| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Nehemiah
Chapter Eleven
Nehemiah 11
Chapter Contents
The distribution of the people.
In all ages, men have preferred their own ease and
advantage to the public good. Even the professors of religion too commonly seek
their own, and not the things of Christ. Few have had such attachment to holy
things and holy places, as to renounce pleasure for their sake. Yet surely, our
souls should delight to dwell where holy persons and opportunities of spiritual
improvement most abound. If we have not this love to the city of our God, and
to every thing that assists our communion with the Saviour, how shall we be
willing to depart hence; to be absent from the body, that we may be present
with the Lord? To the carnal-minded, the perfect holiness of the New Jerusalem
would be still harder to bear than the holiness of God's church on earth. Let
us seek first the favour of God, and his glory; let us study to be patient,
contented, and useful in our several stations, and wait, with cheerful hope,
for admission into the holy city of God.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on
Nehemiah》
Nehemiah 11
Verse 1
[1] And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the
rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem
the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other cities.
To dwell — That the buildings of the city might be compleated,
and the safety of it better provided for.
Verse 2
[2] And the people blessed all the men, that willingly
offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem.
Blessed — Because they denied themselves, and their own safety
and profit for the publick good; for this city was the butt of all the
malicious plots of their enemies; and for the present it was rather chargeable
than beneficial to its inhabitants.
Verse 3
[3] Now these are the chief of the province that dwelt in
Jerusalem: but in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in
their cities, to wit, Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the Nethinims,
and the children of Solomon's servants.
Province — Of Judea, which was now made a province.
Israel — The generality of the people of Israel, whether of
Judah, or Benjamin, or any other tribe. These he calls Israel rather than
Judah, because there were many of the other tribes now incorporated with them;
and because none of the tribes of Israel, except Judah and Benjamin, dwelt in
Jerusalem.
Verse 9
[9] And Joel the son of Zichri was their overseer: and Judah
the son of Senuah was second over the city.
Overseer — The captain of their thousand.
Verse 16
[16] And Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chief of the Levites,
had the oversight of the outward business of the house of God.
Outward — For those things belonging to the temple and its
service, which were to be done without it, or abroad in the country, as the
gathering in of the voluntary contributions, or other necessary provision out
of the several parts of the land.
Verse 17
[17] And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, the
son of Asaph, was the principal to begin the thanksgiving in prayer: and
Bakbukiah the second among his brethren, and Abda the son of Shammua, the son
of Galal, the son of Jeduthun.
To begin — In the publick and solemn prayers and praises, which
were constantly joined with the morning and evening sacrifice, at which the
singers were present, and praised God with a psalm or hymn which, this man
began.
Verse 21
[21] But the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel: and Ziha and Gispa
were over the Nethinims.
The Nethinims dwelt in Ophel — Which was upon the
wall of Jerusalem, because they were to do the servile work of the temple:
therefore they were to be posted near it, that they might be ready to attend.
Verse 24
[24] And Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel, of the children of
Zerah the son of Judah, was at the king's hand in all matters concerning the
people.
Was, … — Or, on the king's part, to determine civil causes and
controversies between man and man, by the laws of that kingdom; between the
king and people; as in matters of tribute, or grievances.
Verse 36
[36] And of the Levites were divisions in Judah, and in
Benjamin.
Divisions — Or, for the Levites (those who
were not settled in Jerusalem) there were divisions, places appointed for them,
and distributed among them. Thus were they settled free and easy, tho' few and
poor. And they might have been happy, but for that general lukewarmness, with
which they are charged by the prophet Malachi, who prophesied about this time
and in whom prophecy ceased for some ages, 'till it revived in the great
prophet.
── John Wesley《Explanatory Notes on Nehemiah》
11 Chapter 11
Verses 1-18
Verses 1-19
And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem.
The holy city replenished
Jerusalem is called here the holy city, because there the temple
was, and that was the place God had chosen to put His name there. Upon this
account one would think the holy seed should all have chosen to dwell there.
They declined, however. Either--
1. Because a greater strictness of conversation was expected from the
inhabitants of Jerusalem than from others, which they were not willing to come
up to; or--
2. Because Jerusalem, of all places, was most hated by the heathen,
their neighbours, and against it their malicious designs were levelled, which
made that the post of danger, as the post of honour uses to be, and therefore
they were not willing to expose themselves there; or--
3. Because it was more for their worldly advantage to dwell in the
country. We are here told--
I. By what means
it was replenished.
1. The rulers dwelt there. The “mighty are magnetic.” When great men
would choose the holy city for their habitation, it brings holiness into
reputation, and their zeal will provoke very many.
2. There were some that “willingly offered themselves to dwell at
Jerusalem,” bravely postponing their own secular interest to the public
welfare. The people blessed them. They praised them, they prayed for them, they
praised God for them. Many that do not appear forward themselves for the public
good will yet give a good word to those that do.
3. They, finding that yet there was room, concluded, upon a review of
their whole body, to bring one in ten to dwell in Jerusalem, and who they
should be was determined by lot-; the disposal they all knew was of the Lord.
The proportion of one in ten seems to refer to the ancient rule of giving the
tenth to God. And what is given to the holy city He reckons given to Himself.
II. By what persons
it was replenished.
1. Many of the children of Judah and Benjamin dwelt there. Originally
part of the city lay in the lot of those tribes and part in that of the other;
but the greater part was in the lot of Benjamin; hence more families of that
tribe abode in the city.
2. The priests and Levites did many of them settle at Jerusalem.
Where else should men that were holy to God dwell, but in the holy city? (Matthew
Henry.)
Repeopling the capital
This was altogether worthy of Nehemiah’s practical sagacity. The
restored walls of Jerusalem could not do much to promote its security and
welfare so long as it was inhabited by a mere handful of people. It would be
well if some Of our modern statesmen were to grasp the principle of this
policy, and open their eyes to the fact that the chief wealth and strength of
any nation must ever lie, not in massive fortifications or colossal armies, but
in the numbers, the character, the patriotism, and the prosperity of its
people. (T. Campbell Finlayson.)
The holy city
The two leading thoughts connected with the holy city in this
phase of her history are singularly applicable to the Christian community.
I. Enclosed within
walls, the city gained a peculiar character and performed a distinctive mission
of her own. Our Lord was not satisfied to rescue stray sheep on the mountains
only to brand them with His mark and then turn them out again to graze in
solitude. He drew them as a flock after Himself, and His disciples gathered
them into the fold of Christian fellowship. This is of as vital importance to
the cause of Christianity as the civic organisation of Jerusalem was to that of
Judaism. The Christian City of God stands out before the world on her lofty
foundation, the Rock of Ages--a beacon of separation from Sin, a testimony to the
grace of God, a centre for the confession of faith, a home for social worship,
a rallying-point for the forces of holy warfare, a sanctuary for the helpless
and oppressed.
II. The public duty
of citizenship. The reluctance of Christians to accept the responsibilities of
Church membership may be compared to the backwardness of the Jews to dwell in
Jerusalem. (W. F. Adeney, M. A.)
Verse 16
Had the oversight of the outward business of the house of God.
The secular in sacred service
I. It is possible
to secularise the sacred. When sacred service is entered upon from secular
motives; when it is performed in a perfunctory manner; when any object less
than God is regarded in its performance. An unhallowed hand may not bear up an
ark. A cowl does not make a monk. High office cannot elevate a base man.
II. It is
neccessary to make the secular sacred. “He can who thinks he can.” Application:
1. The secret of contentment. “Self-humiliation is full of truth and
reality.”
2. The law of growth. Be thy ambition to become pure in thought and
feeling, strong in resolve and deed. Serve. Care not how, mind not where. (Homiletic
Commentary.)
Outward business
We have prayed about that house, we have thanked God that the
crumbling walls of our little houses lean against the foundations and the walls
of God’s dwelling-place. Do we catch the music, do we see the vision of the
house of God? Do the words balance well? “House” is a familiar word, “God” is
the most awful of all words; yet here we find them together in sublime unity
and relation. What is the house of God? “A church.” “A chapel, a sanctuary, a
tabernacle, a temple.” Not necessarily. You may have a cathedral without a
house of God, and you may find in some little thatched cottage or chapel on the
hillside all the cathedrals out of heaven. Hence it is that we must not look at
magnitudes, sizes, revenues, apparatus, but at the ideal. “I never go to the
house of God.” How do you know that? Have you ever been really out of it? Let
us go to Jacob for an answer. What said he when he awoke after the delight and
yet the torment of the dream? He said, “This is none other than the house of
God.” There are those who only know houses by architecture, by wails, stones,
bricks. Well, now, what was Jacob’s environment at that time? Churches,
chapels, institutions? Not one. Yet he was in a walled place, walled in with
light, and ministered to by ascending and descending angels. We must get the
house of God and many other things back from little definitions and narrow and
petty locelisations, and regard the universe as God’s house. Of course Jacob,
having seen all these things, could have said, “Nightmare!” That is all the
answer some men can return to the universe. Let us so live as to make the
house, even though a little one, grand, tender in all its ministries, a nest in
the heart of God. Let us be careful how we divide things into outward and
inward. The time will come when we shell get rid of even Scriptural uses of
outward, alien, strange, foreign. All these words are doomed to go. “I saw no
temple therein,” said John. Why did he not see a temple in heaven? Because
heaven was all temple. He who lives in light does not even see the sun; he who
lives in God has no moon, for he has no night. But men are crafty and expert
almost at making little definitions, parties, separations, and the like. Some
men divide music into sacred and profane. I never heard any profane music; I do
not believe there is any. I have heard sacred music, and I have heard music
profaned, perverted, taken away to bad uses, made a seduction on the road to
hell. But we must get back to real definitions and proper qualities, and see
things as God meant them to be seen. I have also heard of profane history and
sacred history. There is no profane history. History truly written, and true to
human experience, is an aspect of Providence, an elucidation of that marvellous
mystery which penetrates all life, and that whispers to us in many a moment of
unexpectedness, “The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Who is it that
rises up amongst us and splits up history into sacred and profane? What right
has such a man to define and separate and classify? I would follow the
historian who sees God m everything, in the defeat as well as in the success of
the battle. And there are persons who have carried their defining powers, if
powers they be, into what are called ecclesiastical matters, so that now we
have “the temporalities” and “the spiritualities.” What man devised so insane a
distinction? There is a sense, but a very poor, narrow sense not worth considering,
in which the work of the Church may be divided into the temporal and the
spiritual, but, properly regarded, in the spirit of Christ and in the spirit of
the Cross, the gift of the poor man’s penny may be as true an act of worship as
the singing of the anthem. There is nothing secular, or if there is anything
that we call secular it is only for momentary convenience. He that made ell
things is God; He built the wall of the Church, and He will take care of the
roof; it is His place. (J. Parker, D. D.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》