NEHEMIAH nē’ ə mī ə (נְחֶמְיָ֖ה, LXX Νεεμια, prob. means “Compassion of Yah”).
Nehemiah, Jewish patriot and Pers. statesman was a man raised up to save Israel from national disintegration. He saw clearly that national collapse would jeopardize true religion. He was a cupbearer to the Pers. king, Artaxerxes I (464-424 b.c.), a position of great responsibility and influence; the holder ranked as a high official of the court. In this period only a man of exceptional trustworthiness would have been given the post, for the father of Artaxerxes had been murdered and he himself had gained the throne by a palace revolution.
Nehemiah was a member of a prominent Jewish family, for one of his brothers was the spokesman of an official delegation to Susa (Neh 1:2), and later became a governor of Jerusalem (7:2). The fact that both his and his father’s name (Hacaliah, Neh 1:1 and 10:1) contain the name Yah, may well indicate that his family was loyal to the Jewish orthodox faith. He was made aware of the plight of his people in the month of Kislev (Nov-Dec) 444 b.c., by delegates from Jerusalem to Susa, the winter residence of Pers. kings. Significantly, he first asked about the people, and then about the city. Their answer left him dejected and he turned to fasting, prayer and confession, in which he fully identified himself with his people. It was not until the month of Nisan (March-April), some four months later, when the king insisted on knowing the cause of his dejection, that he unburdened his heart and asked for and obtained leave of absence to become governor of Jerusalem (2:6). His resource at this juncture to impromptu prayer (2:4) shows the deep piety of the man and gives the narrative the ring of truth. The mention of the presence of the queen (2:6) lends support to the conjecture of secular historians that Artaxerxes was not immune from harem intrigue. The suggestion that Nehemiah was a eunuch rests solely on a careless, but explicable, slip by some copyist of a LXX MS.
His every decision indicated wisdom and forethought, and his actions were marked by determination and indomitable courage. His request for letters of safe conduct and authority to obtain materials for the work of rebuilding (2:7, 8) was doubtless prompted by his inside knowledge of conditions in the provinces. (For a parallel case, cf. Arsham who made a similar journey to Susa c. 410 b.c., S. Cowley, Elephantine Papyri, 26.) On his arrival at Jerusalem he made sure of his facts by a secret survey by night of the conditions of the city walls. He was then in a position to disclose the purpose of his mission and to rally the people for the rebuilding of the walls. The response was tremendous: all sections of the community dedicated themselves to the work: priests and laymen, Jews from the outlying towns and districts, and even women joined in the work (3:12). The succinct account in ch. 3 of the building activity does not divulge any information about the organizational feat that must have been involved, doubtless again due to the ability of Nehemiah.
When a report of Nehemiah’s purpose reached the ears of the governors of adjacent provinces their suspicions were aroused and they embarked on a policy of opposition. The ringleader was doubtless Sanballat, governor of Samaria (this was Sanballat I; two of his successors bore the same name, BA XXVI [1965], p. 109f. and p. 120). He was supported by the governor of Ammon, Tobiah (on the Tobiads, B. Mazar, IEJ, Vol. 7, p. 137ff. and p. 229ff.) and by the governor of Dedan, Geshem (K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and OT [1966], p. 159f.). The course of their opposition conforms unmistakably to an all too familiar pattern of human behavior. In their first act of opposition they used the well tried and well-nigh invincible weapon of ridicule (2:19). No technique has yet been invented to rival in effectiveness the skillful use of sneers, jeers, and gibes. A dangerous edge was given to their mockery by the insinuations that Nehemiah was planning high treason. He met the attack by asserting his assurance of divine help, by stating the inoffensive and constructive nature of the undertaking, and finally by reminding them that they were exceeding their authority. In matters concerning Jerusalem they had no stake or claim, nor any association with it (2:20). Nehemiah was a man impervious to blustering gibes. When the work got well under way, the opposition took on a somewhat different form. The means—mockery—was the same, only intensified, but now it was motivated by annoyance and anger (4:1-3). Nehemiah’s answer was prayer and persistence in the work (4:4-6). His shrewdness is seen in his planning the completion of all the lower half of the wall first. (This would seem to be the obvious implication of 4:6, 7.)
When verbal gibes and threats failed, Nehemiah’s opponents planned to use force (4:8). Again Nehemiah turned to prayer and at the same time took steps to counter the threat. His motto might well have been “Praying and Watching” (4:9). From this time forward work proceeded on a war footing.
Nehemiah’s troubles did not all come from outside Jerusalem. The Jews themselves confronted him with problems requiring diplomacy or firmness. First Judah threatened defection, ostensibly because of overwork, but defeatism also played its part.
A still more difficult internal crisis arose through the complaint of the people that they were being exploited by the rich (5:1-5). Nehemiah brought the offenders to heel and insisted on immediate redress. They agreed to forego their mortgage claims. Nehemiah displays an unerring understanding of human nature by insisting that all promises must be duly and publicly confirmed by oath (5:12). No one could gainsay his own unselfish and blameless conduct.
Two more attempts were made by Sanballat and his friends to undermine the work. First by attempting to lure Nehemiah away from Jerusalem (6:2). He refused, pleading pressure of important work. They then brought an open accusation of treason (6:6). It is said expressly that Geshem (Gashmu) shared this view. With his control of the great trade routes S, he was in a position to spread such a rumor as far as the king’s palace itself. Nehemiah did not fail to see the implications of this move (6:9).
With the wall sufficiently complete for defense purposes, steps were taken to rehabilitate the Jews. The first step was to make them familiar with the spiritual basis of their nationhood, the law of Moses. Prolonged sessions for readings were arranged, and the authority of the laws for their lives was acknowledged. The Temple service was restored and provision made for its continuation. Nehemiah’s final task was the restoration of national purity (13:1-27). It was a situation that demanded inflexible determination. He had a will of iron and tolerated no compromise.
For Nehemiah worldly success did not spell spiritual failure, and royal society left his appetite for divine fellowship unimpaired. The place of the fear of God in his heart was so great as to banish wholly the fear of man. In a time of apostasy, the study of the character of Nehemiah is particularly relevant.
Bibliography J. S. Wright, The Date of Ezra’s Coming to Jerusalem (1958); J. M. Myers, Ezra and Nehemiah (1965); H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord (1965), p. 137ff.