The People Wept On Hearing The Law And Were Exhorted Not To Do So By Their Leaders On The Grounds That This Was An Occasion For Celebration (Nehemiah 8:9-12).
It is apparent that there was a revival atmosphere at the gathering. God was present among them and His Holy Spirit was moving on men's hearts through His chosen one in the same way as at the Exodus (Isaiah 63:11). In consequence God's commands went deep into their hearts and they wept as they realised how far they had come short. But their leaders then called on them not to weep. Rather they were to rejoice, because it was YHWH's holy day, a day when God was at work among them. And as a result they moved from weeping to rejoicing, figuratively feasting at God's holy table, as the elders had at the Exodus (Exodus 24:9-11).
In the Law the Feast of Trumpets (the new moon day of the seventh moon period) was specifically designated as a ‘holy day' (Leviticus 23:24; Numbers 29:1-6). It was a day of many offerings and sacrifices over and above the norm, a day especially set apart for YHWH in which no servile work was to be done.
It is significant that here within this day on this occasion the whole of the festivities of the seventh month are encapsulated. First the proclamation of God's truth takes place, like the blowing of a trumpet (Nehemiah 8:1-8), then there is responsive weeping as on the Day of Atonement (Nehemiah 8:9), and finally there is feasting as on the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8:10-12).
‘And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites who taught the people, said (singular verb) to all the people, “This day is holy to YHWH your God, do not mourn, nor weep.” For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the Law.'
The weeping of the people, as God's Holy Spirit brought home to them His words, demonstrated the genuineness of their feelings. This was no formal hearing of the Law, or formal weeping in accordance with tradition. It was a genuine repentance for sin. The thought of how Jerusalem had been restored and was once more ‘whole' had brought a new impetus to the Law (Torah - ‘instruction'), and it now came home to them with new meaning. It also brought home a new meaning to the seventh month. There was seen to be good reason for blowing the rams' horns, and for heeding the words of God.
The weeping of the people was such that it moved those who were responsible for them to respond, in order to deal with their anguish. And this their leaders and teachers naturally did. Up to this point the governor Nehemiah had remained in the background as what was happening had come under the jurisdiction of Ezra's appointment by Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:13-14; Ezra 7:25-26), but now, when the people wept and were distraught, it became the governor's responsibility and he came to the fore. From our knowledge of his personal godliness we are not surprised at his intervention. He would naturally feel responsibility for them. And along with his efforts were those of Ezra, as both Priest and Scribe, and of the teaching Levites. This is one of the rare places where Nehemiah and Ezra are mentioned side by side.
Note On The Suggestion That The Name Of Nehemiah Be Excised From Nehemiah 8:9.
Many scholars have suggested that the name of Nehemiah was inserted in Nehemiah 8:9 by a later copyist or editor. They feel his presence to be inconsistent. On what then do they base that idea?
Firstly it is pointed out that Nehemiah and Ezra are only seen as acting together in only two places, here in Nehemiah 8:9, and in Nehemiah 12:36 (taken with Nehemiah 12:31). We must remember, however, that the tendency in the Book is only to mention those directly responsible for something. This lessens the impact of that fact. For while Ezra does indeed have only a small part to play in the Book of Nehemiah, it is understandable why that is so. It is because the Book deals with concerns outside the jurisdiction of Ezra. He was not High Priest but an appointee of the Persian king charged with the maintenance, explanation and enforcement of the Law of God on all Jewish people (Ezra 7:14; Ezra 7:25).
Furthermore, however closely allied to religious matters the first few Chapter s may be, they are not dealing with the interpretation and application of the Law, but with a political initiative which is very much dependent on Nehemiah's personal relationship with the king. And there the High Priest and the priests are very much involved as we have seen. Even in chapter 5 there was no dispute about the what the Law said. What Nehemiah was requesting went beyond the Law, even though observing its spirit. He was acting as a statesman with a background knowledge of the Law. No one disagreed about what the Law actually said
It was only when the Law was to be read and expounded that Ezra's jurisdiction applied. And we note that here in chapter 8 it was Ezra, and not the High Priest, who was called on for the purpose. Had he not been the appointee of the king of Persia with specific authority on such matters this would have been an insult to the High Priest. But it is that very fact that explains why, apart from in this chapter, he is elsewhere in the Book only certainly mentioned once. He is not, for example, mentioned in respect of the building of the wall. That was a practical, not a ‘legal' matter. But that may also well have been because he was engaged in fulfilling what was his prime responsibility as established by the king, of promulgating the Law among all Jews in Beyond the River (assuming that he was still active in that process which is what this chapter suggests), and besides, he had no group of workmen on whom he could call. Nor was he probably a signatory to the covenant (see chapter 10), even though he may have had a hand in drawing it up. Again that would be because it was signed by heads of families, whilst he was not necessarily head of his family. It will, however, be noted that as the king's appointed representative he was called on to participate in the dedication of the walls.
In the same way we note that Nehemiah does not have a prominent part to play in chapter 8. And the reason for that was that this did fall within Ezra's jurisdiction. He was the government authorised expounder of the Law. That is why Nehemiah only comes in when the people are visibly upset. He feels then that he is justified in intervening. Otherwise Nehemiah is seen by the original writer as simply not involved. In his view this was directly subject to Ezra as a religious matter to do with the meaning of the Law.
Why then, in view of all this, should it be suggested that Nehemiah's name was not originally in the text?
The first ground put forward is that in the Septuagint, whilst Nehemiah is named, his description as ‘the governor' is excluded. But whatever the reason for that, that can really only be used to suggest that the description is secondary, not that his name should be excluded. In contrast in 1 Esdras he is referred to by his description, and not by his name. But before we make too much of the omission of his name we should notice that what is written in 1 Esdras is not simply a parallel to this chapter, but with Nehemiah's name omitted. It is rather a whole rewriting of the narrative. And when we take into account its context, an account of Ezra's life, we can immediately understand why he excluded the name of Nehemiah. It was because his concentration was on Ezra. This therefore gives even more significance to the fact that he felt that he had at least to include the governor in terms of his description. The textual evidence for excluding Nehemiah's name from the text here in Nehemiah 8:9 is therefore inconclusive and weak.
The second ground put forward for excluding Nehemiah's name is the use of singular verbs in Nehemiah 8:9-10. On this basis some have sought to exclude both Nehemiah and the Levites, suggesting that that is what the singular verb requires. But in fact many scholars accept that it would be consistent with Old Testament usage for a singular verb to be used when placed (in the Hebrew) before a composite group where it is expressing the action of that composite group as in Nehemiah 8:9. We need then only to see that usage of a singular verb as also affecting the person of the verb in Nehemiah 8:10 for the difficulty to be removed. The verbs can then be seen as referring to Nehemiah, Ezra and the Levites, seen as acting as one.
Thus in our view there are no solid grounds for excluding the name of Nehemiah from Nehemiah 8:9.
End of note.
‘Then he said to them, “Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord: nor be you grieved, for the joy of YHWH is your strength.'
Whilst this could be seen as only spoken by Nehemiah (note the interest expressed in the needs of the poor), or Ezra, the verb should more probably be translated ‘they' as indicating the composite group of Nehemiah, Ezra and the Levites, the singular being the result of the usage in the previous verse.
It does, of course, summarise a number of instructions that were given. Firstly that they should be positive and celebrate the feast with joy, eating of the best (not the fat potions which belonged to YHWH, but the fatter portions which were the best of what remained) and drinking of the best (the meaning of the word for ‘sweet' is uncertain), out of the offerings that they had brought, while meanwhile ensuring provision for those who had been in no position to bring offerings (compare Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 12:18; Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 26:12). And this was because the day was ‘holy to YHWH', separated off as His, and thus to be a time of rejoicing as signifying the solidity of God's covenant with them. Nor were they to be grieved. Their repentance had been right, but now the sin offering had been offered in accordance with the Law's requirements, and therefore their sins as a nation had been forgiven (Numbers 29:5). Thus their strength now lay in ‘the joy of YHWH', the rejoicing that He aroused in them through their coming to him on the basis of His covenant which would make them strong and protect them from His judgment.
‘So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, “Hold your peace, for the day is holy, nor be you grieved.”
Nehemiah and Ezra would have spoken to the people as a whole, or possibly through their leaders. It was the Levites who went among the people (as they had when Ezra read the Law) and gave more personal teaching. They too called on the people to cease their weeping because the day was holy to YHWH and therefore to be rejoiced in. It was not a day in which to be grieving, but a day for joy.
‘And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.'
In consequence of the ministrations of Nehemiah, Ezra and the Levites the people responded, putting aside their weeping in order to eat and drink, and rejoice before YHWH. And they ensured that portions of food and drink were supplied to those who had none, as had been required. But it was not done heedlessly or carelessly. It was done because they understood the word that had been declared to them. They recognised that weeping was no longer in order because they had received forgiveness, and were now securely enjoying His covenant protection. In the words of the Psalmist, ‘For his anger is but a moment. In his favour is life. Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning (Psalms 30:5).
There is a lesson for us all here in that we too should know times of weeping when we sin and displease God. But we must then be ready to accept His forgiveness and not continue in mourning over sin. Rather we should rejoice in the forgiveness that is ours through Him, and go forward in the joy of the Lord. While weeping has its place, the Christian life should on the whole be one of continual joy, even when circumstances are hard.