Bible Commentary - Nehemiah 2

In this chapter, Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem and initiates the reconstruction of the city wall.

Now, the first thing I notice about this chapter is that Nehemiah is a servant of the Persians.  This is another big difference between him and Ezra; while Ezra may have lived within Persian dominion (as all the Jews), Nehemiah was directly involved in the Persian administration.  This raises a couple interesting questions, the most important of which is this: is it right for Nehemiah to serve the Persians, who are by all rights his enemies?  In serving the king, is Nehemiah acting to further the oppression of his own people by supporting their foreign rulers?  If so, how do we reconcile Nehemiah’s service to Artaxerxes with his obvious patriotism and love for his people that he demonstrates in this chapter?  Lastly, what lessons can we learn from Nehemiah and how do we apply his example in our own lives and situations?

This is the first time that king Artaxerxes sees Nehemiah sad in his presence.  Nehemiah has been serving the king for many days, possibly for many years, and his people have been in bondage for 70 years, but this is the first time he appears sad before the king.  I wanted to point this out before discussing the questions I raised above, because I think it highlights the paradox of Nehemiah’s life.  For months or possibly even years, he served with a joyful appearance before the king, serving diligently and effectively.  Upon hearing the news that his people were in a difficult situation and in need, he immediately uses his position to help his people.  What I think is so remarkable about Nehemiah is how he bides his time over these long years before acting.

We see many parallels in the bible to Nehemiah’s story.  For instance, Joseph is best known for his diligent service to his Egyptian masters leading to his promotion over and over until he was second only to Pharaoh.  In the next book after Nehemiah, we will see Esther follow a similar pattern of ingratiating herself to the Persian king even in her own slavery and using her position to aid her people.

Going back to my previous questions, I think in general these kinds of questions are easier to ask than they are to answer.  I don’t have any really good answers, but I do have some ideas.  First of all, I think we can reasonably deduce that Nehemiah is seeking to elevate himself within the Persian administration so that he can advocate for his people more effectively.  As slaves, the Jews did not really have an “opt out” for serving the Persians.  If they chose to “not serve” their masters, it would be the equivalent of choosing pain and then death.  The Persians would have no reason to provide food and housing for slaves who refuse to serve.  Perhaps as a political statement the Jews could have chosen death, but in practical terms their options were to serve well or serve poorly.

For Nehemiah in particular, what would have happened if he served poorly and remained a household servant?  Presumably, someone else would have been elevated to be the cupbearer.  It is possible that new cupbearer would not be a Jew (since the Persians had many peoples in their empire), and the cause of the Jews as a whole would have been that much weaker.  In such a way, the Persians could hold the different races of slaves in competition with one another, rewarding those who served best and in that way maintain the bondage of them all.  If the Jews were the only ethnic group in the entire Persian empire, perhaps going on strike would be an option, but in this case the cosmopolitan nature of the empire acts against the interests of each constituent group and supports the Persian overlords.  Because there is no unity amongst the empire’s constituent groups, their individual interests remain in conflict with each other and aligned with the interests of the Persians.

Nevertheless, each individual Jew is presented with the choice of playing within the Persian system or resisting the system.  It’s not a binary decision; they can play within the system to a greater or lesser extent.  While some would present resistance to the system as the “principled” choice, Nehemiah chooses the “pragmatic” and works within the system and secure a better future for his people.

What does the bible say, however, about this decision?  Of course, the book of Nehemiah itself tells us what Nehemiah actually did, but it doesn’t necessarily tell us what he ought to have done.  In a similar way, Deuteronomy 28:48 threatens that because the people did not serve God, they will be forced to serve a hostile nation.  Again, I don’t think that is a very strong statement about how the Israelites should act in captivity, simply that they would be forced into captivity as a punishment for egregious sin.

Throughout the majority of Israel’s history, they were independent and under the rule of no foreign power (though they were frequently oppressed by foreigners during the Judges era).  The majority of the Law of Moses and God’s commands to Israel basically assumes that they are an independent nation or kingdom and it details things like how Israel should treat foreigners and widows in their land and other such things.  Foreign oppression is mostly used in the Law as a threatened punishment for Israel’s disobedience, not as a status that should be anticipated or normalized.  In a similar way, the religious code makes an unspoken assumption that the temple (or tabernacle) would always be available for conducting their nation’s religious ceremonies.  The destruction of the temple presents a similar problem for the Jews to which they have no precedent or instruction.

In all these ways, the Jews were forced to innovate and decide how to practice their faith.  We’ll get a better sense of how the prophets were advising the Jews when we read through the book of Jeremiah, but for now let it suffice to say that the written Law does not have any advice for how the Jews are to proceed.  In my opinion, when you consider the biblical text as a whole, I believe that God’s intent was for the Jews to serve the Babylonians in order to learn the harshness of serving other masters, and this would teach them how he is a good master whom they ought to serve.  It sounds harsh, and I think a full discussion is outside the scope of my commentary here, but that is how I interpret the Babylonian exile.  It’s an extreme action, but ultimately God is not concerned with Israel’s comfort as much as he is concerned with their redemption and salvation.  If making Israel suffer is the only way to bring their hearts back to him, it is better that they suffer than that they worship other gods and be destroyed thereby.  Anyway, this would have to be a longer discussion and I still need to finish discussing the chapter at hand.

The point is, I think Nehemiah was trying to do his best in the midst of a difficult situation, and since there isn’t any clear guidance from the LORD for him to do otherwise, I think his behavior is reasonable and I don’t think I have the liberty to criticize him from the security of my home.

The rest of the chapter is fairly long and has a lot of action in it, so I’ll just try to comment on the things that stand out to me.

One thing that stands out is the contrast I see between verse 6 and 8.  In verse 8, Nehemiah explains why the king granted his request: “because the good hand of my God was on me”.  In verse 6, I see the king’s explanation of why he granted Nehemiah’s request: “when will you return?”  What I see here is a king who really likes Nehemiah because the king would not ask when he’s coming back if the king didn’t want him to come back.  In my opinion, I think Nehemiah served the king honestly and with excellence, and the king treats Nehemiah with respect because Nehemiah treats the king with respect.  In classic form, though, Nehemiah honors God as well, and while he may understand his own role in his success, at least he doesn’t mention it.  This is something we will see a couple times from Nehemiah, declaring his various successes to be the result of God’s grace.

Another thing that I simply have to mention is verse 9, when Nehemiah travels to Jerusalem with a contingent of horsemen.  My readers may recall in Ezra 8:21-22 that Ezra specifically declined a military guard because he had extolled to the king that God would protect Ezra and all the Jews who traveled with him.  This implies a contradiction in attitude between Ezra and Nehemiah, which is interesting because they both lived in the same time period and have such similar lives in general.

I will be brief.  Both Ezra and Nehemiah faced the same threat; the possibility of assault on their return journey.  I mentioned in my commentary on Ezra 8 how dangerous the ancient near east could be.  This is not like driving a car from Illinois to Iowa.  Traveling in the ancient near east was dangerous.  Just imagine riding a camel from Iran, through Iraq and Jordan to Israel.  Imagine doing that as a Jew with all of the same antipathy that exists towards Jews in the modern mid east, with few if any weapons, and with women and children to ensure that you could not in any situation outrun raiders that might attack your party.  This is what both Ezra and Nehemiah did, with the people who returned with them.

Placed in that kind of situation, Ezra and Nehemiah made two different choices that represent two attitudes.  Ezra chose faith; he believed that God would protect him and was ashamed to ask the king for protection.  Nehemiah chose wisdom, knowing that it was a dangerous journey and receiving the help that the king offered.  This is a choice that many people are still faced with: do we choose medicine, or prayer and faith?  Do we take the secure job that we know we can hold, or become a missionary and live on uncertain donations and goodwill?  Do we live in the city where everything is planned out and secure, or do we move to a new town where we don’t have any friends, any job, any home and any plans?

As you can see, this is a choice that can take many forms, and the answers can be equally diverse based on the circumstances.  To make my answer short, I don’t think either Ezra or Nehemiah did the wrong thing.  I think ultimately we have to ask, “where does my faith lie?  Where is God leading me?  What is God saying?”  In the case of Ezra, he felt like his conscience constrained him from asking the king for help, so he didn’t, and in the case of Nehemiah, he clearly didn’t feel his conscience pulling him in the same direction, so he did ask the king for help.  In the case of Abraham, we have a clear record of God asking Abraham to move to a foreign land where he knew nobody and had nothing (Genesis 12).  It would have been a sin for Abraham to disobey such a clearly spoken direction from God.  On the other hand, most people only move to a new city when they have a good job opportunity or family there or something like that because it’s simply not wise to be moving all over the place without having a good reason to do so.  So in most cases, people choose wisdom, but when the voice of God breaks into our lives in a clear way, our conscience demands that we obey even when it doesn’t make sense.

The last thing I’ll mention is “the resistance”.  Normally, in most movies “the rebellion” are the good guys, but in this case “the resistance” are the people who are fighting against Nehemiah and against God.  By name, they are Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem.  This is a triumvirate of non-Jewish inhabitants of the promised land, who, as the text so clearly explains, were “displeased that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel. (v. 10).  As is so often the case, the politics of the Mideast is largely a zero-sum affair, where the “welfare” of one group is often to the detriment of their neighbors.  To put it in more aggressive terms, the foreigners surrounding Judah most likely have plans to expand into Jewish territory and gradually consume them.  A stronger Judean nation would be able to resist that aggression and perhaps over time encrouch upon their neighbors.  In that way, the prosperity of the Jews works directly against the interests of their neighbors in this competitive landscape.

This trio of enemies fills almost exactly the same role as the various adversaries who resisted Ezra.  For all intents and purposes, they are a dramatic foil against whom Nehemiah must persevere on his way to victory.  As a servant of God, Nehemiah’s victory is all but assured, but it wouldn’t be an interesting story if there wasn’t a challenge to overcome, and I don’t think “the resistance” is ever given more of a personality than that.  They are a physical representation of the largely abstract “challenges that we face in life”.  We could perhaps also view them as Nehemiah’s conception of “that which stands opposed to God”, which is sometimes a spiritual force but in the OT is usually exemplified by Israel’s hostile neighbors.

In conclusion, Nehemiah declares his intention to rebuild the wall, his enemies begin marshalling their forces, and the stage is set for inevitable conflict.  In the next chapter, the men of Judah arise to build the wall according to the word of Nehemiah.