Commentary.
The book opens with a typical opening line. Nehemiah was not a prophet and therefore we would not expect it to say too much. But he was an extremely important person within the Persian Empire. He was ‘cupbearer to the king'. That does not mean that he was a waiter. It indicates that he was the man who received the cup from a servant, and after tasting it to see if it was poisoned by pouring the wine into his hand and drinking it, handed it to the king. He was thus the one man in a position to most easily poison the king. Consequently he was a man in whom the king placed absolute trust. And we soon discover that Nehemiah had entry into the king's presence at other times, which accentuates his importance. Few had that privilege.
Introduction.
‘The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah.'
It is possible that the simple title ‘Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah' was considered by him as sufficient to indicate who he was. It may well have been his view that it was only lesser men who had to provide details. In his day his name said everything. He was, of course aware that he intended to provide some detail later (Nehemiah 1:11), but that was in the course of the narrative. Here he was simply ‘Nehemiah ben Hacaliah', a man of renown. Nehemiah means ‘Yah has comforted'. The meaning of Hacaliah is unknown. The name Nehemiah was a common one and is testified to of others in Nehemiah 3:16 and Ezra 2:2. It is also attested in extra-Biblical records. But there was only one Nehemiah ben Halachiah
On the other hand some see in this description the hand of the editor as he sought to combine Nehemiah's record with the book of Ezra. But however we see it, some such introduction would always have been necessary, even prior to that, so that we would know who was in mind in what was to follow. And besides, if it were the words of an editor we might have expected a more detailed introduction. It was only the man himself, aware of his own importance, who could be so brief. And this would also explain the seemingly careless dating (the king's name is not mentioned).
‘The words of --.' The Hebrew word translated ‘words' often indicates doings and activities, and it clearly does that here. The aim is to describe Nehemiah's deeds, and what he accomplished. Compare 1 Kings 11:41; 1Ki 14:19; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29.
Nehemiah Learns Of The Sad Condition Of Those Who Had Escaped from Babylon And Of The Recent Destruction Of The Walls Of Jerusalem That The Returnees Were Attempting To Build (Nehemiah 1:1-3).
‘Now it came about in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the fortress, that Hanani, one of my kinsmen, came, he and certain men out of Judah, and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped, who were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.'
As with the name, so with the date. He assumes that the recipient of his account will know which king it is whose reign it is the twentieth year of, (he also knows that he will make it clear in Nehemiah 2:1). This may portray the haughtiness and contemporary attitude of someone who felt that there was no need to say more, because the long reign of Artaxerxes was a permanent institution throughout the empire. He would not have known that he was writing for posterity. Alternatively it may indicate that it was chapter 2 which began an official record made by him, possibly in a report to the king, and that he added this explanatory information in chapter 1, with the date given in Nehemiah 2:1 being in mind, when he made it available to a wider audience. He would know that the reader would find the more detailed reference in Nehemiah 2:1. The twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1) would be 446 BC, and the month of Chislev around November/December. It was the ninth month of the Jewish calendar commencing from the first month Nisan (Passover month - March/April). This raises a slight problem in that the following Nisan (Nehemiah 2:1) is also said to be in the twentieth year, but that is probably looking at the numbering from the point of view of the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes rather than the commencement of the New Year.
Again some see in this lack of mention of the king's name the hand of an editor who was conjoining the two narratives, of Ezra and Nehemiah, who expected his readers to refer back to Ezra 7:1; Ezra 7:11; Ezra 7:21; Ezra 8:1. But those references are rather remote, and anyway the same argument could have applied in Nehemiah 2:1, and yet the details of the reign are given there. It thus rather suggests that Nehemiah 2:1 was what was in mind.
‘The fortress Shushan (Susa).' This was the winter residence of the Persian kings, with Ecbatana being their summer residence (Ezra 6:1). The ruins of Susa lie near the River Karun and it was once, in the second millennium BC, the capital of Elam, continuing as such into the first millennium. It was a powerful and impressive city. It was finally sacked by Ashurbanipal of Assyria in 645 BC, who sent men into exile from there to Samaria (Susanchites - Ezra 4:9). But it was restored, and it was at Susa that Daniel had one of his visions (Daniel 8:2). Darius I built his palace there, and it was there that Xerxes (Ahasuerus) demoted his chief wife, Vashti, replacing her with Esther (Esther 1-2). The fortress had again been restored by Artaxerxes.
It is apparent from this verse that Nehemiah regularly received fellow-Jews as guests into the king's fortress, so that it is not surprising that Jewish affairs obtained a hearing at high levels. Hanani, (‘He is gracious'), whom he received at this time, along with other prominent Jews, may well have been his brother, although the word need only indicate a kinsman. The Hanani in Nehemiah 7:2 may or may not be identical, for Hanani was a common name. We do not know whether this was just a private visit, or whether it was a deputation concerning some official matter. Nor do we know whether they were visiting from Judah, or had simply been to Judah on a visit. Nehemiah may well have summoned them on learning of their arrival from Judah because he wanted to learn about the situation there.
Whichever way it was he asked them concerning the situation in Judah and Jerusalem, and how ‘those who had escaped, who were left of the captivity' were going on. He clearly had a deep interest in the land of his forefathers. The question then arises as to who he was referring to by these words. Does he mean the returned exiles who had ‘escaped' from Babylonia, a remnant of the captivity, who had returned to Judah (compare Ezra 9:8 which speaks of ‘a remnant to escape'), or is he speaking of those who had initially escaped captivity and had remained in Judah? The former appears more likely, especially in view of Ezra 9:8. It is certainly not likely that he was unaware of the fact that exiles had returned to Judah from Babylonia under the decrees of the kings of Persia, and he would naturally as a Jew himself be concerned about their welfare.
‘And they said to me, “The remnant who are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach. The wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and its gates are burned with fire.”
We have already seen in Ezra that the Jews who had returned from Babylon saw themselves as the true Israel, ‘the remnant' of Israel who ‘escaped' (Ezra 3:8; Ezra 9:8). It is therefore quite clear that it is the returnees who had established themselves in Judah who were seen as ‘the remnant who are left of the captivity (exile)'. Does this then mean that Nehemiah did not see himself as a part of the remnant of the captivity? The answer, of course, is no. His heart and his spirit were with them. What he did not have was permission to go. Like Daniel before him, he was not in a job that he could leave at will. He was a slave, albeit a very exalted one, of the king of Persia.
‘Are in great affliction and reproach.' The word used for ‘affliction' is regularly translated ‘evil'. Great evil had come upon them. This suggests that they were having a very difficult time indeed, and reminds us how little we know about the problems that they faced, problems of drought, recurring violence, constant antagonism of their neighbours, and so on. The word for reproach indicates the constant criticism and hatred that was directed against them because they refused to dilute Yahwism by allowing syncretists to worship with them. All around them sought to bring them into shame, the syncretistic Jews who had remained in the land and were largely only semi-Yahwists; the syncretistic half-Yahwists in Samaria; and the out and out idolaters. The returnees, and those who sided with them, were being treated as outcasts and pariahs because of their faithfulness to truth. The situation had no doubt been made worse by the putting away of wealthy idolatrous wives, who were put away because of their idolatry which was affecting the remnant. They would have had great influence among their own people (Ezra 9-10).
Furthermore this appalling situation was revealed physically in the state of Jerusalem. As a consequence of their adversaries the walls that they had been attempting to rebuild had been broken down, and its gates burned with fire (Ezra 4:23). All their attempts to make themselves secure had been stymied. The reaction of Nehemiah here, and the fact that it is mentioned at all, demonstrates that this must have occurred recently. He would have know perfectly well what had happened to the walls of Jerusalem as a result of the Babylonian invasion, and it was history long gone (over one hundred and forty years previously). News of it would hardly, therefore, have been brought to him, nor would it have stirred him. It suggests that he had seemingly previously heard, and rejoiced over the fact, that the walls were being rebuilt so that the fact that they had now been again destroyed hit him hard.