 9:30</a>). And this is the abiding temptation for all believers; to be satisfied with some degree of "peace and truth" emotionally and intellectually in their lives now, but resign the far greater realities of the Kingdom to come when "peace and truth" shall be in eternal reality.</p>


text:
<p>to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had decreed, and as they had imposed upon themselves and their descendants, in the matter of the fastings and their cry- LXX suggests differently, to the effect that Mordecai and Esther fasted at the time of Purim, perhaps in recognition of their own weaknesses at the time, asking forgiveness for how they had lived as secular believers before they were forced to give their whole lives to their God and their people: "And Mardochaeus and Esther the queen appointed a fast for themselves privately".</p>


text:
<p>The commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book- Confirming my suggestion on :29 that Esther was the author of the book.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land, and on the islands of the sea- The idea is of imposed forced labour, such as Solomon ordered, and which caused much resentment. Why mention this? Perhaps it is included to signal that all was not well, although the story is to end with good triumphing over evil; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>All the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai to which the king advanced him, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?- As noted on :1, the story ends positively, but with the subtext that all was not as it could have been. A Jew and a Jewish queen become almost the most influential people on earth at the time, with huge power and might. But still they did not lead their people back to their God and to their land. That is the unspoken conclusion which any spiritually minded, sensitive reader or hearer will come to. Again it is a story of so much potential and Divine grace being as it were wasted.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai the Jew was next to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude of his brothers, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his descendants- Even though Mordecai was so highly respected amongst the Jews, there is the implication noted on :2 that Mordecai failed to realize his full potential before God, even if he died respected by his own people. Not only did Cyrus and the other various potential fulfillments of the servant songs fail to rise up to their potential; Judah preferred to stay in the soft life. The sad ending of the book of Esther leaves Judah prosperous in Babylon, having declined the potential exodus back to Zion which God had set them up with. Mordecai and Esther ought surely to have used their huge power to move the Jews to return to the land, as was clearly the wish of God as expressed in the prophets. But they didn't; it seems the secularism which characterized their earlier lives may have returned in later life, and tradition has it that Esther was murdered when the Persian empire fell to the Greeks.</p>


text:
<e>Joshua: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>After the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh, Yahweh spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ servant, saying- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise- </p><p>The Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> had a potential Messianic and primary fulfillment in Joshua: “I will raise them up [God ‘rose up’ Joshua- s:w. <a href='B:60 1:2'>Jos 1:2</a>; <a href='B:60 7:10'>Jos 7:10</a>; <a href='B:60 7:13'>Jos 7:13</a>; <a href='B:60 8:1'>Jos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:60 8:3'>Jos 8:3</a>]&nbsp; a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Joshua’s life was framed to be like that of Moses- e:g. he too was told to remove his shoe when on holy ground, also held his hands up whilst Israel fought their enemies]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [Joshua is constantly presented as telling Israel what God commanded him- <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>; <a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>: “according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do. See, I have commanded you”; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>]. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”.</p><p>Go over this Jordan, you, and all this people, to the land which I give to them, even to the children of Israel- </p><p>This was a primary fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, and we too experience that. For the covenant is not only about 'jam tomorrow'. In a sense, the promises that the seed would inherit the land, and that God would be their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He is their God. And that land in a sense was given to the Jewish fathers (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; <a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a>; <a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a> NIV; <a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a>; <a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the main fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has already been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i:e:, us!</p>


text:
<p>I have given you every place that the sole of your foot will tread on, as I told Moses- </p><p>This meant that according to their spiritual ambition, so would be their inheritance of the Kingdom, as Moses had told them (<a href='B:50 11:24-25'>Deu 11:24-25</a>). The temptation for them, as for us, was to consider that once we have our small inheritance, our farmstead and secure land, as it was for them- then we need have no wider vision. For to go onwards from that parochial mentality and tread upon the entire land (:4) up to the Euphrates was a vision only worth pursuing if they had a vision of collective inheritance of the Kingdom. To seek to get others there is a call which few really perceive. See on <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even to the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border- </p><p>God’s opening commission to Joshua was that the people were to possess the whole land promised to Abraham, right up to the Euphrates. But Joshua ended up drawing up the borders of the land far smaller than these; he didn’t even seek to subdue the territory up to the Euphrates, even though God had promised him potential success and even commanded him to do so. See on :3,6,15.</p>


text:
<p>No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not fail you nor forsake you- </p><p>But these very words are quoted in <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> as the grounds of our matchless confidence that the Lord God will be with us too! As He was with Moses- not just in power, but in wondrous patience and gentleness- so He will be with us too. Not only did God encourage Joshua to see himself as in Moses' shoes; He inspired Jeremiah likewise (<a href='B:300 21:8'>Jer 21:8</a> = <a href='B:50 30:15'>Deu 30:15</a>; <a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a>), and Ezekiel (<a href='B:330 2:3'>Eze 2:3</a> = <a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a>; <a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a>; <a href='B:40 17:10'>Num 17:10</a>); and He wishes us to also see Moses' God as our God. But if Moses' God is to be ours in truth in the daily round of life, we must rise up to the dedication of Moses; as he was a faithful steward, thoroughly dedicated to God's ecclesia (<a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a>), so we are invited follow his example (<a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a>; <a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a>). Note that the promise of Moses that God would not fail nor forsake Joshua, but would be with him (<a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a>) was similar to the very promise given to Moses which he had earlier doubted (<a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>; <a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a>; <a href='B:20 4:15'>Exo 4:15</a>). Such exhortation is so much the stronger from someone who has themselves doubted and then come to believe.</p><p>We may boldly say that we will not be fearful, as Joshua was, because God has addressed to us the very words which He did to Joshua: “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee” (<a href='B:650 13:5-6'>Heb 13:5-6</a>). In this especially, Joshua is our example. When <a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a> speaks of us going forth outside the camp, perhaps there is a reference to Joshua who dwelt with Moses outside the camp- thus making Joshua symbolic of us all.</p><p>Watch out for quotations and allusions within Scripture; there are connections not only between New and Old Testaments, but also (e:g:) between Paul's letters; Peter alludes to Paul's writings, Paul frequently alludes to the words of John the Baptist; Jeremiah often refers to Job's words and experiences. Note the context of the source quotation, because this often sheds light on the passage in which it is quoted. Be aware that many NT passages mix a number of OT passages in one 'quotation'; e:g. "The deliverer will come from Zion" (<a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a>) is a conflated quotation of <a href='B:230 14:7'>Psa 14:7</a>; <a href='B:230 53:6'>Psa 53:6</a> and <a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a>. And <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> combines quotes from <a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a> and <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>. <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> doesn’t quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together.</p>


text:
<p>Be strong and courageous; for you shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them-</p><p>God’s opening commission to Joshua was that the people were to possess the whole land promised to Abraham, right up to the Euphrates (<a href='B:60 1:4'>Jos 1:4</a>). But Joshua ended up drawing up the borders of the land far smaller than these; he didn’t even seek to subdue the territory up to the Euphrates, even though God had promised him potential success and even commanded him to do so. Joshua was to divide up the whole land promised to Abraham, amongst the tribes of Israel (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>). And yet in the extensive descriptions of Joshua dividing up the land, we don’t find him dividing up that whole territory up to the Euphrates. He seems to have lacked that vision, and fallen into the mire of minimalism, just content with a utilitarian, small scale conquest, rather than seeing the bigger picture of the potential Kingdom which God wanted to give His people:&nbsp;See on :3,4,15.</p><p>Joshua is repeatedly made parallel with Israel; his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Only be strong and very courageous to observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you. Don’t turn from it to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>Joshua is repeatedly made parallel with Israel; his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>):&nbsp;See on <a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a>.</p><p>As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed. Likewise, he led the Israelites in battle whilst Moses stood on the hill with arms uplifted in prayer for his success. And in capturing Ai, it was Joshua’s turn to stand on a hill with arms uplifted [also in prayer?] whilst Israel fought.</p><p>That you may prosper wherever you go-</p><p>Joshua potentially could have been the Jesus-Messiah figure, leading Israel into what could have become the Kingdom of God. He could have given the people rest; but he didn’t. Yet the possibilities and prophecies relating to Joshua were then reinterpreted and fulfilled in another ‘Jesus’, the Son of God. Solomon was another case of this. God’s servant Joshua was intended to “prosper” (<a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>); but in the end it was the Lord Jesus through His death who was the servant who would “deal prudently” [s:w. ‘prosper’, <a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a>]. And so, in His foreknowledge, God spoke of “another day” when His begotten Son would give “rest”, fulfilling what Joshua could potentially have achieved, and so much more (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). The lesson for us is that so much has been potentially prepared for us to achieve. Our salvation may not necessarily depend upon achieving all those things, but all the same, so much potentially is possible which we refuse to reach up to, because we are petty minimalists, like Israel, satisfied with their little farm in the valley, rather than seeking to possess the fullness of the Kingdom prepared for them.</p>


text:
<p>This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written therein. Thus you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success-</p><p>In <a href='B:230 1:1-3'>Psa 1:1-3</a>, David makes several allusions to Joshua. He speaks of how the man who meditates in God’s word day and night will prosper in his ways; and he uses the very same Hebrew words as found in <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a> in recounting God’s charge to Joshua. But David’s point is that the man who does these things will not “walk in the counsel of the ungodly”- he won't give in to peer pressure. The fact that Joshua was wrongly influenced by his peers in later life would indicate that he didn’t keep the charge given to him.</p><p>Try to memorize Scripture, run through verses as you go about life, play tapes of Bible studies or Bible reading in the background (instead of the mindless radio). Much of Scripture was probably memorized by various contemporary believers. "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth" (<a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>) presumably means that Joshua was commanded to keep reciting it to himself in daily life, so that he would be obedient to it. The way Jeremiah consciously and unconsciously quotes and alludes to Job would suggest that he had memorized that book. And many of the Psalms are written in such a way (in Hebrew) as to be easily memorized. David memorized God's law and meditated upon it (hardly the easiest part of Scripture to memorize, at least to Western eyes; <a href='B:230 119:16'>Psa 119:16</a>). He recited it to himself in the night seasons.</p><p>As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>).</p><p>This connection between Joshua and Israel is developed in <a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a>, which describes the new covenant which God will make with Israel in the Messianic Kingdom in terms evidently reminiscent of Joshua- as if the new covenant was made with him, thereby enabling him potentially to be part of a Messianic Kingdom even in his day:&nbsp; “And as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: my Spirit that is upon thee [“Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him” <a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a>; <a href='B:40 27:18-23'>Num 27:18-23</a>] , and my words which I have put in thy mouth [<a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> - God’s words were put in Joshua’s mouth], shall not depart out of thy mouth [“this book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth”, <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>, s:w:], nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever”.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t I commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed: for Yahweh your God is with you wherever you go- </p><p>The idea being, as discussed on :3, that wherever they went, they would have victory and take the land for themselves. The various towns in our lives may be alcoholism, the struggle to forgive, gentleness, patience, or whatever seems so insuperable. It is God's eager desire that we should inherit the Kingdom, and so we need not fear (<a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a>). The command to be strong and courageous is understood by David as meaning "be of good courage, and He will strengthen your heart" (<a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:230 31:24'>Psa 31:24</a>). It is not so much a call for human strength and bravery, as to open our hearts to the strengthening of His Spirit:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying- </p><p>"Officers" is literally 'the scribes'. It could refer to those who had a record of the people from the latest census, and could therefore better organize them. But we wonder if it refers to those who had already been set up to keep copies of God's law and interpret it to the people. And yet their work was not academic, just as true Bible study can never be an academic discipline. They were to in practice prepare the people to enter the land and conquer Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>Pass through the midst of the camp, and command the people, saying, ‘Prepare food; for within three days you are to pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess’- </p><p>The "three days" period sends the mind to the Lord's resurrection, which was what gives us ultimate entry into Canaan. Preparing food in advance was a new discipline for people who had lived for decades on the daily provision of manna by God every morning. That this need to "prepare food" should be recorded gives absolute circumstantial credibility to the record. Such a command would have been absolutely necessary. These things really happened. The exodus from Egypt had been in haste, so that they had no time to "prepare food" (<a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a>). They had left Egypt because of push factors. Now, they were to be motivated by the pull factor of the Kingdom, and were not being thrust out in haste, but rather entering the Kingdom on their own terms.</p><p>These three days may be those of <a href='B:60 3:1-2'>Jos 3:1-2</a>. The order to prepare food was given on 7th Nisan, as they crossed Jordan on the 10th. The spies would have been on their mission between the 5th and 8th Nisan.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua spoke to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh saying- </p><p>They had received their inheritance to the east of Jordan, because they were attracted by the rich pasture there for their many flocks and herds&nbsp; (<a href='B:40 32:16'>Num 32:16</a>; <a href='B:40 32:24'>Num 32:24</a>). This had been on the agreement that they would help the rest of Israel to inherit their inheritances too.</p>


text:
<p>Remember the word which Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you saying, ‘Yahweh your God will give you rest, and will give you this land- </p><p>After the pattern of the Reubenites, we have been given the promised rest of the Kingdom here and now (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> cp. <a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a>); but we will, like them, only take possession of that inheritance after we have ensured that our brethren have received their possession (<a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a> present a paradox: the Reubenites were given their "rest", but they would only get their "rest" once their brethren had. Those Reubenites really were symbols of us: for this passage is surely behind the reasoning of Hebrews 4, where we are told that we have entered into rest, but that we must labour if we want to enter into it.</p>


text:
<p>Your wives, your little ones and your livestock shall live in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan; but all your mighty men of valour shall pass over before your brothers, armed, and shall help them-</p><p>This was no small sacrifice, because it left their much beloved flocks, as well as their women and children, without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. And they were to be in the front line, "before your brothers", forming the vanguard. Further, their inheritances east of Jordan were huge, and included areas inhabited by giants and strong enemies. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God's protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn't work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.</p>


text:
<p>until Yahweh has given your brothers rest, as He has given you, and they have also possessed the land which Yahweh your God gives them. Then you shall return to the land of your possession and settle it, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise’- </p><p>See on :13. Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); but he said he had (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but both Joshua and Israel would not. <a href='B:50 1:38'>Deu 1:38</a> states clearly that “Joshua… he shall cause Israel to inherit [s:w. possess]” the land. Yet by the end of Joshua’s life, Israel were not inheriting the land in totality. He didn’t live up to his potential. Note, in passing, that God’s prophecy here was conditional, although no condition is actually stated at the time. See on :4,6.</p>


text:
<p>They answered Joshua saying, All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go- </p><p>As noted on :14, the demands on them were a great test of faith. That they agreed and didn't seek to renege on the agreement is therefore the more commendable.</p>


text:
<p>Just as we listened to Moses in all things, so will we listen to you. Only may Yahweh your God be with you as He was with Moses- </p><p>This was surely an exaggeration, as Israel had not been obedient to Moses "in all things".</p>


text:
<p>Whoever rebels against your commandment, and doesn’t listen to your words in all that you command him, he shall be put to death. Only be strong and courageous-</p><p>They now encourage Joshua themselves, perhaps sensing his weakness and nervousness. There is repeated encouragement to be strong and of a good courage and not be fearful (<a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a>; <a href='B:60 1:6-8'>Jos 1:6-8</a>; <a href='B:60 1:18'>Jos 1:18</a>). What does this imply about Joshua? He could perhaps have potentially been 'Jesus', as his name means, the Messiah figure. But he failed, perhaps because of his fear, and so this possibility was reapplied and rescheduled to the Lord Jesus. Hebrews effectively makes this point, saying that although Joshua gave the people "rest", in fact he didn't ultimately; and so his work was fulfilled only in the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Joshua had been charged to be strong, of good courage, not fearful nor be dismayed. Yet he had a tendency to forget those charges, the implications of his having been called by God for a purpose; and needed to be reminded of them as he forgot or lost faith in them. Perhaps this is why he is an otherwise surprising omission from the list of faithful men and women in Hebrews 11. And here of course is the challenge to us. We too have been given commissions and callings. Whether it be to raise a Godly family, to establish an ecclesia in a certain place, to overcome a specific vice…the obstacles will flee before us, every place where the soles of our feet rest, will be blessed…if we truly believe in God’s purpose with us. Yet like Joshua, we usually fail to have a full faith in this. We get distracted by the views of others, peer pressure, worried by lack of resources, discouraged by setbacks; when it is belief in God’s most basic initial promises to us that will overcome them. Joshua’s fear is all the more reprehensible when we consider the testimony of Psalms 91. Here Moses speaks about Joshua, the one who dwelt in the secret place or tabernacle of God (<a href='B:230 91:1'>Psa 91:1</a> = <a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a>), and who therefore was miraculously preserved throughout the wilderness wanderings. Thousands of Joshua’s generation died at his side from the various plagues which wasted out his generation during those wanderings; but they never came near him (<a href='B:230 91:5-8'>Psa 91:5-8</a>). As a result of this, he was commanded by Moses to “not be afraid” (<a href='B:230 91:5'>Psa 91:5</a>), perhaps Moses was thinking specifically about peer pressure, with the assurance that truly God would hear Joshua’s prayers (<a href='B:230 91:14-15'>Psa 91:14-15</a>). His amazing preservation during the wilderness years ought to have instilled a faith and lack of fearfulness within him; and yet the implication is that he did very often fall prey to fearfulness in later life. Just as with us, the circumstances of earlier life are controlled by the Father to give us faith with which to cope with later crises; but we don’t always learn the lessons we are intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun secretly sent two men out of Shittim as spies, saying, Go, view the land, including Jericho. They went and came into the house of a prostitute whose name was Rahab, and slept there.</p><p>The spies were sent out "secretly". I'd argue that the sending out of the 12 spies about 40 years earlier was essentially a lack of faith- in the fact that God's Angel had gone ahead of them anyway to spy out the land, and Yahweh Himself had told Israel how good the land was. Perhaps the secrecy involved a sense that this was in fact not really a very spiritual decision and Joshua was somehow furtive about it. Israel had never known urban life nor perhaps even seen walled cities like Jericho. The spies entered the city at evening time, and the gate was shut. Strangers always attract attention in such places- let alone when the city was in the direct line of attack of the Hebrews. The language / accent of the two spies would've given them away. According to the record in Joshua 2, it seems they entered the city gates at dusk, the gates were shut, and they'd have perceived that they were being watched and had been noticed as suspicious strangers. And so they used some desperate initiative, and dived into a whorehouse nearby to the gate. This was the sort of place strangers would go to, as it would be today. We imagine them entering the house, and meeting the madame of the house. "What do you want?" was as dumb a question as the doctor asking the patient "How are you feeling today?". Rahab was a smart woman, accustomed to strangers, and knew what was going on. Within the first couple of sentences, she'd have figured who they were. And it seems they spoke for a short time, maybe an hour or so, realized they were busted, understood they were in a death trap within that walled city, and threw themselves on her mercy. And there, providence kicked in. <a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a> calls those men "messengers", with a message Rahab believed. They hardly had an hour to tell her the message, before men were knocking on the door enquiring what Rahab knew about the spies. In that brief time, she believed a very sketchy and incomplete Gospel of the Kingdom. And her works reflected that faith, in telling the men [whom local culture would've barred from entering the house of a single woman] that the spies had come and gone. "That was quick!", we can imagine the King's men joking. There was weakness and dysfunction all around this story. The men "lodged" with Rahab (<a href='B:60 2:1'>Jos 2:1</a>)- but the Hebrew term is often translated "slept with::." in a sexual context. In fact, whenever the term is used in relation to a woman, let alone a prostitute, it implies intercourse. As a word it does mean simply to sleep::. but it is strange that no other term for 'lodging the night' is used, and that the term in the context of a female or prostitute does usually carry a sexual meaning. Whilst I don't believe the spies did sleep with Rahab, it's strange that no other word for 'lodging' is used. The ambiguity is, I suggest, purposeful. But they and their message were 'welcomed in peace' by Rahab (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), she 'received' their message and justified herself by works by protecting them (<a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a>). This would contribute to an overall theme in the book of Joshua of Israel's weakness- the land wasn't fully possessed, Joshua appears himself as weak in many ways, he didn't fully follow the admittedly hard-to-follow act of Moses, Rahab believed the very words of promise which Israel didn't believe, the spies were sent out secretly by Joshua with no command from God to do this, when God had promised to go before Israel and give them victory::. and yet God worked through all this. Even to the extent of using the weakness of the spies in going in to a brothel and "sleeping" with the madame::. in order to save that woman and her family, and the lives of the spies, all in a manner which through human weakness glorified the God of Israel. Rahab had an extensive knowledge of parts of Moses' words and law, and this was the basis for her faith. Yet where did she, a whore in Jericho, get that knowledge from? Presumably from her clients, who would've been travellers who had heard these things and passed them on to her. All this is wonderful encouragement for all sinners- that God has a way of working through sin to His glory, and He doesn't give up so easily with human weakness.</p><p><a href='B:470 1:4'>Mat 1:4</a> records that Salmon married Rahab. Salmon was of the tribe of Judah, because this is the genealogy through Judah (<a href='B:470 1:2'>Mat 1:2</a>). The two spies who had been faithful the first time when spies were sent out were Joshua and Caleb- of the tribes of Ephraim and Judah (<a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:9'>Jdg 2:9</a>). It seems a fair guess that when the two spies were sent out, they were from these same two tribes; see on :23. Salmon was a prince of the tribe of Judah- it’s a fair guess that he was one of the two spies who went to Rahab, and he subsequently married her.</p>


